FINAL

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

U.S. Border Patrol

 Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

U.S. Border Patrol

JULY 2012

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS OF

INTERSTATE 8 AND HIGHWAY 80 CHECKPOINTS

U.S. BORDER PATROL, SAN DIEGO SECTOR
FINAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS OF 

INTERSTATE 8 AND HIGHWAY 80 CHECKPOINTS 

U.S. BORDER PATROL, SAN DIEGO SECTOR 

July 2012 

Lead Agency: Department of Homeland Security 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW 

Washington, DC 20229 

Points of Contact: Mr. John Petrilla 

 U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

 Facilities Management and Engineering 

 Laguna Niguel Facilities Center 

 24000 Avila Road, Room 5020 

 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677-3400

and

Ms. Hope Pollmann 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District 

819 Taylor Street, Room 3A14 

Fort Worth, TX 76102
I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 STUDY LOCATION ........................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED ....................................................................................... 1-1

1.4 REGULATORY AUTHORITY .......................................................................... 1-3

1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................. 1-3

1.6 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 1-4

1.7 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDANCE, STATUTES, AND 

REGULATIONS.................................................................................................. 1-4

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ......................................................... 2-1

2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ......................................... 2-1

2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE .......................... 2-1

2.3 ALTERNATIVE 3: NO LANE EXPANSION AT I-8 ....................................... 2-7

2.4 OTHER ACTION ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED .... 2-7

2.5 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 2-7

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES ........................................ 3-1

3.1 PRELIMINARY IMPACT SCOPING ................................................................ 3-1

3.2 LAND USE .......................................................................................................... 3-2

3.2.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................. 3-2

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3-3

3.2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative ...................................... 3-3

3.2.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative ............................ 3-3

3.2.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 ................................ 3-3

3.3 SOILS .................................................................................................................. 3-3

3.3.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................. 3-3

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3-4

3.3.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative ...................................... 3-4

3.3.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative ............................ 3-4

3.3.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8. ............................... 3-4

3.4 VEGETATION .................................................................................................... 3-4

3.4.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................. 3-4

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3-5

3.4.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative ...................................... 3-5

3.4.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative ............................ 3-5

3.4.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 ................................ 3-5

3.5 WILDLIFE ........................................................................................................... 3-5

3.5.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................. 3-5

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3-6

3.5.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative ...................................... 3-6

3.5.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative ............................ 3-6

3.5.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 ................................ 3-7
ii 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

3.6 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ............................................. 3-7

3.6.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................. 3-7

3.6.1.1 Federal ...................................................................................... 3-7

3.6.1.2 Critical Habitat ....................................................................... 3-12

3.6.1.3 State ........................................................................................ 3-13

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-13

3.6.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................... 3-13

3.6.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative .......................... 3-13

3.6.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 .............................. 3-14

3.7 SURFACE WATERS AND WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ............... 3-15

3.7.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-15

3.7.1.1 Surface Water ......................................................................... 3-15

3.7.1.2 Waters of the United States and Wetlands ............................. 3-15

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-17

3.7.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................... 3-17

3.7.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative .......................... 3-17

3.7.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 .............................. 3-17

3.8 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................. 3-17

3.8.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-17

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-21

3.8.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alterative ...................................... 3-21

3.8.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative ........................... 3-21

3.8.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 .............................. 3-22

3.9 NOISE ................................................................................................................ 3-22

3.9.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-22

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-23

3.9.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................... 3-23

3.9.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative .......................... 3-24

3.9.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 .............................. 3-25

3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 3-25

3.10.1 Affected Environmental ......................................................................... 3-25

3.10.1.1 Cultural Overview .................................................................. 3-25

3.10.1.2 Current Investigations ............................................................ 3-26

3.10.1.3 Tribal Concerns ...................................................................... 3-26

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-26

3.10.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................... 3-26

3.10.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative .......................... 3-26

3.10.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 .............................. 3-26

3.11 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES .................................................. 3-27

3.11.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-27

3.11.1.1 Unique and Sensitive Areas ................................................... 3-27

3.11.1.2 Light Pollution ........................................................................ 3-27

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-29

3.11.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................... 3-29

3.11.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative .......................... 3-29

3.11.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 .............................. 3-29
iii 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

3.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................................... 3-30

3.12.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-30

3.12.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-30

3.12.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................... 3-30

3.12.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative .......................... 3-30

3.12.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 .............................. 3-30

3.13 SOCIOECONOMICS ........................................................................................ 3-30

3.13.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-30

3.13.1.1 Population ............................................................................... 3-30

3.13.1.2 Employment, Poverty Levels, and Income ............................ 3-31

3.13.1.3 Housing .................................................................................. 3-31

3.13.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-32

3.13.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................... 3-32

3.13.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative ........................... 3-32

3.13.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 ............................... 3-32

3.14 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY .................................................................. 3-32

3.14.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-32

3.14.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-32

3.14.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................... 3-32

3.14.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative .......................... 3-33

3.14.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 .............................. 3-33

3.15 SUSTAINABILITY AND GREENING............................................................ 3-33

3.15.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-33

3.15.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-33

3.15.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................... 3-33

3.15.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative ........................... 3-33

3.15.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 .............................. 3-34

4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .......................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 LAND USE .......................................................................................................... 4-2

4.2 SOILS .................................................................................................................. 4-3

4.3 VEGETATION .................................................................................................... 4-3

4.4 WILDLIFE ........................................................................................................... 4-3

4.5 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ............................................. 4-3

4.6 SURFACE WATERS AND WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ................. 4-4

4.7 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................... 4-4

4.8 NOISE .................................................................................................................. 4-4

4.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................ 4-4

4.10 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES .................................................... 4-4

4.11 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................................. 4-5

4.12 SOCIOECONOMIC ............................................................................................ 4-5

4.13 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY .................................................................... 4-5

5.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ........................................................................ 5-1

5.1 WATER RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................... 5-1

5.3 PROTECTED SPECIES ...................................................................................... 5-1
iv 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................ 5-2

5.5 LIGHT POLLUTION .......................................................................................... 5-2

6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 6-1

7.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATION ........................................................................ 7-1

8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................. 8-1

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................ 1-2

Figure 2-1. Existing Facilities at I-8 Checkpoint .................................................................... 2-2

Figure 2-2. Existing Facilities at Highway 80 Checkpoint..................................................... 2-3

Figure 2-3. Alternative 2: Proposed Action for I-8 Checkpoint ............................................ 2-4

Figure 2-4. Alternative 2: Proposed Action for Highway 80 Checkpoint ............................. 2-6

Figure 2-5. Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion Alternative for I-8 Checkpoint .................... 2-8

Figure 3-1. Federal and State Protected Species within 1.5 miles of the Checkpoints .......... 3-8

Figure 3-2. Waters of the United States near Checkpoints ................................................... 3-16

Figure 3-3. Southern California Light Pollution Map .......................................................... 3-28

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1-1. Relevant Policy Documents, Invoking Actions, Regulatory Requirements, and 

Status of Compliance ........................................................................................... 1-6

Table 2-1. Alternatives Matrix .............................................................................................. 2-9

Table 3-1. Threatened and Endangered Species with the Potential to Occur Near the Project 

Sites ...................................................................................................................... 3-7

Table 3-2. NAAQS and CAAQS Air Quality Status in the San Diego Air Basin .............. 3-18

Table 3-3. California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................... 3-19

Table 3-4. Total Air Emissions (tons/year) from the Proposed Action Alternative 

Construction versus the de minimis Threshold Levels ...................................... 3-22

Table 3-5. A-Weighted (dBA) Sound Levels of Typical Noise Environments .................. 3-23

Table 3-6. A-Weighted (dBA) Sound Levels of Construction Equipment and Modeled 

Attenuation at Various Distances ....................................................................... 3-24

Table 3-7. Southern California Light Pollution Map Legend ............................................. 3-29

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS 

Photograph 3-1. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher ..................................................................... 3-9 

Photograph 3-2. Least Bell’s Vireo ............................................................................................ 3-9 

Photograph 3-3. Arroyo Toad ................................................................................................... 3-10 

Photograph 3-4. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly ......................................................................... 3-11 
v

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A. Protected Species 

Appendix B. Correspondence 

Appendix C. Air Quality Calculations

Appendix D. QCB Assessment
SECTION 1.0

INTRODUCTION
1-1 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

In 1924, Congress created the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) to serve as the law enforcement entity 

of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and it did so until November 25, 2002, 

when Congress transferred all INS responsibilities to the newly created Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) with the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law [PL] 107-

296). USBP was officially transferred into the Office of Border Patrol (OBP), under DHS and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), on March 1, 2003. 

CBP prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to address the potential effects, beneficial 

and adverse, resulting from the proposed improvements and maintenance of two USBP 

checkpoints in its San Diego Sector, California. The checkpoints are located on Interstate 8 (I-8) 

and Old Highway 80 (Highway 80) east of Alpine, California. The proposed improvements 

would be implemented to enhance safety of USBP agents and the general public and to allow the 

checkpoints to operate more effectively.

The proposed improvements would enhance the working environment for the USBP agents by 

providing shade and additional space outside the normal traffic lanes to conduct primary and 

secondary inspections. In addition, the proposed improvements would allow the free flow of 

traffic during times when the checkpoints are closed, alleviating some of the risks inherent with 

the current design that requires protective concrete barriers to be installed along the lanes.

1.2 STUDY LOCATION 

The checkpoints are located along I-8 and Highway 80 between Buckman Springs Road and Pine 

Valley, California (Figure 1-1), within the USBP San Diego Sector. The San Diego Sector 

encompasses all of San Diego County, which is bordered by Orange and Riverside counties to 

the north, Imperial County to the east, Mexico to the south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. 

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED 

CBP and USBP propose several improvements to two USBP checkpoints for the purpose of 

facilitating the safe and effective operation of the checkpoints. At the I-8 checkpoint, USBP 

agents provide primary inspections of vehicles within the existing two lanes and, if necessary, 

secondary inspections are conducted in an area where vehicles can be removed from the normal 

traffic lanes but remain within the I-8 right-of-way (ROW). K-rails or Jersey barriers (i.e., 

concrete barriers) are placed along the outside of both lanes to ensure that no vehicles illegally 

bypass the checkpoint. USBP agents and K-9 units must stand within the traffic lanes with no 

shade or rain canopy to conduct the primary inspections. Consequently, during inclement 

weather the I-8 checkpoint is often closed, which provides opportunities for cross-border 

violators to evade detection and apprehension. 
Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map

October 2011

!.

United States

Mexico

Project Location

California

San Diego

County

· 02468

Miles

1-2
1-3 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

The current Highway 80 checkpoint is located approximately 300 yards west of the I-8 

checkpoint, where Highway 80 and I-8 parallel each other. The Highway 80 checkpoint operates 

concurrently with the I-8 checkpoint to enhance detection and apprehension of illegal crossborder activities. Highway 80 is a two-lane road with no shoulders. Curves and hills are typical 

along Highway 80 and the checkpoint is located within one of the relatively few level, straight 

reaches of the highway. USBP agents conduct the primary inspections within the westbound 

traffic lane. If secondary inspections are required, traffic can be delayed, as there is little extra 

space for such detailed inspections. 

The need for the Proposed Action Alternative is to provide the following:

x adequate space and facilities (e.g., administrative, detention, processing) for the agents 

and staff currently operating the checkpoints

x an increase to the width of approach lanes to allow sufficient space to safely conduct 

primary inspections and to allow for the free flow of public traffic during times when the 

checkpoints are closed 

x adequate lighting to enhance security and detection capabilities 

x a means to operate the checkpoint during extremely hot or other inclement conditions 

x a more safe, effective, and efficient work environment 

1.4 REGULATORY AUTHORITY 

The primary sources of authority granted to USBP agents are the Immigration and Nationality 

Act (INA) of 1959 (PL 82-414) contained in Title 8 of the U.S. Code (USC) “Aliens and 

Nationality” and other statutes relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens. The 

secondary sources of authority are administrative regulations implementing those statutes, 

judicial decisions, and administrative decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals. In 

addition, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (PL 104-

208) and subsequently the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (PL 107-296) mandate that DHS 

acquire and improve equipment and technology along the border, hire and train new agents for 

the border region, and develop effective border enforcement strategies. 

Subject to constitutional limitations, USBP agents may exercise the authority granted to them in 

the INA. The statutory provisions related to enforcement authority are found in 8 USC 1357(a, 

b, c, e), 1225, 1324(b, c), 1324(a), and 1324(c). Other statutory sources of authority are found in 

18 USC “Crimes and Criminal Procedure,” which has several provisions that specifically relate 

to enforcement of the immigration and nationality laws; 19 USC 1401(i) “Officer of the 

Customs; Customs Officer” relating to U.S. Customs Service cross-designation of immigration 

officers; and 21 USC 878 “Powers of Enforcement Personnel” relating to Drug Enforcement 

Agency cross-designation of immigration officers. 

1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Consultation and coordination with Federal, state, and local agencies have occurred during 

preparation of the EA. Included are contacts that were made during the development of the 
1-4 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

action alternatives and writing of the EA. Formal and informal coordination have been 

conducted with the following agencies: 

x U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

x California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 

x U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

x California State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) 

x Native American Tribes 

x California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

x California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

x U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Cleveland National Forest

x California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) 

x California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

x San Diego County 

The draft version of the EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) were made available 

for public review for 30 days, beginning the day the Notice of Availability (NOA) was published 

in the San Diego Tribune (see Exhibit 1-1). The draft EA and FONSI were also available 

electronically at http://ecso.swf.usace.army.mil/Pages/Publicreview.cfm. In addition, the draft 

EA and FONSI were available for review at the Pine Valley Branch Library, 28804 Old 

Highway 80, Pine Valley, California 91962. During this review period, only two comment 

letters were received. These letters and CBP’s responses to the comments are included in 

Appendix B, along with other correspondence sent or received during the preparation of the EA. 

1.6 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS 

The scope of this EA will include the analysis of effects resulting from the improvements and 

maintenance of the checkpoints. This analysis does not include an assessment of operations 

conducted in the field and away from the checkpoint. USBP operations would continue 

unchanged regardless of whether the checkpoint improvements are implemented. Improvements 

to the checkpoint would occur primarily within areas that have been previously disturbed and/or 

are within existing USBP easements or Caltrans ROW. The potentially affected biological and 

human environment would include resources associated with San Diego County; however, most 

potential effects would be limited to the construction site and resources immediately adjacent to 

the proposed sites.

1.7 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDANCE, STATUTES, AND 

REGULATIONS 

This EA was prepared by CBP in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 (42 USC 4321-4347) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), as well 

as the DHS “Environmental Planning Directive” (Directive 023.1) and other pertinent 

environmental statutes, regulations, and compliance requirements, as summarized in Table 1-1. 
1-5 I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final

July 2012 
1-6 

 July 2012 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

Table 1-1. Relevant Policy Documents, Invoking Actions, Regulatory Requirements, and Status of Compliance* 

Policy Document Administrative 

Authority Invoking Action Requirements for Compliance Status of Compliance

Archaeological 

Resources Protection 

Act of 1979 

16 USC § 470 et seq. 

Department of Interior 

Excavation, removal, damage, or 

other alteration or defacing; or 

attempt to excavate, remove, 

damage, or otherwise alter or 

deface any archaeological 

resource located on public lands 

43 CFR 7.4 

Because activities are exclusively for 

purposes other than the excavation and/or 

removal of archaeological resources, even 

though those activities might incidentally 

result in the disturbance of archaeological 

resources, no permit shall be required 

No adverse impact on 

historic properties. 

Section 106 

consultation is 

ongoing. 

Clean Air Act of 1963 

16 USC § 470 et seq. 

EPA

Any Federal action where the total 

of direct and indirect emissions in 

a non-attainment area would equal 

or exceed the provided rates 

40 CFR 51 

Project emission levels were determined 

to be less than de minimis thresholds; 

therefore, a determination of conformity 

with applicable implementation plan is not 

required 

Only minor emissions 

would occur during 

construction. 

Comprehensive 

Environmental 

Response, 

Compensation and 

Liability Act of 1980 

42 USC § 9601 et seq. 

EPA

Release or threatened release of a 

hazardous substance 

40 CFR 302 

Development of emergency response 

plans, notification, and cleanup 

To be completed by 

USBP during design 

and operation. 

Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) of 1973 

16 USC § 1531 et seq. 

USFWS 

All actions in which there is 

discretionary Federal 

involvement or control 

50 CFR 402.03 

Determination of no jeopardy to listed 

species and no destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat through 

consultation with the USFWS 

Project may affect but 

is not likely to 

adversely affect the 

Quino checkerspot 

butterfly. Informal 

Section 7 consultation 

ongoing and 

concurrence has been 

requested. 

Farmland Protection 

Policy Act of 1981 

7 USC § 9601 et seq. 

Natural Resource 

Conservation Service 

(NRCS)

Any Federal action that could 

affect soils designated as prime or 

unique 

7 CFR 658 

Identify and take into account the adverse 

effects on the protection of farmland 

No prime farmland 

soils would be 

impacted. 
1-7 

 July 2012 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

Policy Document Administrative 

Authority Invoking Action Requirements for Compliance Status of Compliance

Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act of 1977 

(also known as Clean 

Water Act) 

33 USC § 1251 et seq. 

EPA

Storage, use, or consumption of 

oil and oil products, which could 

discharge oil in quantities that 

could affect water quality 

standards, into or upon the 

navigable waters of the United 

States

40 CFR 112 

Preparation of a Spill Prevention, Control, 

and Countermeasures Plan 

To be completed by 

CBP or contractor. 

Clean Water Act (CWA) EPA 

Discharge of pollutants 

40 CFR 122 

Obtain a general National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System Permit 

To be completed by 

CBP or contractor. 

Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act of 1918 

16 USC § 703 

USFWS 

Any CBP action resulting in the 

take of any migratory bird, or the 

parts, nests, or eggs of such bird 

50 CFR 21.11 

Avoidance of take or application for 

permit 

Proposed surveys 

prior to any 

construction 

beginning during 

nesting season. 

National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 

16 USC § 470 et seq. 

Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) 

Any undertaking by CBP 

36 CFR 800.3 

Assessment of effects through 

consultation with the ACHP 

No adverse impact on 

historic properties. 

Section 106 

consultation is 

ongoing. 

Occupational Health and 

Safety Act of 1970 

29 USC § 651 et seq. 

Occupational Safety 

and Health 

Administration, 

Department of Labor 

Employees performing in a 

workplace 

29 CFR 1910.5 (a) 

Adherence to occupational health and 

safety standards 

To be completed by 

CBP during design 

and operation. 

 

Table 1-1, continued
1-8 

 July 2012 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

Policy Document Administrative 

Authority Invoking Action Requirements for Compliance Status of Compliance

Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) of 1976 

42 USC § 6901 et seq. 

EPA

Collection of residential, 

commercial, and institutional solid 

wastes and street wastes 

40 CFR 243 

Adherence to guidelines for waste storage 

and safety and collection equipment, 

frequency, and management 

To be completed by 

CBP during design 

and operation. 

Procurement of more than 

$10,000 annually of products 

containing recovered materials 

40 CFR 247 

Procure designated items composed of the 

highest percentage of recovered materials 

practicable 

To be completed by 

CBP during design 

and operation. 

Recovery of resources from solid 

waste through source separation 

40 CFR 246 

Recovery of high-grade paper, residential 

materials, and corrugated containers 

To be completed by 

CBP during design 

and operation. 

RCRA of 1976 

42 USC § 6901 et seq. 

EPA

Treatment, storage, or disposal of 

hazardous waste on-site 

40 CFR 262.10(c) 

Determination of hazardous or nonhazardous nature of solid waste, obtain a 

USEPA identification number if 

necessary, properly accumulate hazardous 

waste, and maintain a record 

To be completed by 

CBP during design 

and operation. 

Coastal Zone 

Management Act of 

1972 

16 USC § 1451 et seq. 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration 

Development and other actions 

occurring within designated 

coastal zones 

15 CFR 923 

Submittal of Coastal Consistency 

Determination and concurrence from the 

affected state’s coastal commission 

Site is not within the 

California Coastal 

Zone.

Executive Order (EO) 

11988: Floodplain 

Management 

42 Federal Register (FR) 

26,951 (May 24, 1997) 

Water Resources 

Council, Federal 

Emergency 

Management Agency, 

Council on 

Environmental 

Quality 

Acquisition and management of 

Federal lands; Federally 

undertaken, financed, or assisted 

construction; conducting Federal 

activities affecting land use 

Determine whether the proposed action 

will occur in a floodplain, then evaluate 

potential effects of any action in a 

floodplain 

No floodplains would 

be impacted by the 

Proposed Action. 

EO 11990: Protection of 

Wetlands 

42 FR 26,691 

(May 24, 1977) 

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE), 

EPA

Acquisition and management of 

Federal lands; Federally 

undertaken, financed, or assisted 

construction; conducting Federal 

activities affecting land use 

Take action to minimize the destruction, 

loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to 

preserve and enhance the natural and 

beneficial values of wetlands 

No waters of the 

United States, 

including wetlands, 

would be impacted by 

the Proposed Action. 

Table 1-1, continued 
1-9 

 July 2012 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

Policy Document Administrative 

Authority Invoking Action Requirements for Compliance Status of Compliance

EO 12898: Federal 

Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations 

and Low-Income 

Populations 

59 FR 7629 

(February 11, 1994) 

EPA

All programs or activities 

receiving Federal financial 

assistance that affect human health 

or the environment 

Analyze the environmental effects, 

including human health, economic, and 

social effects of CBP actions, including 

effects on minority communities and lowincome communities 

No effects on minority 

communities or lowincome communities. 

Item eliminated from 

EA.

EO 13045: Protection of 

Children from 

Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

62 FR 19883 

 (April 23, 1997) 

EPA

Any Federal action that has the 

potential to place children at 

higher health and safety risks 

Identify and assess environmental health 

risks and safety risks that may 

disproportionately affect children 

No children would be 

affected by the 

Proposed Action. 

This item eliminated 

from EA. 

EO 13101: Greening the 

Government Through 

Waste Prevention, 

Recycling, and Federal 

Acquisition 

63 FR 49648 

EPA, Department of 

Energy (DOE) 

Acquisition planning, 

development of procurement 

programs, operation of a Federal 

facility 

Incorporate waste prevention and 

recycling in the agency’s daily operations 

and work to increase and expand markets 

for recovered materials through greater 

Federal government preference and 

demand for such products 

To be completed by 

CBP during design 

and operation. 

EO 13123: Greening the 

Government Through 

Efficient Energy 

Management 

64 FR 30851 

EPA, DOE Operation and maintenance of a 

Federal facility 

Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, 

reduce energy consumption, strive to 

expand use of renewable energy, reduce 

use of petroleum, and reduce water 

consumption 

To be completed by 

CBP during design 

and operation. 

EO 13148: Greening the 

Government Through 

Leadership in 

Environmental 

Management 

65 FR 24593 

EPA, DOE Operation and maintenance of a 

Federal facility 

Integrate environmental accountability 

into agency day-to-day decision making 

and long-term planning processes, across 

all agency missions, activities, and 

functions 

To be completed by 

CBP during design 

and operation. 

Table 1-1, continued 
1-10 

 July 2012 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

Policy Document Administrative 

Authority Invoking Action Requirements for Compliance Status of Compliance

EO 13514: Federal 

Leadership in 

Environmental, Energy, 

and Economic 

Performance 

74 FR 52117 

(October 8, 2009) 

EPA, DOE 

Construction, operation, and 

maintenance of a Federal facility; 

aircraft operations and worker 

commutes 

Increase energy efficiency; measure, 

report, and reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions from direct and indirect 

activities; conserve and protect water 

resources through efficiency, reuse, and 

stormwater management; eliminate waste, 

recycle, and prevent pollution; design, 

construct, maintain, and operate highperformance sustainable buildings in 

sustainable locations 

To be completed by 

CBP during design 

and operation. 

*Not All-Inclusive 

Table 1-1, continued 
SECTION 2.0

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-1 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the No Action Alternative, CBP would not improve the I-8 and Highway 80 checkpoints; 

maintenance and operation of each checkpoint, however, would continue in the current manner 

and frequency. The existing checkpoints would continue to be operated sporadically, subject to 

climatic conditions. Traffic delays are inherent at checkpoints and would continue at their 

current rate. Risks to the general public and USBP agents due to existing design and placement 

of checkpoint infrastructure would also continue. This alternative would hinder USBP’s ability 

to effectively respond to high levels of illegal cross-border activity. The No Action Alternative 

does not meet the purpose and need for the proposed project, but will be carried forward for 

analysis, as required by the CEQ regulations. The No Action Alternative describes the existing 

conditions in the absence of any other alternative and will be used for comparison of other action 

alternatives. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 show the current conditions and infrastructure of the 

checkpoints.

2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The Proposed Action Alternative would include expansion of the current footprint at the I-8 and 

Highway 80 checkpoints and would include installation of lights, wastewater holding tanks, 

shade canopies, and other minor improvements. The expansion at I-8 would consist of 

construction of two new exit lanes from I-8 to the inspection area and construction of retaining 

walls and guard rails at the edge of the expansion area. This expansion would occur near the 

eastern end of the existing checkpoint, within existing cut slopes that were created during 

construction of I-8, as depicted on Figure 2-3. The expansion at the I-8 checkpoint would also 

provide a much safer traffic flow during the times the checkpoint is closed. The current situation 

consists of K-rail or Jersey barriers installed adjacent to the highway lanes to prevent illegal 

bypass of the checkpoint; however, these barriers reduce or eliminate the shoulder areas and 

compress the area in which USBP agents can safely work. A shade canopy would be placed over 

the expanded lane areas. A secondary inspection area/canopy would be adjacent to the 

administrative building, which would facilitate supervision of the checkpoint operation. New 

permanent lighting would be installed and consists of 10 light standards equipped with four 

luminaries each. Metal halide lamps would be used to provide the most accurate color-rendering 

index. Illumination would be directed down and toward the traffic lanes for inspection and 

safety purposes. Illumination intensity at ground level would be expected to achieve 24 footcandles. Backshields would be placed on the lights to reduce or eliminate light trespass into 

vegetated areas adjacent to the checkpoint. Installation of the permanent lights would allow 

USBP to discontinue the use of all or most of the portable light generators that are currently 

used. Power for the lights would be provided by underground lines from existing, adjacent 

electrical power poles. 

Some existing pavement would be demolished and reinstalled during the checkpoint 

improvements to allow relocation or support of some of the facilities such as the hydraulic 

vehicle lift and spike strips. The existing unimproved ramp that allows USBP agents at the I-8 
Figure 2-1. Existing Facilities at I-8 Checkpoint

November 2011

80 £¤

8§ ̈¦

E

E

E

Admin

Bldg

Jersey Barrier

Secondary

Inspection

Area

Pursuit

Vehicles

Primary

Inspection

Area

Vehicle

Lift

Jersey Barrier

Jersey Barrier

Gravel Access Road

Sally

Port

New Admin

Bldg

E

E

!.

Project Location

· 0 25 50 75 100 125Feet 0 7.5 15 22.5Meters

2-2
Figure 2-2. Existing Facilities at Highway 80 Checkpoint

December 2011

£¤80

Secondary

Inspection

Area

E

E

E

E

E

E

Admin

Bldg

Primary

Inspection

Area

Pursuit

Vehicle

USBP Easement Boundary

!.

Project Location

·

0 10 20 30 40 50

Feet

0 6 12 18

Meters

2-3
Figure 2-3. Alternative 2: Proposed Action for I-8 Checkpoint

November 2011

8§ ̈¦

E

E

E

E

Sallyport

Admin

K-9

E

E

Steel Bldg for Vehicle Lift

Booth for Secondary Inspection

Primary Inspection Area

Secondary Inspection Area

Inspection Boothw/Ballistic Protection

Inspection Boothw/Ballistic Protection

Relocated Vehicle Inspection Ramp

Hydraulic-operatedSpike Strip

Hydraulic In-ground Bollards

Parking Stalls w/Curb Stops

Water Filled K-Rail

Relocated Crash Cushions

Water-filled K-Rail

Water-filled K-Rail

Water-filled K-Rail

E

Vehicle Lift

!.

Project Location

· 0 20 40 60 80 100Feet 0 6 12 18Meters

Lane IndicatorsHydraulic In-ground BollardsHydraulic-operated Spike StripProposed StructuresRelocated Vehicle Inspection RampWater-filled K-Rail & Crash Cushions

2-4
2-5 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

checkpoint to access the eastbound lanes of I-8 would be paved with asphalt. This access road is 

approximately 60 feet long and 10 feet wide. Paving this road would reduce erosion and 

associated maintenance and increase the safety of USBP agents during inclement weather. 

Appropriate signage would be installed to note that this ramp is for emergency and authorized 

vehicles only. 

The improvements at the Highway 80 checkpoint would involve ground disturbance and 

vegetation clearing to the current easement boundary, which is approximately 10 to 12 feet wide 

by 1,000 feet long. This area would be paved to facilitate parking and the expanded 

lanes/inspection area. The paved area would be expanded to accommodate access lanes to the 

inspection stations off of the Highway 80 road surface. Three coast live oak trees (Quercus 

agrifolia) are within this footprint, but every attempt would be made to avoid removing these 

trees. The easternmost tree might require removal due to safety concerns, as it is near the 

beginning of the expanded lanes. Limbs would be cut on all three trees to provide proper vehicle 

clearance and line of sight for the agents working the checkpoint. In the future, these trees 

would be maintained as needed to continue to provide this clearance and line of sight for agents.

Permanent lights would be installed to provide security and enhance inspection. The lighting 

design would be similar to that described for the I-8 checkpoint; however, nine light standards 

with five luminaries each would be required. Other improvements proposed at the Highway 80 

checkpoint include installation of an underground wastewater holding tank, a new modular 

building, a dedicated water line from an adjacent USBP well, and additional parking. These 

components are depicted in Figure 2-4. 

Completion of these improvements would provide a more safe, effective, and efficient work 

environment for agents. These improvements would also bring the facilities up to CBP 

operational standards for checkpoints. The checkpoints would be better suited for operation 

during hot and inclement weather, and provide adequate space to safely conduct primary 

inspections. 

Completion of these improvements would require approximately 6 months. An encroachment 

permit would be required from Caltrans prior to implementation of the proposed activities. 

Improvements to the I-8 checkpoint would occur first, followed by the improvements to the 

Highway 80 checkpoint, as funding becomes available. Backhoes and bulldozers would be used 

to excavate and grade/level soils. A rock auger would be used to drill the holes (approximately 

16 inches in diameter) for the light poles and (approximately 30 inches in diameter) for the shade 

canopies’ column base support piers. The depth of the holes is expected to be approximately 10 

feet below grade. The holes would be backfilled with concrete. A crane would also be used to 

assemble the shade canopies and set all light poles. 

Additionally, the continued maintenance, as well as potential renovations of or minor additions 

to the checkpoints, would be expected. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 

minor renovations and additions to buildings such as realigning interior spaces of an existing 

building, adding a small storage shed to an existing building, installing a small antenna on an 

already existing antenna tower that does not cause the total height to exceed 200 feet; and 

installing or maintaining kennels; security systems and lighting; parking areas; and stormwater 
Figure 2-4. Alternative 2: Proposed Action for Highway 80 Checkpoint

May 2012

!.

Copyright:© 2009 ESRI, AND,

TANA, ESRI Japan, UNEPWCMC

Project Location

·

0 10 20 30 40 50

Feet

0 8 16 24

Meters

Underground Wastewater Holding Tank

¬«1

Pursuit Sedan Parking

K-Rail

Water Storage Tank

¬«3

¬«4

¬«5

¬«6 Pavement

¬«2

¬«7 CMU Retaining Wall

Shade Canopy

Water-line

2-6
2-7 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

detention basins. Other maintenance activities could include routine upgrade, repair, and 

maintenance of the checkpoint buildings, roofs, parking area, grounds, or other facilities that 

would not result in a change of functional use (e.g., replacing door locks or windows, painting 

interior or exterior walls, resurfacing a road or parking lot, culvert maintenance, grounds 

maintenance, or replacing essential station components such as an air conditioning unit). These 

types of activities are typically authorized under CBP's list of Categorical Exclusions (CATEX) 

under NEPA; consequently, they will not be addressed further in this EA. CBP will evaluate 

each future repair, maintenance, or improvement action to confirm that a CATEX would apply to 

the action; if not, supplemental NEPA documentation would be required. 

2.3 ALTERNATIVE 3: NO LANE EXPANSION AT I-8 

Under this alternative, the expansion of the lanes at the I-8 checkpoint would not occur. The 

shade canopy would be installed across the entire width of the westbound lanes of I-8 (Figure 2-

5). All other improvements as described at both checkpoints would be implemented. This 

alternative would restrict the effective area in which USBP agents would conduct checkpoint 

operations. The placement of hard structures (i.e., canopy support pilings) adjacent to the travel 

lanes would increase risk to the general public when the checkpoint is closed and traffic is 

traveling at higher rates of speed on I-8.

2.4 OTHER ACTION ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED

As the checkpoints are existing and relocation of these facilities would result in additional costs 

and environmental damages, no other alternative locations were considered. Both checkpoints 

have been strategically located so that they can be operated in tandem and with the same USBP 

agents; improvements to only one of the checkpoints, therefore, would not satisfy the purpose 

and need to enhance agent and public safety, enforcement effectiveness, and the workplace 

environment. Consequently, no other alternatives are considered further. 

2.5 SUMMARY 

The No Action Alternative, Proposed Action Alternative, and Alternative 3 will be carried 

forward for analysis in the EA. As shown in Table 2-1, only the Proposed Action Alternative 

meets the purpose and need as described in Section 1.5. 
Figure 2-5. Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion Alternative for I-8 Checkpoint

November 2011

8§ ̈¦

E

E

E

E

E

Sallyport

Admin

K-9

E

E

Steel Bldg for Vehicle Lift

Booth for Secondary Inspection

Primary Inspection Area

Secondary Inspection Area

Inspection Boothw/Ballistic Protection

Inspection Boothw/Ballistic Protection

Relocated Vehicle Inspection Ramp

Hydraulic-operatedSpike Strip

Hydraulic In-ground Bollards

Parking Stalls w/Curb Stops

Water Filled K-Rail

Relocated Crash Cushions

Water-filled K-Rail

Water-filled K-Rail

Water-filled K-Rail

E

Vehicle Lift

!.

Project Location

· 0 25 50 75 100 125Feet 0 7.5 15 22.5Meters

No Lane Expansion

Lane Indicators

Inspection Canopy (Spans Both Lanes)

Hydraulic In-ground BollardsHydraulic-operated Spike StripProposed StructuresRelocated Vehicle Inspection RampWater-filled K-Rail & Crash Cushions

2-8
2-9 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

Table 2-1. Alternatives Matrix 

Purpose and Need No Action 

Alternative 

Proposed

Action

Alternative 

Alternative

3: No I-8 

Lane

Expansion 

Will the alternative provide adequate space and facilities (e.g.,

administrative, detention, processing) for the agents and staff 

currently operating the checkpoints? 

No Yes Yes 

Will the alternative increase the width of approach lanes to allow 

sufficient space to safely conduct primary inspections and allow 

for the free flow of public traffic during times when the 

checkpoints are closed? 

No Yes No 

Will the alternative provide adequate lighting to enhance security 

and detection capabilities? No Yes Yes 

Will the alternative provide a means to operate the checkpoint 

during extremely hot or other inclement conditions? No Yes Yes 

Will the alternative provide a more safe, effective, and efficient 

work environment? No Yes Yes 
SECTION 3.0

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES
3-1 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES 

Impacts (consequence or effect) can be either beneficial or adverse, and can be either directly 

related to the action or indirectly caused by the action. Direct impacts are those effects that are 

caused by the action and occur at the same time and place (40 CFR 1508.8[a]). Indirect impacts 

are those effects that are caused by the action and are later in time or further removed in distance, 

but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR 1508.8[b]). As discussed in this section, the 

alternatives may create temporary (lasting the duration of the project construction), short-term 

(up to 3 years), long-term (3 to 10 years following construction), or permanent impacts or 

effects. Whether an impact is significant depends on the context in which the impact occurs and 

the intensity of the impact. 

Impacts can vary in degree or magnitude from a slightly noticeable change to a total change in 

the environment. Significant impacts are those effects that would result in substantial changes to 

the environment (40 CFR 1508.27) and should receive the greatest attention in the decisionmaking process. Minor impacts are those that would result in minimal changes to the 

environment. The following discussions describe and, where possible, quantify the potential 

effects of each alternative on the resources within or near the project sites. All impacts described 

below are considered to be adverse unless stated otherwise. 

3.1 PRELIMINARY IMPACT SCOPING 

This section of the EA describes the natural and human environment that exists within the 

alternative sites and region of influence (ROI), and the potential impacts of the No Action and 

the two action alternatives outlined in Section 2.0 of this document. The ROI for this project is 

San Diego County. Only those parameters that have the potential to be affected by any of the 

alternatives are described, as per CEQ guidance (40 CFR 1501.7 [3]). Some resource 

discussions are limited in scope due to the lack of direct effect from the proposed project on the 

resource, or because that particular resource is not located within the project area. Resources 

dismissed from further discussion are: 

Climate 

The proposed checkpoint improvements would have no effect on the climate. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The proposed checkpoint improvements would not affect any reach of river designated as Wild 

and Scenic, as none are located in the vicinity of the checkpoints. 

Geology

Geologic resources include physical surface and subsurface features. The proposed 

improvements would not disturb underlying geologic resources, since only near-surface 

modifications would be implemented. Therefore, no impacts on geologic features would be 

anticipated.
3-2 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

Utilities and Infrastructure 

The checkpoint improvements would require only a negligible increase in electrical demand 

since the existing grid powers the other facilities at the checkpoint. No increased demand on 

other infrastructure is anticipated. 

Roadways and Transportation 

No new roads would be constructed, traffic patterns (including traffic volume or duration) would 

not be altered, and additional USBP patrol trips are not being generated as a result of the 

checkpoint improvements. Therefore, no impacts on roadways or transportation would be 

anticipated. 

Aquatic Resources 

There are no perennial or intermittent waterbodies near the project sites. Therefore, no impacts 

on aquatic environments or species would be anticipated. 

Floodplains

There are no floodplains mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency within or near 

the checkpoints. Therefore, no impacts on floodplains or floodplain functions would be 

anticipated. 

Hydrology and Groundwater 

The proposed improvements would not alter any surface water hydrology. Minor amounts of 

water would be required for dust suppression during initial grading and demolition activities. 

Future maintenance and operation of the checkpoints would not result in additional demand on 

water supplies. Therefore, hydrology and groundwater issues are not discussed further.

Environmental Justice 

EO 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations requires the consideration of impacts and adverse effects on minority 

populations and low-income populations. The project is located along existing highways in rural 

areas with no surrounding community. Adverse impacts on minority and low-income 

populations would not occur. 

Protection of Children 

EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, requires 

each Federal agency to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that may 

disproportionately affect children and ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards 

address disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health risks or safety 

risks. No children live in proximity to the project site; therefore, the checkpoint improvements 

would not adversely affect any children. 

3.2 LAND USE 

3.2.1 Affected Environment 

The major land uses in San Diego County include agriculture, rangeland, urban, forest, 

recreation, special use, and bodies of water. San Diego County encompasses approximately 

4,255 square miles (County of San Diego 2004a). The State of California and the National Park 
3-3 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

Service are the primary landholders in San Diego County. The City of San Diego is the primary 

urban center of the county. Government-owned land accounts for 54 percent (1.45 million acres) 

of the county, of which 51 percent (739,000 acres) is Federally owned, 40 percent (580,000 

acres) is state-owned, and 9 percent (130,500 acres) is local government- or municipality-owned 

(County of San Diego 2004b). Waterbodies encompass approximately 16,360 acres of the 

county’s total land area (County of San Diego 2004b). 

Land use at the proposed sites is currently transportation/highways (i.e., Highway 80 and I-8).

These highways are included in the Mobility Element of the San Diego County Land Use Plan.

Surrounding lands are undeveloped and designated as National Forest, State Parks, or Public 

Agency Lands on the August 2011 General Plan Land Use Map. The proposed checkpoint 

station improvements would be located within existing highway ROWs; the Highway 80 

checkpoint is currently leased by the County of San Diego from the Cleveland National Forest.

The I-8 ROW is owned by Caltrans. 

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no improvements would be made to the existing checkpoints. 

Therefore, no new impacts, either beneficial or adverse, would occur on the land use within the 

project region.

3.2.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 

Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would result in minor permanent impacts on 

currently undeveloped land; however, development would occur within the existing ROW. Land 

use would change slightly at the locations of the expanded roadways and additional structures, 

from undeveloped Caltrans or County of San Diego ROW to USBP checkpoints; however, the 

overall land use of the region would not change. No other changes would occur on land use on a 

local or regional basis under this alternative. 

3.2.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 

Impacts for this alternative would be similar to those outlined for the Proposed Action 

Alternative, but lessened by the elimination of the lane expansion at I-8. Any adverse impacts on 

land use would be negligible.

3.3 SOILS 

3.3.1 Affected Environment 

The NRCS web soil survey (2011) was reviewed to determine general soil types found within the 

proposed project sites. Reiff fine sandy loams occur at both checkpoints. This soil type is 

located on uplands and on slopes ranging from 5 to 9 percent. The Reiff soil type is typically 

characterized as fine sandy loam with a stratified sandy loam to loam subsoil. These welldrained, moderately deep soils (80 inches) are formed by alluvial fans and occur at the toe or 

base slopes of the uplands. 
3-4 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

Prime farmlands are protected under the Farmland Protection Policy Acts (FPPA) of both 1980 

and 1995. The FPPA’s purpose is to minimize the extent to which Federal programs contribute 

to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The Reiff 

fine sandy loam is not considered prime farmland soil (NRCS 2011); however, it is considered a 

farmland soil of statewide importance. 

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.3.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

The implementation of the No Action Alternative would result in no changes to the soils of the 

project area. No adverse impacts would occur with the implementation of this alternative. 

3.3.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 

Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would result in minor, localized impacts on 

soils. Construction of the expanded lanes at I-8 would result in conversion of a portion (0.015 

acre) of an existing cut bank to impervious surface (pavement). The Highway 80 checkpoint 

improvements would convert 0.12 acre of soil to pavement and remove the soil from biological 

production.

3.3.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8. 

Impacts on soils would be similar to those identified for Alternative 2. Less clearing and grading 

would occur with the elimination of the expansion of lanes at the I-8 checkpoint. Adverse 

impacts would be negligible. 

3.4 VEGETATION 

3.4.1 Affected Environment 

Reconnaissance surveys of both sites were conducted 25 July 2011 and 24 August 2011. A 

biological letter report describing the existing conditions at both checkpoint sites is included as 

Appendix D. Vegetation adjacent to the I-8 checkpoint consists of Great Basin sage 

communities with Great Basin sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), Muller’s scrub oak (Quercus

cornelius-mulleri), and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) as the dominant plants. 

Other species observed include lilac (Ceanothus leucodermis), deer weed (Lotus scoparius),

broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sp.), rock rose (Cistus creticus), sunflower (Vigueria sp.), and 

goldenbush (Hazardia squarrosa). Dark-tip bird’s beak (Cordylanthus rigidus) is also a 

common associate species found on this site and is one of the Quino checkerspot butterfly’s 

(Euphydryas editha quino) larval host plants.

The Highway 80 checkpoint consists of oak woodland and chaparral with coast live oak, nonnative grasses (e.g., Bromus, Avena, and Hordeum), and California buckwheat as dominant 

plants. Vegetation along Cottonwood Creek, located approximately 150 feet southeast of the 

project site, is comprised predominantly of coast live oak, great basin sage, arroyo willow (Salix

lasiolepis), and mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). This site also contains several dark-tip bird’s 

beak plants.
3-5 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.4.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would have no effect on existing vegetation and vegetative 

communities. The existing checkpoints would remain as they are currently designed and 

operated, and no impacts would occur on vegetation. 

3.4.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 

Minor permanent adverse impacts on vegetation would occur with the implementation of the 

Proposed Action Alternative, including disturbances of 0.015 acre at the I-8 checkpoint and 0.12 

acre at the Highway 80 checkpoint. The vegetation at both locations has been disturbed by past 

highway construction projects and, thus, does not provide high-quality habitat for most wildlife 

species. However, the vegetation at the I-8 checkpoint does provide suitable habitat for the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly, and will be discussed further in Section 3.6. All limits of clearing 

would be identified prior to the commencement of construction. Staging of equipment would 

occur within the developed areas of the existing checkpoints. Additionally, as mentioned 

previously, the coast live oaks at the Highway 80 checkpoint would be avoided to the extent 

practicable. In the future, these trees would be maintained, as needed, to continue to provide a 

safe line of sight for USBP agents. If the oaks are removed, they would be replaced at up to a 

5:1 ratio and their survival would be monitored for 7 years. 

3.4.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 

Implementation of this alternative would eliminate disturbance of the vegetation along the cut 

slope at the I-8 checkpoint. Clearing activities would occur at the Highway 80 checkpoint as 

with the Proposed Action Alternative. 

3.5 WILDLIFE 

3.5.1 Affected Environment 

The project region lies within the Peninsular Range province. This province consists of 

northwest-southeast trending mountain ranges separated by long narrow valleys. The Peninsular 

Range province lies within the Californian biotic province and is part of the warm-temperate 

scrublands biotic community. These scrublands are dominated by California chaparral and 

coastal sage scrub communities (Dice 1943). 

California is one of the most biologically diverse areas in North America. Within its 160,000 

square miles, California harbors more unique animals than any other state (Steinhart 1990). The 

native faunal components of the Peninsular Range province support 432 species of birds, 

dominated by wood warblers (40 species), swans, geese, and ducks (34 species), sandpipers and 

phalaropes (30 species), gulls and terns (20 species), sparrows and towhees (20 species), and 

tyrant flycatchers (22 species). The majority of these species are present in spring and fall when 

neotropical migrants (e.g., flycatchers and warblers) pass through on their way to either summer 

breeding grounds or wintering grounds, and during winter when summer resident birds (i.e., 

robins, kinglets, and sparrows) from the north arrive for the winter (Holt 1990). The majority of 

the 94 mammalian species inhabiting the Peninsular Range province are evening bats and 

rodents, with rodents being the most common (Ingles 1957). Only 17 species of amphibians are 

found within this province, with frogs being the most abundant and common. A total of 54 
3-6 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

species of reptiles inhabit the Peninsular Range province, with the iguanid lizards and colubrid 

snakes being the most dominant (Stebbins 1985). 

No wildlife species were observed during either of the 2011 field investigations, presumably due 

to the close proximity of the project area to both I-8 and Highway 80. No evidence of owls (i.e., 

pellets) was observed under the coast live oak trees, and no bird nests were observed at either 

site. However, common wildlife species likely to occur in the habitats adjacent to the project 

area include the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris),

ravens (Corvus corax), kangaroo rats (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus

audubonii), and ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi).

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.5.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would have no effect on the existing wildlife and aquatic resources of 

the project area. 

3.5.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 

The proposed improvements and continued operation and maintenance of the checkpoints would 

have negligible impacts on the area’s wildlife population or its habitat. The expansion of lanes at 

the I-8 checkpoint would require construction and impacts on the existing cut slope, which 

consists of limited potential wildlife habitat because of past disturbances and position along a 

major interstate. If wildlife did occur at either site, impacts on these specimens would be minor, 

as wildlife would be able to escape to adjacent habitats during the construction period.

The possibility exists for raptors and birds of prey to use the power poles as perches, which may 

increase predation upon smaller animals. If this were to occur, only negligible adverse impacts 

are expected because of the limited space occupied by the checkpoints and the abundant prey 

would be based in areas adjacent to the project sites. Measures to decrease the potential use of 

power poles as perches will be considered in the design of these poles. No long-term detrimental 

impacts would occur on wildlife species in the area as a result of this alternative. 

Some wildlife specimens that occupy the Cottonwood Creek riparian community could be 

temporarily impacted by noise during construction. A bulldozer would be the loudest piece of 

heavy equipment that would likely be used and would generate noise levels of 82 decibels (dB) 

at 50 feet from the dozer. This noise would be attenuated to 73 dB at 150 feet (the distance to 

Cottonwood Creek) with no vegetation or topographic features. Given the amount of vegetation 

that exists between the project site and the stream channel, this noise would likely be attenuated 

even further. Still, the construction activities would occur during daylight hours only and 

sporadically for a short period of time. Consequently, minor and temporary impacts on wildlife 

species would occur as a result of construction noise. Replacement of light generators with 

permanent light standards would reduce the ambient noise levels and vibrations surrounding both 

checkpoints, and in particular, the Highway 80 checkpoint. 

Lighting would be designed to focus illumination within the checkpoints. This would reduce the 

potential for adverse impacts on wildlife occupying areas along Cottonwood Creek and other 

areas outside the checkpoints. 
3-7 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

3.5.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 

Under this alternative, wildlife in the project corridor would experience the same temporary 

impacts due to construction as it would from the Proposed Action Alternative. Permanent 

impacts are similar to those from the Proposed Action Alternative in regards to the illumination 

effects. However, beneficial impacts are also expected to occur because of the elimination of the 

portable generators, which would create less noise within the project area and eliminate potential 

for fuel spills. 

3.6 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

3.6.1 Affected Environment 

3.6.1.1 Federal 

A review of the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System website indicated that 

five Federally protected species have the potential to occur in the region of the two checkpoints 

(USFWS 2011). These Federally protected species include one amphibian, two birds, two 

invertebrates, and one plant species, as presented in Table 3-1. Of these, only the least Bell’s 

vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) has been recorded within a 1.5-mile radius of the checkpoints (Figure 

3-1), as reported by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2011). In addition, 

however, the nearby Cottonwood Creek is considered to provide potentially suitable habitat for 

the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and, thus, is also included in 

Table 3-1.

Table 3-1. Threatened and Endangered Species with the Potential to 

Occur Near the Project Sites

Common Name/Scientific Name Federal

Status Habitat

AMPHIBIANS

Arroyo toad 

Bufo microscaphus californicus E Found exclusively in streams in southern California and northern Baja California 

BIRDS

Least Bell’s vireo 

Vireo bellii pusillus E Occurs in riparian habitats with well-developed overstories and understories 

Southwestern willow flycatcher 

Empidonax traillii extimus E Occurs in riparian habitats 

PLANTS

San Bernardino bluegrass 

Poa atropurpurea E Found in meadow habitats 

INVERTEBRATES

Laguna Mountain skipper 

Pyrgus ruralis lagunae E Forest clearings, meadows, pastures, streamsides; 

from sea level to 10,000 feet 

Quino checkerspot butterfly 

Euphydryas editha quino E Found on open grasslands near meadows, vernal 

pools, or lakes; also coastal sage scrub 

Source: USFWS 2011 

*Legend: T= threatened, E =endangered, C=candidate 
Figure 3-1. Federal and State Protected Species within 1.5 miles of the Checkpoints

December 2011

!.

!.

!C

!C

!C

!C

!C

£¤80

£¤80

§ ̈¦8

I-8 Checkpoint

Hwy 80 Checkpoint

sticky geraea

San Diego hulsea

San Diego hulsea

least Bell's vireo

Dulzura pocket mouse

!.

Project Location

·

0 830 1,660 2,490 3,320 4,150

Feet

0 280 560 840

Meters

!C CNDDB Point

1.5 mi buffer

!. Old Hwy 80 Checkpoint

!. I-8 Checkpoint

3-8
3-9 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

The San Bernardino bluegrass (Poa atropurpurea) is found in meadow habitats in the Big Bear 

Valley in the San Bernardino Mountains and in seven montane meadow areas in the Laguna and 

Palomar mountains of San Diego County. This species generally occurs at elevations of 7,500 to 

16,000 feet near the drier margins of the seasonally wet meadows. The Laguna Mountain 

skipper (Pyrgus ruralis lagunae) is restricted to the montane meadow habitat of the Laguna 

Mountains and Mount Palomar in San Diego County. Since these locations are greater than 40 

miles away from the checkpoints, neither the San Bernardino bluegrass nor the Laguna Mountain 

skipper would be expected in the vicinity of the project sites. Brief descriptions of the four 

remaining species that have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the project sites are 

presented in the following paragraphs. 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

General Description 

The southwestern willow flycatcher is a small bird, 

approximately six inches long (Photograph 3-1). It 

has a grayish-green back and wing, whitish throat, 

light gray-olive breast, and pale yellowish body. Two 

wing bars are visible and the eye ring is faint or 

absent. The song is a sneezy “fitz-bew” or “fit-zabew” and the call is a repeated “whitt” (USFWS 

1995).

Habitat 

The southwestern willow flycatcher occurs in riparian 

habitats where dense growths of willows (Salix sp.), marsh broom (Baccharis sp.), arrowweed 

(Pluchea sp.), buttonbush (Cephalanthus sp.), tamarisk (Tamarix sp.), and Russian olive 

(Eleagnus sp.) are present, often with a scattered overstory of cottonwood (Populus sp.) 

(USFWS 1995). These habitats tend to be rare and widely separated by vast expanses of arid 

lands, or small. The southwestern willow flycatcher is found on breeding territories by midMay; nest building and egg laying typically occur in late May and early June; and fledglings can 

be found in early to mid-July (Muiznieks et al. 1994; Sogge and Tibbits 1994). The migration 

routes and wintering grounds of this species are not well known (USFWS 1995). This species is 

endangered, due to the extensive loss and modification of its habitat. In addition, brood 

parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) has significantly contributed to the 

endangered status of the southwestern willow flycatcher (Unitt 1987; Muiznieks et al. 1994; 

Sogge and Tibbits 1994). 

Current Status 

The southwestern willow flycatcher was listed as Federally endangered on February 27, 1995 (60 

FR 10693). It is currently recognized as one of five subspecies of Empidonax traillii (American 

Ornithologists’ Union [AOU] 1998). The breeding range for the flycatcher includes southern 

California, southern Nevada, southern Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, western Texas, and possibly 

northern Baja California, Mexico (Unitt 1987; USFWS 1995). However, current populations 

within its range continue to decline. 

Photograph 3-1. Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher 

 Michael Moore 
3-10 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

Photograph 3-2. Least Bell’s Vireo 

 Greg Lasley 

Least Bell’s Vireo 

General Description 

The least Bell’s vireo is a small, olive-gray songbird, 

averaging 4.75 inches in length (AOU 1998) 

(Photograph 3-2). The crown and back are gray and the 

wings and tail are darker. There is a faint wingbar and 

the whitish lores and eye ring form a spectacle. The 

underside is predominantly buffy white. Because of its 

relatively secretive behavior, the vireo is more 

detectable by its song, which has been described as a 

rapid “cheetle cheetle chee, cheetle cheetle chew.” 

Habitat 

The least Bell’s vireo nests in riparian habitats, similar 

to the southwestern willow flycatcher, with welldeveloped overstories and understories. As discussed 

previously, riparian habitats have been fragmented into small disjunct, widely dispersed 

populations. The winter range is not well known; however, the least Bell’s vireo generally 

appears to winter in southern Baja and southern Sonora, Mexico (Garrett and Dunn 1981). As 

mentioned previously, the least Bell’s vireo was observed within 1.5 miles of the project sites 

(see Figure 3-1); however, neither project site supports this species’ preferred habitat and it is not 

thought to reside near the proposed project sites (DiGregoria 2004). Although protocol surveys 

were not performed, biologists conducted site surveys at the Highway 80 checkpoint in August 

and September 2011 (or in previous years) and did not observe the least Bell’s vireo at this site.

The decline of this species is attributed to the combination of the extensive loss of riparian 

habitats and the brood parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird (USFWS 1986; Brown 1993; 

USFWS 1998). 

Current Status 

The least Bell’s vireo was listed as Federally endangered on May 2, 1986 (51 FR 16482), and is 

currently recognized as one of four subspecies of Vireo bellii (AOU 1998). Critical habitat was 

designated for this subspecies on February 2, 1994 (59 FR 4845), and includes streams in 

southern California from Santa Barbara County to San Diego County. Historically, they were 

described as common to abundant in riparian habitats from Tehama County, California, to 

northern Baja California, Mexico. In 1986, the number of pairs in southern California was 

estimated at 330. This number has increased through 1996, with an estimated number of pairs 

being approximately 1,346 (USFWS 1998). 
3-11 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

Arroyo Toad 

General Description 

The arroyo toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus) is a 

relatively small (2 to 3 inches) olive green or gray to 

light brown colored frog (USFWS 1999) (Photograph 

3-3). Distinguishing factors include non-paired, 

symmetrical dorsal blotches, bi-colored parotid glands 

that are dark posteriorly and light anteriorly, as well as 

a light spot on the sacral humps. Additionally, a 

prominent white “v-shaped” stripe crosses the top of 

the head between the eyes, and the belly is buff-white 

and often lacks spots or blotches. The arroyo toad also 

lacks a mid-dorsal stripe. Locomotion is generally in 

the form of hopping, as opposed to walking or taking 

large jumps. These toads are most active during late 

winter and early spring after seasonal rains, and are classified chiefly as nocturnal. The arroyo 

toad call is a long trill lasting 4-10 seconds that is roughly similar to some insect calls (Sweet 

1993).

Habitat 

The arroyo toad inhabits coastal southern California (the central portion of their range), 

preferring riparian habitats with sandy streambeds that support cottonwood (Populus sp.), 

sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and willow trees. However, some populations occur in streams 

within coniferous forests, although the typical stream setting usually has adjacent shallow pools 

where the toad may sit in the water while partially exposed above. Suitable migratory and 

upland foraging habitat exists near the Highway 80 checkpoint; however, as mentioned 

previously, the arroyo toad has not been observed within a 1.5-mile radius of the project site (see 

Figure 3-1). 

The arroyo toad has special requirements, different from other Bufo species, for breeding 

habitats; more specifically, it requires shallow, slow-moving streams and riparian habitats that 

are disturbed on a regular basis by flooding, versus ponds and standing water (USFWS 1999). 

For example, breeding adult arroyo toads use open sites such as overflow pools and old flood 

channels. 

Current Status 

Federally listed as an endangered species, the arroyo toad is fully protected by USFWS and 

CDFG. The arroyo toad was listed as an endangered species on December 16, 1994 (USFWS 

1994). The main cause of decline for this species in the United States is loss of habitat, which 

has been attributed to urbanization, agriculture, and dam construction within the toad’s preferred 

habitat (USFWS 1999). 

Photograph 3-3. Arroyo Toad 

 Dan Holland 
3-12 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

Quino Checkerspot Butterfly 

General Description 

The adult Quino checkerspot butterfly has a wingspan of 

approximately 1.5 inches. The dorsal (top) sides of the wings 

have a red, black, and cream colored checkered pattern; the 

ventral (bottom) sides are dominated by a checkered red and 

cream pattern. The abdomen of the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly has red stripes across the top. After their second molt, 

Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae can be recognized by the 

characteristic dark-black coloration and row of eight to nine 

orange tubercles (fleshy/hairy extensions) on their back.

Before their first molt, larvae have a predominantly yellow 

coloration, and before their second molt they are grey with 

black markings. Pupae are mottled black on a pale blue-gray 

background and extremely cryptic (USFWS 2003). 

Habitat 

The Quino checkerspot butterfly is found in association with topographically diverse open 

woody canopy landscapes containing low to moderate levels of nonnative vegetation compared 

to disturbed habitat. Vegetation types that support the Quino checkerspot butterfly include 

coastal sage scrub, open chaparral, juniper woodland, and native grassland. Soil and climatic 

conditions, as well as other ecological and physical factors, affect the suitability of habitat within 

the species’ range. Urban and agricultural development, invasion of nonnative species, habitat 

fragmentation and degradation, and other human-caused disturbances have resulted in substantial 

losses of habitat and declines in habitat suitability throughout the species’ historic range 

(USFWS 2003). 

Current Status 

Federally listed as endangered, the Quino checkerspot butterfly is protected by USFWS and 

CDFG. The Quino checkerspot butterfly was listed as an endangered species on January 16, 

1997 (USFWS 1997). The Quino checkerspot butterfly is threatened primarily by urban and 

agricultural development, invasion by nonnative species, off-road vehicle use, grazing, and fire 

management practices (USFWS 1997). 

3.6.1.2 Critical Habitat 

The ESA also calls for the conservation of what is termed critical habitat, which is defined as the 

areas of land, water, and airspace that an endangered species needs for survival. Additionally, it 

includes such things as food, breeding sites, cover or shelter, and sufficient habitat area to 

provide for normal population growth and behavior. Section 7 of the ESA restricts destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any 

Federal agency. One of the primary threats to many species is the destruction or modification of 

essential habitat by uncontrolled land and water development. 

The USFWS designated critical habitat for the arroyo toad within California on March 7, 2001 

(50 CFR 9414-9474) (USFWS 2001), but it was rescinded in November 2002. On April 13, 

2005, the USFWS released a final designation of critical habitat to include approximately 11,695 

Photograph 3-4. Quino Checkerspot 

Butterfly (public domain) 
3-13 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

acres as critical habitat for the arroyo toad (70 FR 19563). Although Cottonwood Creek was 

included in the proposed critical habitat (70 FR 7459), as per the final ruling, there is no 

designated critical habitat in San Diego County; therefore, the proposed project sites do not fall 

within the designated critical habitat. 

Critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher was originally designated as totaling 599 

river miles within Arizona, California, and New Mexico on July 7, 1997 (62 FR 39129); 

however, during a hearing on March 25, 2001, the courts overturned the final ruling. In October 

2004, the USFWS proposed to designate approximately 376,000 acres, which includes 

approximately 1,500 stream miles of critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher (69 

FR 60706). According to 69 FR 60706, proposed critical habitat for the southwestern willow 

flycatcher does not include the project sites. 

Critical habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly was originally designated by USFWS on 

April 15, 2002 (67 FR 18356), and revised on June 17, 2009 (74 FR 28766). Three “units” of 

critical habitat in San Diego County were designated in the most recent critical habitat revision; 

however, all three units lie well to the south of the project sites. 

USFWS designated critical habitat for the least Bell’s vireo on February 2, 1994 (59 FR 4845). 

While several areas designated as critical habitat occur within San Diego County, no critical 

habitat is located near the project sites. 

3.6.1.3 State 

The CNDDB is a statewide inventory of the locations and condition of the state’s rarest species 

and natural communities. These species are not necessarily the same as those protected by the 

Federal government under the ESA. 

CDFG currently lists 42 species in San Diego County that are considered endangered, 

threatened, rare, or candidates (CNDDB 2011). A list of state protected species that potentially 

occur in San Diego County can be found in Appendix A. 

Figure 3-1, presented previously, illustrates the locations where state and Federal species have 

been reported, in relation to the two checkpoints. As can be seen from Figure 3-1, only three 

state-listed and one Federally listed species (least Bell’s vireo) have been reported within a 1.5-

mile radius of the project sites. 

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.6.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no improvements to the checkpoints would be implemented. 

Therefore, no impacts would occur on any protected species that potentially inhabit the project 

area. 

3.6.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 

Implementation of this alternative could cause temporary and minor impacts on protected species 

that potentially occur within the project area. Temporary impacts on least Bell’s vireo and 

southwestern willow flycatcher could occur if either of these species were present within 
3-14 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

Cottonwood Creek during construction. However, noise levels generated by construction 

activities at the Highway 80 checkpoint would be expected to be between 70 and 75 A-weighted 

decibels (dBA), which is likely far less than the noise generated by traffic along I-8. Thus, CBP 

has determined that the proposed improvements would not affect these two species.

No work would occur within or near the stream channel of Cottonwood Creek, and all clearing 

and grading associated with the Highway 80 checkpoint would be conducted adjacent to the 

existing highway ROW. Therefore, CBP has determined that no effect on arroyo toad would 

occur as a result of the proposed activities.

This alternative would result in the permanent loss of 650 square feet (0.015 acre) of potentially 

suitable habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly at the I-8 checkpoint. Although dark-tipped 

bird’s beak and California buckwheat are present at the Highway 80 checkpoint, this area was 

marginally suitable since the buckwheat was found sporadically and under the coast live oak 

trees, which shaded the buckwheat plants. Quino checkerspot butterfly larvae tend to avoid 

shaded areas during diapause. Because of the degraded nature of the habitat at both checkpoints, 

the small size of the impact area, and the proximity to busy highways, CBP has determined that 

the proposed improvements may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the Quino 

checkerspot butterfly. Concurrence of this determination has been requested from USFWS 

(Appendix B) and USFWS has indicated that they concur with CBP’s determination. No effects 

on any other protected species are anticipated due to the small area of impact, project area 

habitat, short duration of the proposed construction activities, and the implementation of the 

proposed conservation measures mentioned in Section 5.3 of this document. CBP has committed 

to have an on-site biological monitor during clearing and grubbing activities to ensure that there 

are no effects on the Quino checkerspot butterfly. To further ensure that the least Bell’s vireo 

and southwestern willow flycatcher would not be affected by construction noise, CBP has 

committed to restricting construction activities to the period between September 1 and March 1. 

No impacts on state-protected species would be expected to occur due to the proposed 

improvements, since none are located within the project footprints. General operation of the two 

checkpoints would continue in much the same manner as they currently do, so no operational 

effects on the Dulzura pocket mouse, if it is present near the I-8 checkpoint, would occur. 

Beneficial impacts would also occur with the implementation of this alternative. Generators 

would not be necessary to power the lights, which in turn would have beneficial impacts through 

the elimination of the generator noise and potential for spills. 

3.6.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 

Implementation of this alternative would result in impacts similar to those outlined in Alternative 

2; however, without the lane expansion at the I-8 checkpoint, impacts on suitable habitat for the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly would be eliminated. 
3-15 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

3.7 SURFACE WATERS AND WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES 

3.7.1 Affected Environment 

3.7.1.1 Surface Water 

Section 305(b) of the CWA requires each state to provide a list, known as the 303(d) List, which 

identifies those streams or lakes that do not meet one or more surface water quality standards. 

These waters are known as “impaired waters.” Under the CWA the Regional Water Quality 

Control Boards are required to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired 

waters. The statute addresses how the department identifies impaired waters, develops TMDLs, 

and prepares implementation plans to achieve the needed pollution reductions in the watershed 

so that the impaired stream will meet applicable standards. The designation of beneficial uses 

for waters of the State of California is mandated by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control 

Act. Water quality for designated beneficial uses are protected by the state and should work in 

tandem with sections 303 and 305 of the CWA. 

The project area is located in the Tijuana River watershed (CA 91111000) and adjacent to 

Cottonwood Creek (CA 91160000), which is a small, intermittent stream characterized by a sand 

and cobble channel (Figure 3-2) and is approximately 150 feet southeast of the Highway 80 

checkpoint. Cottonwood Creek is listed on California’s 303(d) List of impaired waters for 

selenium although the sources of this pollutant are unknown. The Tijuana River is also on 

California’s 303(d) List of impaired waters for eutrophication, bacteria indicators, low dissolved 

oxygen, pesticides, synthetic organics, solids, trace elements, and trash. This subsegment of the 

Tijuana River is not meeting designations for beneficial uses of primary and secondary contact 

recreation and wildlife and fish propagation. Sources of pollution are non-point sources and 

point sources. The area has no official watershed management plan, due to the difficulties of 

trans-border management. 

The Tijuana River has the following potential designated beneficial uses: 

x Contact Water Recreation - includes uses of water for recreational activities involving 

body contact with water where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. 

x Non-Contact Water Recreation - includes uses of water for recreational activities 

involving proximity to water, but not normally involving body contact with water where 

ingestion is reasonably possible. 

x Warm Freshwater Habitat - includes uses of water that support warm water ecosystems 

(e.g., aquatic habitat, vegetation, fish and wildlife). 

x Wildlife Habitat - includes uses of water that support terrestrial ecosystems including 

preservation and enhancement of terrestrial habitats, vegetation, wildlife, or wildlife 

water and food sources (California Regional Water Quality Control Board 1994). 

3.7.1.2 Waters of the United States and Wetlands 

Section 404 of the CWA of 1933 (PL 95-213) authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting 

through the USACE, to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of 

the United States , including wetlands. EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) (42 FR 26961) was 

signed on May 24, 1983, and directed Federal agencies “to avoid to the extent possible the longand short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands 
Figure 3-2. Waters of the United States near Checkpoints

December 2011

£¤80

§ ̈¦8

Hwy 80 Checkpoint

I-8 Checkpoint

Cottonwood

Creek

Cottonwood

Creek

!.

Project Location

·

0 130 260 390 520 650

Feet

0 40 80 120

Meters

Waters of the United States

3-16
3-17 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a 

practicable alternative...” Cottonwood Creek would likely be considered a jurisdictional waters 

of the United States, although no determination has been issued by the USACE, Los Angeles 

District. While the riparian area adjacent to Cottonwood Creek is classified as palustrine, scrubshrub, and seasonally flooded (Cowardin et al. 1979), there are no potentially jurisdictional 

wetlands present within or adjacent to the project sites. 

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.7.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not result in any impacts on surface waters 

or waters of the United States. 

3.7.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 

Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would not result in any impacts on surface 

waters or waters of the United States. No surface waters or waters of the United States are 

present at the project sites. Best management practices (BMPs), as outlined in Section 5.1, 

would be implemented to ensure that sediment from the project site would not be transported to 

Cottonwood Creek. 

3.7.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 

The impacts on these resources would be the same as described for Alternative 2. 

3.8 AIR QUALITY 

3.8.1 Affected Environment 

The EPA established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for specific pollutants 

determined to be of concern with respect to the health and welfare of the general public.

Ambient air quality standards are classified as either “primary” or “secondary.” The major 

pollutants of concern, or criteria pollutants, are carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2),

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM-10), particulate 

matter less than 2.5 microns (PM-2.5), and lead (Pb). NAAQS represent the maximum levels of 

background pollution that are considered safe, within an adequate margin of safety, to protect the 

public health and welfare. The NAAQS (Federal) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(CAAQS) are shown in Table 3-2. Areas that do not meet these NAAQS standards are called 

non-attainment areas; areas that meet both primary and secondary standards are known as 

attainment areas. The Federal Conformity Final Rule (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93) specifies criteria 

or requirements for conformity determinations for Federal projects. The Federal Conformity 

Rule was first promulgated in 1993 by the EPA, following the passage of Amendments to the 

Clean Air Act in 1990. The rule mandates that a conformity analysis must be performed when a 

Federal action generates air pollutants in a region that has been designated a non-attainment or 

maintenance area for one or more NAAQS. 
3-18 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

Table 3-2. NAAQS and CAAQS Air Quality Status in the San Diego Air Basin 

Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation 

O3

Non-attainment 

(Moderate) 

Non-attainment 

(Serious)

CO Maintenance Attainment 

PM-10 Attainment Non-attainment 

NO2 Attainment Attainment 

SO2 Attainment Attainment 

Pb Attainment Attainment 

Sulfates (No Federal standard) Attainment 

Hydrogen Sulfide (No Federal standard) Unclassified 

Visibility-Reducing Particles (No Federal standard) Unclassified 

A conformity analysis is the process used to determine whether a Federal action meets the 

requirements of the General Conformity Rule. It requires the responsible Federal agency to 

evaluate the nature of proposed actions and associated air pollutant emissions, and calculate 

emissions as a result of the proposed action. If the emissions exceed established limits, known as 

de minimis thresholds, the proponent is required to implement appropriate mitigation measures. 

The EPA classifies San Diego County as a maintenance area for carbon monoxide and as a 

moderate non-attainment area for 8-hour ozone (EPA 2010). Air emissions from internal 

combustion engines produce volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and Nitrous Oxides (NOx),

which are precursor molecules that react with oxygen in the atmosphere to create ozone. The 

CARB classifies San Diego County to be in non-attainment for ozone, PM-2.5 and PM-10 

(CARB 2010). Table 3-3 presents a summary of attainment and maintenance status for NAAQs 

and CAAQS in San Diego County.

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change 

Greenhouse gases (GHG) are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. They include water vapor, 

CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, fluorinated gases including chlorofluorocarbons and 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons, and halons, as well as ground-level O3 (California Energy 

Commission 2007).

GHG Threshold of Significance 

The CEQ provided DRAFT guidelines for determining meaningful GHG decision-making 

analysis, which are currently undergoing public comment at this time; however, the DRAFT 

guidance states that if the proposed action would be reasonably anticipated to cause direct 

emissions of 27,577 tons or more of CO2 equivalent (CO2 –E) GHG emissions on an annual 

basis, agencies should consider this an indicator that a quantitative and qualitative assessment 

may be meaningful to decision makers and the public. For long-term actions that have annual 

direct emissions of less than 27,577 tons of CO2 -E, CEQ encourages Federal agencies to 

consider whether the action’s long-term emissions should receive similar analysis. CEQ does 
 July 20122 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

3-19 

Table 3-3. California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging

Time

California Standards1

 Federal Standards2

Concentration3 Method4 Primary 

3,5 Secondary 3,6 Method 7

O3

1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3)

Ultraviolet Photometry 

— Same as Primary 

Standard 

Ultraviolet 

8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m Photometry 3) 0.075 ppm 

(147 μg/m3)

PM-10 

24 Hour 50 μg/m3

Gravimetric or Beta 

Attenuation 

150 μg/m3

Same as Primary 

Standard 

Inertial Separation 

and Gravimetric 

Analysis 

Annual 

Arithmetic Mean 20 μg/m3

 — 

PM-2.5

24 Hour No Separate State Standard 35 μg/m3

Same as Primary 

Standard 

Inertial Separation 

and Gravimetric 

Analysis 

Annual 

Arithmetic Mean 12 μg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta 

Attenuation 15.0 μg/m3

CO 

8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10mg/m3

)

Non-Dispersive Infrared 

Photometry 

9 ppm (10 

mg/m3

) None 

Non-Dispersive 

Infrared 

1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m Photometry 3) 35 ppm (40 

mg/m3

)

8 Hour (Lake 

Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3

) — — — 

NO2

Annual 

Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3

)

Gas Phase 

Chemiluminescence 

53 ppb (100 

μg/m3

) 8

Same as Primary 

Standard Gas Phase 

Chemiluminescence 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3

)

100 ppb 

(188 μg/m3) 8None 

SO2

24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3)

Ultraviolet Fluorescence 

— — Ultraviolet 

Flourescence; 

Spectrophotometry 

(Pararosaniline 

Method)9 

3 Hour — — 0.5 ppm (1300 

μg/m3

) 9

1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) 75 ppb (196 

μg/m3

) 9 —

Pb10

30-Day Average 1.5 μg/m3

Atomic Absorption 

— — — 

Calendar 

Quarter — 1.5 μg/m3

Same as Primary 

Standard 

High Volume 

Sampler and 

Atomic Absorption Rolling 3-Month 

Average11 — 0.15 μg/m3
 July 20122 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

3-20 

Pollutant Averaging

Time

California Standards1

 Federal Standards2

Concentration3 Method4 Primary 

3,5 Secondary 3,6 Method 7

Visibility 

Reducing 

Particles

8 Hour 

Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer — visibility 

of ten miles or more (0.07 — 30 miles or more for Lake 

Tahoe) due to particles when relative humidity is less 

than 70 percent. Method: Beta Attenuation and 

Transmittance through Filter Tape. No Federal Standards

Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3 Ion Chromatography 

Hydrogen 

Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3

) Ultraviolet Fluorescence 

Vinyl Chloride10 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3

) Gas Chromatography 

California Air Resources Board (CARB 2010) 

ppm = parts per million, mg/m3

 = milligrams per cubic meter, μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter, * Parenthetical value is an approximate equivalent concentration 

1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter—PM10, PM2.5, and visibility 

reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in 

Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone 

standard is attained when the fourth highest eight hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is 

attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3

is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is 

attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact U.S. EPA for further clarification and current federal 

policies. 3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 

760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or 

micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4. Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. 5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. 7. Reference method as described by the EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be 

approved by the EPA. 8. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 

2010). Note that the EPA standards are in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national standards to the 

California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standards of 53 ppb and 100 ppb are identical to 0.053 ppm and 0.100 ppm, respectively. 9. On June 2, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations. EPA also proposed a new automated Federal Reference Method (FRM) using ultraviolet technology, but will retain the older pararosaniline methods until the 

new FRM have adequately permeated State monitoring networks. The EPA also revoked both the existing 24-hour SO2 standard of 0.14 ppm and the annual primary SO2 standard of 

0.030 ppm, effective August 23, 2010. The secondary SO2 standard was not revised at that time; however, the secondary standard is undergoing a separate review by EPA. Note that 

the new standard is in units of ppb. California standards are in units of ppm. To directly compare the new primary national standard to the California standard the units can be 

converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm. 10. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the 

implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. 11. National lead standard, rolling 3-month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008. 

Table 3-3, continued 
3-21 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

not propose this as an indicator of a threshold of significant effects, but rather as an indicator of a 

minimum level of GHG emissions that may warrant some description in the appropriate NEPA 

analysis for agency actions involving direct emissions of GHGs (CEQ 2010). 

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.8.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alterative 

The No Action Alternative would not result in any direct impacts on air quality because there 

would be no construction activities. Air quality would remain at the current state and emissions 

produced by the use of lighting generators would continue. 

3.8.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 

Temporary and minor increases in air pollution would locally occur from the use of construction 

equipment (combustion emissions) and the disturbance of soils (fugitive dust) during 

construction of the improvements. At the completion of the project, these temporary and minor 

increases in air pollution would be eliminated. 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-10 emission factor of 1.2 tons per acre-month presented 

in AP-42 Section 13 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.3.3 (EPA 2001). 

EPA’s NONROAD Model (EPA 2005a) was used, as recommended by EPA’s Procedures

Document for National Emission Inventory, Criteria Air Pollutants, 1985-1999 (EPA 2001), to 

calculate emissions from construction equipment. Combustion emission calculations were made 

for standard construction equipment, such as front-end loaders, backhoes, cranes, and cement 

trucks. Assumptions were made regarding the total number of days each piece of equipment 

would be used, and the number of hours per day each type of equipment would be used. 

Construction workers would temporarily increase the combustion emissions in the airshed during 

their commute to and from the project area. Emissions from delivery trucks would also 

contribute to the overall air emission budget. Emissions from delivery trucks and construction 

workers traveling to the job site were calculated using the EPA MOBILE6.2 Model (EPA 2005a, 

2005b and 2005c). 

The total air quality emissions were calculated for the construction activities to compare to the 

General Conformity Rule. Summaries of the total emissions for the Preferred Alternative are 

presented in Table 3-4. Details of the analyses are presented in Appendix C.

Several sources of air pollutants would contribute to the overall air impacts of the construction 

project. The air results in Table 3-4 included emissions from the following sources. 

x Combustion engines of construction equipment 

x Construction workers commuting to and from work 

x Supply trucks delivering materials to construction site 

x Fugitive dust from job-site ground disturbances
3-22 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

Table 3-4. Total Air Emissions (tons/year) from the Proposed Action Alternative 

Construction versus the de minimis Threshold Levels1

Pollutant Total de minimis Thresholds 

CO 8.78 100 

VOC 1.50 100 

NOx 8.33 100 

PM-10 3.66 100 

PM-2.5 1.07 100 

SO2 1.02 100 

CO2 and CO2 equivalents 3,503 27,557 

Source: 40 CFR 51.853 and Gulf South Research Corporation (GSRC) model projections. 

1

Note that San Diego County is in non-attainment for 8-hour ozone (EPA 2010b). CARB classifies San Diego County as 

in non-attainment for ozone, PM-2.5 and PM-10 (CARB 2010). 

As can be seen from Table 3-4, the air emissions associated with the proposed improvements do 

not exceed Federal de minimis thresholds for NAAQS and GHGs and, thus, would not require a 

Conformity Determination. In addition, a reduction/elimination of emissions from use of 

temporary lighting generators would be realized. As there are no violations of air quality 

standards and no conflicts with the state implementation plans, the impacts on air quality from 

the implementation of the proposed improvements would be negligible. During construction, 

proper and routine maintenance (i.e., appropriate oil change schedules, lubrication levels, and 

fuel for efficient performance) of all vehicles and other construction equipment would be 

implemented to ensure that emissions are within the design standards of all construction 

equipment. Dust suppression methods, such as applying water, should be implemented to 

minimize fugitive dust. 

3.8.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 

Impacts on air quality would be similar to those described in the Proposed Action Alternative but 

would be less extensive because the expansion of lanes at the I-8 checkpoint would not occur. 

3.9 NOISE 

3.9.1 Affected Environment 

Noise is generally described as unwanted sound, which can be based either on objective effects 

(hearing loss, damage to structures, etc.) or subjective judgments (community annoyance).

Sound is usually represented on a logarithmic scale with a unit called the dB. Sound on the 

decibel scale is referred to as a sound level. The threshold of human hearing is approximately 3 

dB, and the threshold of discomfort or pain is around 120 dB. 

Noise levels occurring at night generally produce a greater annoyance than do the same levels 

occurring during the day. It is generally agreed that people perceive intrusive noise at night as 

being 10 dBA louder than the same level of intrusive noise during the day, at least in terms of its 

potential for causing community annoyance. This perception is largely because background 

environmental sound levels at night in most areas are also about 10 dBA lower than those during 

the day. The dBA is a measure of sound pressure scale adjusted to conform with the frequency 

response of the human ear. Noise levels are computed over a 24-hour period and adjusted for 
3-23 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

nighttime annoyances to produce the day-night average sound level (DNL). DNL is a 

community noise metric recommended by the EPA (EPA 1974) and has been adopted by most 

Federal agencies. 

Several examples of noise levels are listed in Table 3-5. A DNL of 65 dBA is most commonly 

used for noise planning purposes and represents a compromise between community impact and 

the need for activities like construction. Areas exposed to DNL above 65 dBA are generally not 

considered suitable for residential use. A DNL of 55 dBA was identified by the EPA as a level 

below which there are effectively no adverse impacts (EPA 1974). 

Table 3-5. A-Weighted (dBA) Sound Levels of Typical Noise Environments 

dBA Overall Level Noise Environment 

120 Uncomfortably Loud 

(32 times as loud as 70 dBA) Military jet takeoff at 50 ft 

100 Very loud 

(8 times as loud as 70 dBA) Jet flyover at 1,000 ft 

90 Very Loud Heavy-duty truck, average traffic 

80 Loud

(2 times as loud as 70 dBA) 

Propeller plane flyover at 1,000 ft 

Diesel truck 40 mph at 50 ft 

70 Moderately loud Freeway at 50 ft from pavement edge 

Vacuum cleaner (indoor) 

65 Moderately loud Gas-powered generator 

60 Relatively quiet 

(1/2 as loud as 70 dBA) 

Air condition unit at 10 ft 

Dishwasher at 10 ft (indoor) 

50 Quiet 

(1/4 as loud as 70 dBA) 

Large transformers 

Small private office (indoor) 

40 Very quiet 

(1/8 as loud as 70 dBA) 

Bird calls 

Lowest limit of urban ambient sound 

10 Extremely quiet 

(1/64 as loud as 70 dBA) Just audible 

0 Threshold of hearing 

Source: Wyle Research Corporation 1992

Noise levels surrounding the proposed project sites are variable depending on the time of day 

and climatic conditions. Since the project sites are located along and adjacent to I-8, noise levels 

are often above normal (estimated at approximately 80-90 dBA) as a result of continuous vehicle 

traffic (Wyle Research Corporation 1992). CBP currently uses generators to power the portable 

lights to illuminate the checkpoints, which create noise levels (estimated at approximately 65 dB) 

far below the average noise experienced along a typical freeway. These generators create 

additional noise at the proposed project site; however, this noise is not present every day.

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.9.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would have no new impacts on the project sites, as this alternative 

would preclude the modification of the checkpoint stations. Noise levels would remain at their 

current levels under this alternative, as the checkpoint stations would continue to operate on an 
3-24 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

as-needed basis, which includes the use of portable generators to power lights for nighttime 

operations.

3.9.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 

Implementation of this alternative would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels 

during construction. Noise levels created by construction equipment would vary greatly 

depending on factors such as the type of equipment, the specific model, the operation being 

performed, and the condition of the equipment. The equivalent sound level of the construction 

activity also depends on the fraction of time that the equipment is operated over the time period 

of the construction.

The construction of the proposed improvements would require the use of common construction 

equipment. Table 3-6 describes noise emission levels for construction equipment, which range 

from 76 dBA to 82 dBA at a distance of 50 feet (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 

2007).

Table 3-6. A-Weighted (dBA) Sound Levels of Construction Equipment and Modeled 

Attenuation at Various Distances1

Noise Source 50 feet 100 feet 200 feet 500 feet 1000 feet

Backhoe 78 72 66 58 52 

Crane 81 75 69 61 55 

Dump truck 76 70 64 56 50 

Excavator 81 75 69 61 55 

Front-end loader 79 73 67 59 53 

Concrete mixer truck 79 73 67 59 53 

Pneumatic tools 81 75 69 61 55 

Bulldozer 82 76 70 62 56 

Generator 81 75 69 61 55 

Source: FHWA 2007 and GSRC 

1 The dBA at 50 feet is a measured noise emission (FHWA 2007). The 100- to 1,000-foot results are GSRC-modeled 

estimates.

Assuming the worst case scenario of 82 dBA, the noise model projected that noise levels of 

82 dBA from a point source (i.e., bulldozer) would have to travel 370 feet before the noise would 

be attenuated to an acceptable level of 65 dBA. To achieve an attenuation of 82 dBA to a 

normally unacceptable level of 75 dBA, the distance from the noise source to the receptor would 

have to be 110 feet. Construction activities as a result of this alternative would produce only 

short-term noise level increases, and no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, parks, churches, 

hospitals) are present within the project area. Construction noise could disturb wildlife; 

however, due to the sporadic schedule, proximity to a major thoroughfare, ambient noise levels, 

and short duration of the construction activities, these impacts would be considered temporary 

and minor. 

Completion of construction would also eliminate the further need and use of the temporary 

lighting generators currently used at the checkpoints. Elimination of the generators would 

reduce the ambient noise level of the checkpoints.
3-25 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

3.9.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 

Impacts from increased noise levels during construction would be less with this alternative than 

with Alternative 2, as less construction would be required. Impact would be temporary in nature, 

and would likely not last as long with the elimination of the lane expansion at the I-8 checkpoint. 

3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

3.10.1 Affected Environmental 

3.10.1.1 Cultural Overview 

A full prehistory of the project area is presented in both Townsend (1986) and Wade (1995). 

The earliest period of occupation is the San Dieguito Complex, which dates from 10,000 to 

11,000 years ago. It is distinguished by a preponderance of scrapers combined with leaf-shaped 

points, crescents, gravers, choppers, and hammerstones. The Milling Stone Horizon or La Jolla 

Complex began approximately 7,500 years ago. This period is distinguished primarily by the 

presence of milling tools (e.g., manos and metates). The Late Prehistoric period began 

approximately 1,200 to 600 years ago with the migration of the Shoshone and Yuman peoples 

into the area. Small triangular points, imported lithic materials, and pottery characterize this 

period.

Large village sites occurred and were usually associated with smaller hunting and gathering 

campsites. During the Protohistoric period (1700s-1800s), ethnohistoric sources indicate that a 

clan that primarily lived in Mexico and whose large village sites are primarily in Mexico 

occupied the Jacumba valley. However, there were village sites in the valley, including Hakum

located near a hot spring. All sites appear to be occupied seasonally, with sites in some areas 

being occupied over and over again during the same season every year. This historic period 

occupation of the Jacumba Valley began in 1849 with the use of the Jacumba Hot Springs as a 

water supply station between San Diego and the Colorado River. In 1853, a fort was built to 

protect mail carriers, and farmers and ranchers moved into the area during the 1860s. The San 

Diego and Arizona Railway was constructed in the Jacumba Valley in 1918 and a railroad station 

established in 1919. The Hot Springs was also central to development in the 1920s through the 

1940s with the advent of tourism and the establishment of resorts. 

In the summer of 1940, the U.S. Army was assigned the task of safeguarding the United States 

borders against invasion. San Diego was identified as an important place of defense because of 

its strategic location, numerous military installations, and rapidly expanding war-related 

industries. As a result, the United States decided to station troops along the United 

States/Mexico border. Troops were stationed in Campo, located approximately 50 miles east of 

San Diego, and in December 1941, Camp Lockett in Campo was completed. This transformed 

the small border town into a bustling military post. The troops were prepared to stop an invasion 

that military strategists feared might come through Mexico. Camp Lockett was the last cavalry 

base built in the United States. The decision to maintain the site as a cavalry base was mostly 

focused on the local rugged terrain. At the height of the camp’s activation, approximately 3,500 

horse soldiers and hundreds of civilian support personnel occupied Camp Lockett. The camp 

would eventually expand to more than 500 buildings and cover nearly 7,000 acres. With the war 

confined to the European and Pacific theatres, the Southern Land Frontier Sector was deactivated 

at Camp Lockett. The Army placed Camp Lockett into caretaker status in the mid-1940s. The 

camp was briefly used as a hospital until 1946 when it was closed down and the property was 
3-26 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

returned to civilian use (Vezina 1993). The old Campo USBP Station, located at the entrance of 

Camp Lockett, has occupied the site since the 1950s. 

3.10.1.2 Current Investigations 

Since the entire project at I-8 lies within the highway ROW and along cut banks that were 

established during the construction of the interstate, there is a very low potential for any intact 

cultural remains that have not been impacted by road construction. As a result, a cultural 

resources survey was deemed unnecessary given the extremely low potential for any intact 

cultural resources within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). The small area proposed for 

improvements at Highway 80 checkpoint was surveyed and no cultural resources sites were 

identified; likewise, there are no historic properties within the visual APE of the proposed 

improvements. Consultation with California SHPO has been completed; concurrence that the 

proposed improvements would have no effect on historical properties has been received from the 

California SHPO (Appendix B).

3.10.1.3 Tribal Concerns 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to take into 

account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and defines procedures governing 

Federal agencies’ statutory responsibilities. Revisions to these procedures emphasized 

consultation with Native American tribes as part of the Section 106 processes for all Federal 

undertakings subject to Section 106 review, regardless of whether or not the undertaking is on 

tribal land. Consultation has taken place at all levels of Section 106 and the NEPA process with 

the potentially affected tribes. 

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.10.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

No impacts on cultural resources would occur upon implementation of the No Action 

Alternative. No changes in ongoing operations would occur with this alternative.

3.10.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 

No adverse impacts are expected to occur on any cultural resources or historic properties as a 

result of the Proposed Action Alternative. The proposed project area has been previously 

disturbed due to past and ongoing human activities. The expansion of lanes at the I-8 checkpoint 

would occur in a cut bank, and the likelihood of any intact cultural resources being located in this 

area is negligible. CBP made a determination of no adverse effects on historic properties, and 

concurrence with this determination was received from California SHPO. If any unknown 

cultural resources are found during construction, activities would temporarily stop in the 

immediate vicinity of the find(s) and a qualified archaeologist, along with the California SHPO, 

would be contacted to assess significance and determine appropriate mitigation procedures. 

3.10.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 

Implementation of this alternative would result in impacts similar to those outlined in the 

Proposed Action Alternative.
3-27 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

3.11 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

3.11.1 Affected Environment 

3.11.1.1 Unique and Sensitive Areas 

San Diego County contains numerous unique and environmentally sensitive areas. The 

Cleveland National Forest is one of those areas. This forest encompasses approximately 420,000 

acres and ranges in elevations from 650 feet to 6,271 feet. This area is used for sightseeing, 

hiking, bird watching, camping, and stargazing. The forest has over 630 individual campsites, 

15 family campgrounds, 356 miles of trail, and 7 picnic areas. Within the forest there are four 

wilderness areas: Agua Tibia (15,933 acres), Hauser (7,547 acres), Pine Creek (13,480 acres), 

and San Mateo wilderness area (38,484 acres) (USFS 2004). The Cleveland National Forest 

surrounds the project area. Within the Cleveland National Forest is the Mount Laguna 

Observatory (MLO). 

MLO is a research facility of San Diego State University (SDSU). Both scientists from SDSU 

and astronomers from other universities use the observatory. In conjunction with the ongoing 

scientific research at the observatory, many other local astronomers also utilize the facility to 

explore the night sky. MLO has recently expanded to include four telescopes, ranging in size 

from 21 to 50 inches. The 50-inch Philips Claud telescope is under construction and will be 

housed in the original dome of MLO’s first telescope. High-speed Internet connectivity is 

provided by the High Performance Research and Education Network so that the telescopes can 

be operated remotely from the SDSU campus (SDSU 2011). 

3.11.1.2 Light Pollution 

Light pollution is a major obstacle for scientists and observers attempting to learn more about the 

physics of stars, galaxies, and plasmas. Light pollution occurs when too much artificial 

illumination enters the night sky and reflects off airborne water droplets and dust particles 

causing a condition known as skyglow. In general, light pollution does not come from light that 

goes directly into the equipment used by these scientist or observers; rather, it is often associated 

with the stray light that goes upward. Stray light that travels upward eventually is reflected off 

of dust particles or other molecules in the atmosphere and moves downward and into the 

equipment (telescopes) used for astrological studies, hindering the efforts of scientists and 

observers.

Light pollution has become a growing concern within the San Diego area due to the increased 

urbanization of San Diego, Tijuana, Mexicali, and surrounding inhabited areas. In particular, it 

has become a problem for the Mount Laguna and Mount Palomar Observatories. However, 

through the compliance with building codes and the use of street light controls these resources 

have received some protection from light pollution (Etzel 2004). The project area is located in 

the green zone (Figure 3-3), which, as indicated in Table 3-7, represents areas that have artificial 

light pollution of 50 percent over natural sky brightness and provide a modest impact on deep 

sky observing and imaging (Sipe 2002). However, SDSU (2011) reported that the sky glow 

from San Diego and other urban areas contributes only about 5 percent at the zenith on moonless 

nights for the MLO. 
Figure 3-3. Southern California Light Pollution Map

December 2011

!.!.

80 £¤

8§ ̈¦

I-8 Checkpoint Location Highway 80 Checkpoint Location

78 £¤

86 £¤

94 £¤

111 £¤

74 £¤

IMPERIAL COUNTY

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

Campo

Poway

Vista

Tecate

Bonita

Santee

Ramona

Potrero

Jacumba

La Mesa

Coronado

El Cajon

Lakeside

Temecula

Wildomar

San Diego

Encinitas

Escondido

Fallbrook

San Marcos

Canyon City

Chula Vista

Lemon Grove

Solana Beach

National City

Spring Valley

Imperial Beach

Casa de Oro-Mount Helix

15 § ̈¦

8§ ̈¦

5§ ̈¦

805 § ̈¦

215 § ̈¦

· 0 3 6 9 12 15Miles 0 4 8 12Kilometers

Colors correspond to ratios between the artificial skybrightness and the natural sky brightness.

0.01-0.11 (dark-gray)0.11-0.33 (blue)0.33-1 (green)1-3 (yellow)3-9 (orange)9-27 (red)

Data Source: ISTIL Light Pollution Science andTechnology Institute of Thiene, Italy

>27 (white)

3-28
3-29 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

Table 3-7. Southern California Light Pollution Map Legend

Zone Color Description 

1 Black Trace artificial Light Pollution 

2 Blue

Artificial Light Pollution is 10 percent over natural sky brightness (“light polluted sky”). Long 

exposure astrophotos might show some light pollution gradient, but visual observing is relatively 

unimpaired.

3 Green Artificial Light Pollution is 50 percent over natural sky brightness. Modest impact on deep sky 

observing and imaging. Milky Way shows structure.

4 Yellow Artificial Light Pollution is equal to natural sky brightness (total sky brightness is doubled). 

Serious impact on deep sky observing and imaging. Milky Way visible but not crisp.

5 Orange Milky Way not visible to average observer.

6 Red Less than 100 stars visible over 30 degrees elevation.

7 White Hopeless?

Source: Sipe 2002. 

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.11.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would have no new impacts, either beneficial or 

adverse, on aesthetics and visual resources within the project area. No changes would be made 

to the existing facilities at the Highway 80 or I-8 checkpoints. 

3.11.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 

Implementation of this alternative would have no significant adverse impacts in regards to light 

pollution in the project area. The lights would be shielded for both vertical and back lighting 

purposes preventing stray light from escaping upward into the night sky or into Cottonwood 

Creek. In addition, the lights would be turned off when the checkpoint is non-operational, 

further reducing any potential impacts associated with this alternative. 

Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would have negligible adverse impacts on 

unique and sensitive areas within or near the project area. However, minor visual impacts would 

occur due to the installation of light poles and operation of the lights. These impacts would be 

minor due to the existing power poles located adjacent to the project area and the existing light 

generators at each checkpoint. In addition, beneficial visual impacts are likely to occur due to 

the elimination of generator-powered lights. The reduction of noise, light glare, and light 

trespass would have an indirect beneficial impact on unique and sensitive areas. 

3.11.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 

Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in impacts similar to those outlined in the Proposed 

Action Alternative. 
3-30 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

3.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

3.12.1 Affected Environment 

Although no site-specific environmental site assessments or environmental baseline surveys have 

been performed as part of due diligence, no evidence of hazardous waste sites or potential 

environmental liabilities were observed during February 2004 site visits conducted for the 

original establishment of the Highway 80 checkpoint (CBP 2007). In addition, no overt 

hazardous waste issues were observed during recent (August 2011) site visits to both sites. 

3.12.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.12.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

No impacts would occur on hazardous materials upon implementation of the No Action 

Alternative, because no changes in ongoing operations would occur. However, the potential risk 

of petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL) spills would continue to exist.

3.12.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 

Temporary impacts could occur, as the potential exists that POL and other hazardous materials 

could be released during the demolition and construction activities, including installation of the 

lighting, power supply, and electrical poles. However, through the use of proper BMPs (see 

Section 5), frequent vehicle inspections, and careful handling of hazardous materials, the 

possibility of either leaks or spills would be minimized; thus, no or negligible impacts are 

expected to occur. Furthermore, beneficial impacts would occur by implementing this 

alternative, as the generators needed to power the existing portable lights and fuel storage tanks 

would be eliminated, further reducing the potential for spills of POL. 

3.12.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 

Implementation of this alternative would provide impacts similar to those listed in the Proposed 

Action Alternative. 

3.13 SOCIOECONOMICS 

3.13.1 Affected Environment 

3.13.1.1 Population 

The ROI for the proposed project is San Diego County, which is part of the San Diego 

Metropolitan area. The region around Campo lies within the San Diego Regional Planning 

Agency (San Diego Association of Governments [SANDAG] Mountain Empire subregion 

2010).

The 2010 population of San Diego County was estimated to be 3,095,313, which ranked second 

in the State of California (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). This is an increase of 10.0 percent over 

the 2000 Census population of 2,813,834. The racial mix of San Diego County is primarily 

White (64 percent). The remainder is Asian (10.9 percent), Black (5.1 percent), Some Other 

Race (13.6 percent), and Two or More Races (5.1 percent). American Indian and Alaska Native 

and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander each account for less than one percent of the 

population. Approximately 32 percent of the total population claims to be of Hispanic origin, up 

from 27 percent in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). 
3-31 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

The population of the Mountain Empire subregion is estimated to be 6,041. This population is 

44 percent Hispanic, with the non-Hispanic population made up of 39 percent White, six percent 

Black, and six percent American Indian. The remaining six percent is divided between Asian 

and other races (SANDAG 2010). This is a substantial change from 2001, when the subregion 

was predominantly White (65 percent) and Hispanic (26 percent). 

3.13.1.2 Employment, Poverty Levels, and Income 

The total number of jobs in the study area was 1,838,603 in 2009, which was an increase of 7 

percent over the 2000 number of jobs of 1,717,490 (Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA] 2011). 

The services industry provided the most jobs followed by the government sector and the retail 

trade industry. The government sector provided almost 19 percent of the county’s nonfarm jobs. 

Of the private sector jobs, the professional, scientific, and technical services sector provided the 

most jobs (12.1 percent), followed by the Retail (11.2 percent), Health Care and Social 

Assistance (10 percent), and Accommodation and Food Services (9.5 percent) sectors. The 

annual unemployment rate for San Diego County in 2010 was 10.5 percent (California 

Employment and Development Department 2011). 

Total personal income is the total of net earnings by place of residence, dividends, interest, rent, 

and personal current transfer receipts. The 2009 annual total personal income (TPI) for the ROI 

was $139.9 billion. This TPI ranked third in the state of California and accounted for 8.9 percent 

of the state total (BEA 2011). In 1999, the TPI of San Diego County was $87 billion and ranked 

third in the state. Over the past 10 years the average annual growth rate of TPI was 4.8 percent.

This is higher than the annual growth rate of 4.3 percent for the State of California and 4.4 

percent for the nation.

Per capita personal income (PCPI) for San Diego County in 2009 was $45,706. This PCPI 

ranked 13th in the state, and was 108 percent of the state average ($42,395) and 115 percent of 

the national average ($39,635). In 1999, the PCPI of San Diego County was $31,162 and ranked 

14th in the state. The average annual growth rate of PCPI over the past 10 years was 3.9 percent, 

which was greater than the state’s growth rate of 3.3 percent and the national growth rate of 3.4 

percent (BEA 2011).

The median household income for San Diego County in 2009 was $60,103. The estimated 

number of people of all ages in poverty for San Diego County in 2009 was 372,782. The 

County’s 12.5 percent poverty rate was lower than the estimated 14.2 percent of the state 

population that lives in poverty (U.S. Census Bureau 2009). The 2009 median household 

income for the Mountain Empire sub-region was estimated to be $47,379 (in current dollars) 

(SANDAG 2010). 

3.13.1.3 Housing 

The total number of housing units in San Diego County in 2009 was 1,142,245 (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2010). This is a 9.8 percent increase over the 2000 total number of housing units of 

1,040,149 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). This represents 8.5 percent of the total housing units 

reported for the State of California in 2009.
3-32 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

The home ownership rate in San Diego County for 2005-2009 was 57.1 percent, which was 

slightly below the home ownership rate for the State of California of 57.9 percent. The total 

number of owner-occupied housing units was 596,414. Renter-occupied housing units totaled 

448,845 (U.S. Census Bureau 2009). The estimated total number of housing units within the 

Mountain Empire subregion is 2,884, of which 2,311 are occupied, for a vacancy rate of 19.9 

percent (SANDAG 2010). 

3.13.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.13.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would result in no new impacts on socioeconomics within the region, 

as the operation of the checkpoints would continue in their current state and no construction 

would occur. 

3.13.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 

No significant adverse impacts on the regional economy or demographics are anticipated from 

the Proposed Action Alternative. This alternative would enhance the probability of success for 

the USBP agents identifying and apprehending cross-border violators. This increased success in 

controlling illegal drug activity and the increasing flow of cross-border violators into the area 

would benefit all populations, regardless of income, nationality, or ethnicity. Long-term positive 

impacts would occur on local, regional, and national levels by the reduction of illegal crossborder activities, including drug trafficking and the associated social costs. 

3.13.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 

Implementation of this alternative would provide positive effects similar to those noted in the 

Proposed Action Alternative; however, some of the public safety measures would be eliminated 

without the I-8 lane expansion. No adverse socioeconomic impacts would be anticipated with 

this alternative. 

3.14 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY 

3.14.1 Affected Environment 

Human health effects occur in a variety of forms, such as exposure to chemicals, extreme 

temperatures, weather, and physical security and safety. Generally, human health factors are 

driven by factors that differ substantially by geographic area. In the Alpine/Pine Valley area, 

factors that could impact human health range from automobile accidents, extreme weather such 

as thunderstorms with lightning, wildfires, high temperatures, and physical security on the site, 

as well as minimizing the chance that non-site workers could venture on the project site and be 

harmed. However, the general area surrounding the project sites consists of highway ROW and 

national forest. No residences or parks are located within 2 miles of either checkpoints.

3.14.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.14.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, operation of the checkpoint would continue without the 

proposed improvements. Consequently, risks to the health and safety of USBP agents and the 

general public would continue at the same rate. 
3-33 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

3.14.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 

The improvements proposed under this alternative would provide a much safer and more secure 

environment for the USBP agents operating the checkpoints. Approach lanes would be widened 

to allow sufficient space for USBP agents to conduct primary inspections and to allow for the 

free flow of public traffic during times when the checkpoints are closed. Traffic delays would 

likely occur at the same level as is currently experienced; however, some improvements could be 

realized given that the USBP agents could operate in a more efficient space. Lighting would be 

improved to further enhance security and detection capabilities. The canopy over the checkpoint 

would provide shade for USBP agents on extremely hot days, as well as shelter during inclement 

weather. In addition, during times when the checkpoints are closed, risks to the general public 

would be reduced by removal/relocation of hardened structures from the driving lanes. 

3.14.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 

Impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the Proposed Action Alternative.

However, the shade canopy would be installed over the entire I-8 ROW, which would not reduce 

risks to the driving public as much as the Proposed Action Alternative. 

3.15 SUSTAINABILITY AND GREENING 

3.15.1 Affected Environment 

In accordance with EO 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation 

Management (72 FR 3919), CBP would incorporate practices in an environmentally, 

economically, and fiscally sound, integrated, continuously improving, efficient, and sustainable 

manner in support of its mission. CBP implements practices throughout the agency to 

1) improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse emissions, 2) implement renewable energy 

projects, 3) reduce water consumption, 4) incorporate sustainable environmental practices such 

as recycling and the purchase of recycled-content products, and 5) reduce the quantity of toxic 

and hazardous materials used and disposed of by the agency. DHS will also reduce total 

consumption of petroleum products as set forth in the EO and use environmentally sound 

practices with respect to the purchase and disposition of electronic equipment. 

3.15.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.15.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the improvements would not be installed and the USBP agents 

would continue to use the existing checkpoints under normal operating procedures. 

3.15.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative

The new improvements would be designed to qualify for Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design Silver certification by the U.S. Green Building Council. These design 

criteria require pollution prevention of construction activities, use of low emission and fuelefficient vehicles or use of alternative fuels, reduction of light pollution and the heat island effect 

(thermal gradient differences between developed and undeveloped areas), use of water-efficient 

landscaping, reduced generation of wastewater and reduction of demand on drinking water, 

optimization of energy use, management of refrigerants, storage and collection of recyclables, 

construction waste management, and other measures to ensure sustainable growth. 
3-34 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

3.15.2.3 Alternative 3: No Lane Expansion at I-8 

Impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the Proposed Action Alternative. 
SECTION 4.0

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
4-1 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

This section of the EA addresses the potential cumulative impacts associated with the 

implementation of the Proposed Action and other projects/programs that are planned for the 

region. The following paragraphs present a general discussion regarding cumulative effects that 

would be expected irrespective of the alternative selected. 

CEQ defines cumulative impacts as the incremental impact of multiple present and future actions 

with individually minor but collectively significant effects. Cumulative impacts can be concisely 

defined as the total effect of multiple land uses and developments, including their 

interrelationships, on the environment. 

With continued funding and implementation of CBP’s environmental conservation measures, 

including environmental education and training of its agents, use of biological and 

archaeological monitors, wildlife water systems, and restoration activities, adverse impacts of 

future and ongoing projects will be prevented or minimized. However, recent, ongoing, and 

reasonably foreseeable proposed projects will result in cumulative impacts. General descriptions 

of these types of activities are discussed in the following paragraphs. 

Past Actions. Past actions are those within the cumulative effects analysis areas that have 

occurred prior to the development of this EA. The effects of these past actions are generally 

described throughout the previous sections. For example, the establishment of the existing 

checkpoints has contributed to the existing environmental conditions of the area. Past actions 

considered in the cumulative effects analysis include the following: 

x CBP recently constructed a new Campo Border Patrol Station near Kitchen Creek in east 

San Diego County. The station footprint affected approximately 25 acres, including a 

helipad and buffer zone. Construction was completed in May 2008. 

x CBP recently completed additional border fencing throughout San Diego County as part 

of CBP’s Primary Fence (PF) program. These projects involved construction of roads 

adjacent to the fence to facilitate construction and future maintenance. The PF 225 

projects resulted in approximately 292 acres, consisting primarily of coastal sage scrub 

communities being converted to border infrastructure. Approximately 14.6 miles of the 

16.8-mile planned project were completed. 

x The 14-mile border infrastructure system, which includes secondary and tertiary fences, 

patrol and maintenance roads, lights, and integrated surveillance and intelligence system 

resources, starts at the Pacific Ocean and extends eastward for 14 miles. Approximately 

12 miles of the 14-mile project have been completed. When completed, the infrastructure 

system will impact approximately 297 acres consisting of disturbed/developed lands, 

coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub, and grasslands. 

x CBP/USBP recently completed the expansion and improvement of the Highway 94 

Checkpoint, near Dulzura, California, within the Brown Field Station’s Area of 

Responsibility. One 1.5-acre parcel of land on the eastern side of the Highway 94 

checkpoint was developed as parking areas. Other modular buildings, lights, and a 

portable car wash were added as part of the improvements. Restoration activities to 
4-2 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

remove exotic plant species along Dulzura Creek are currently being implemented as 

mitigation for the loss of the 1.5 acres.

Present Actions. Present actions include current or funded construction projects, USBP or other 

agency actions in close proximity to the checkpoints, and current resource management 

programs and land use activities within the cumulative effects analysis areas. Present actions 

considered include: 

x Ongoing maintenance of approximately 104 miles of required roads throughout the 

USBP Brown Field, El Cajon, and Campo stations’ areas of responsibility. The roads 

adjacent to or nearest the project area are the border fence roads near Campo, 

approximately 15 miles to the south of I-8. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions consist of 

activities that have been approved and can be evaluated with respect to their effects. CBP 

currently has no plans within the vicinity of the checkpoints for any new projects. However, 

projects are currently being planned by other Federal entities, which could affect areas in use by 

CBP. The following is a list of projects that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is 

conducting or has completed within the United States/Mexico border region: 

x The BLM is proposing to prepare an amendment to the South Coast Range Management 

Plan for BLM-administered public lands in the Border Mountains area of San Diego 

County. The plan amendment proposes to establish management guidelines for lands 

acquired since 1994 and designate a route of travel network. 

x San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) has proposed to construct a new 150-mile 

transmission line between the cities of El Centro and San Diego. The stated purpose of 

this project is to achieve greater reliability of renewable energy sources within San Diego 

from Imperial County, reduce energy costs, and improve the reliability of electrical 

services within San Diego. SDG&E has submitted an application with the California 

Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to construct the Sunrise Powerlink Project.

Currently, a joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report is being 

developed between BLM and the CPUC. 

A summary of the anticipated cumulative impacts is presented in the following sections. These 

discussions are given for each of the resources described previously. 

4.1 LAND USE 

This project is consistent with the authorized land use and, when considered with other potential 

alterations of land use, would not be expected to have a major cumulative adverse impact. The 

permanent alteration of less than 0.14 acre of highway ROW as a result of this project, when 

combined with other public and private land alterations near the checkpoints, would be 

considered to have a negligible cumulative impact on land use in the region. 
4-3 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

4.2 SOILS 

The proposed improvements and other USBP actions have not reduced prime farmland soils or 

agricultural production. Pre- and post-construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

(SWPPP) measures will be implemented to control soil erosion, particularly for the Highway 80 

checkpoint. No inappropriate soil types are located at the project sites that would present a 

safety risk for the types of improvements planned. The permanent impact on 0.14 acre, when 

combined with past and proposed projects in the region, would constitute a negligible cumulative 

adverse impact. 

4.3 VEGETATION 

Removal of 0.14 acre of locally and regionally common plant communities would not have 

major cumulative impacts on vegetation communities because of the vast amounts of similar 

vegetation communities surrounding the project sites and the current disturbance of the 

vegetation communities at the checkpoints. The long-term viability of species and communities 

in the project region would not be threatened. The loss of 0.14 acre, when combined with other 

ground-disturbing or development projects in the region, would have negligible cumulative 

impacts on vegetation communities. 

4.4 WILDLIFE 

The loss of 0.14 acre of disturbed wildlife habitat, when combined with other ground-disturbing 

or development projects in the project region, would have negligible cumulative impacts on the 

region’s biological resources. This additional loss of habitat would not cumulatively affect the 

long-term viability and fecundity of the general wildlife population. CBP has also committed to 

restricting the initial site preparation to the period between September 1 and March 1 and to have 

an on-site biological monitor during this time, in an attempt to further reduce or avoid potential 

impacts on migratory birds, protected species, and the general wildlife populations.

4.5 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

CBP has maintained close coordination with USFWS regarding the Quino checkerspot butterfly 

and other protected species throughout the planning of all its projects. USFWS has provided 

valuable guidance to CBP regarding these species. Through the use of BMPs developed in 

coordination with USFWS, the potential impacts as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative, 

as well as other past, present, and future actions, would ensure that major cumulative impacts on 

protected species do not occur. The conservation measures proposed herein, as described in 

Section 5.3, would offset any potential effects on the Quino checkerspot butterfly, least Bell’s 

vireo, and southwestern willow flycatcher, so that no cumulative effect on these species would 

occur. In addition, CBP is currently providing funding to the Department of the Interior to 

purchase conservation habitat to compensate for potential impacts on listed species, including the 

Quino checkerspot butterfly. This effort minimizes cumulative effects on listed species. 
4-4 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

4.6 SURFACE WATERS AND WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES 

Construction and maintenance of proposed improvements would not impact surface water 

resources, wetlands, or waters of the United States. The implementation of BMPs would reduce 

erosion and sedimentation during construction to negligible levels and would eliminate postconstruction erosion and sedimentation from the site. The same measures would be implemented 

for other construction projects; therefore, cumulative impacts would be considered negligible. 

4.7 AIR QUALITY 

The emissions generated during and after the construction of the improvements would be shortterm and minor. Replacement of the generator lights with permanent lights would have longterm minor cumulative benefits on the region’s airshed. These adverse and beneficial impacts 

are considered minor, even when combined with the other proposed developments in the border 

region.

4.8 NOISE 

Most of the noise generated by the Proposed Action Alternative would occur during construction 

and thus would not contribute to cumulative impacts on ambient noise levels. Potential sources 

of noise from other projects are not enough (temporally or spatially) to increase ambient noise 

levels at the project sites. Replacement of the generator lights with permanent lights would have 

long-term minor cumulative benefits on the ambient noise levels at the checkpoints, particularly 

the Highway 80 checkpoint.

4.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The Proposed Action Alternative would have no effect on historic properties, as none were 

identified within the construction footprint or the visual APE. Therefore, this action, when 

combined with other existing and proposed projects in the region, would not contribute to 

cumulative impacts on cultural resources. 

4.10 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

There would be no major impacts on visual resources from implementing the Proposed Action 

Alternative, due in part to the existing checkpoints and the previous highway construction. The 

installation of metal halide luminaries on light standards would make the checkpoints more 

visible from further distances. However, the light standards would replace existing generator 

lights and thus the illumination and light trespass would not be a substantial increase to the 

existing conditions. Therefore, construction and maintenance of the proposed improvements, 

when considered with existing and proposed developments in the surrounding area, would result 

in minor cumulative impacts on the visual quality of the region.
4-5 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

4.11 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Only minor increases in the use of hazardous substances (e.g., POL) would occur as a result of 

the construction and maintenance of proposed improvements. However, elimination of the 

portable light generators would reduce the amount of POV used and stored on-site and thus 

reduce potential for spills. 

4.12 SOCIOECONOMIC 

Construction of the proposed improvements would have temporary cumulative beneficial 

impacts on the region’s economy due to temporary employment and sales taxes generated 

through the purchase of construction-related items such as fuel and food. When combined with 

the other currently proposed or ongoing projects within the region, the Proposed Action 

Alternative is considered to have minor beneficial cumulative impacts.

4.13 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY 

No health or safety risks would be created by the Proposed Action Alternative. In fact, the 

improvements are intended to reduce safety risks to USBP agents and the public, especially 

when the checkpoints are not in operation. When combined with other ongoing and proposed 

projects in the region, the Proposed Action Alternative would have a negligible cumulative 

effect.
SECTION 5.0

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
5-1 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

5.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

This chapter describes the BMPs that will be implemented as part of the Proposed Action 

Alternative to reduce or eliminate impacts from the proposed improvements. Due to the limited 

nature of the Proposed Action Alternative, construction impacts are expected to be slight; 

therefore, mitigation measures are only described for those resources with potential for impacts. 

5.1 WATER RESOURCES 

Proper maintenance of construction equipment and BMPs implemented during construction 

activities will minimize the possibility of accidental POL spills that could affect surface and 

groundwater quality. A SWPPP is not necessary due to the project area being less than 1 acre in 

size. However, a Water Pollution Control Plan will be prepared pursuant to the June 2011 

Caltrans SWPPP and Water Pollution Control Plan Preparation Manual. A Spill Prevention 

Control and Countermeasures Plan will be maintained to ensure that all are aware of its 

implementation requirements in the event of a spill. Proper BMPs, such as drip pans and 

absorbent mats under idle vehicles, as well as the use of silt fencing, straw bales, and 

construction during the dry season, will be implemented to prevent runoff (i.e., sediment flow) 

into Cottonwood Creek. 

5.2 AIR QUALITY 

In order to minimize the amount of project-related dust emissions, the following management 

practices shall be implemented during project construction: (1) minimization of land 

disturbance; and (2) the use of water trucks to saturate exposed areas and control emissions of 

fugitive dust caused by hauling activities and vehicular travel on unpaved road surfaces. In 

addition, all construction equipment shall be maintained and operated in a manner that produces 

the least amount of emissions and maintains the lowest possible noise levels. Standard noise 

attenuation equipment, such as mufflers, must be used on all construction equipment, and 

vehicles and must be maintained in good operating condition, free from leaks. 

5.3 PROTECTED SPECIES 

Although CBP made the determination of no effect on southwestern willow flycatcher and least 

Bell’s vireo, construction activities at the Highway 80 checkpoint will be scheduled outside the 

birds’ breeding/nesting season (i.e., construction would occur between September 1 and March 

1). This would ensure no effect, should either species occupy the Cottonwood Creek corridor in 

the future. No nighttime construction will occur. Lighting will be shielded and pointed in a 

direction to prevent or substantially reduce trespass into the Cottonwood Creek riparian area.

CBP has requested concurrence from USFWS regarding its determinations that the proposed 

improvements would not likely adversely affect the Quino checkerspot butterfly and would have 

no effect on the least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher (Appendix B). CBP has 

committed to providing a biological monitor during all clearing and grubbing activities to ensure 

that there are no impacts on the Quino checkerspot butterfly. If the presence of this species is 

noted during the clearing and grubbing activities, the on-site monitor will immediately contact 
5-2 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

the on-site construction manager, who will have the authority to halt all construction actions until 

an agreement with USFWS can be reached regarding potential conservation measures to offset 

the potential impacts. The presence of an on-site biological monitor during the initial site 

preparation (i.e., clearing, grubbing, and grading) would also help to reduce or avoid impacts on 

other wildlife species, including migratory birds. If the oaks are removed, they would be 

replaced depending on their diameter at breast height (DBH) at the following ratios and would be 

monitored for 7 years: oaks between 5 and 12 inches DBH would be replaced at 3:1; oaks 

between 12 and 24 inches DBH would be replaced at 4:1; and oaks greater than 24 inches DBH 

would be replaced at 5:1." 

5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Consultation with the California SHPO has been completed and concurrence with the 

determination that no historic properties are adversely affected has been received. Consultation, 

in accordance with the Section 106 process, is therefore complete. If, during construction, 

cultural materials are uncovered, construction will cease until a qualified archaeologist can 

examine and evaluate the nature of the cultural resource, and the California SHPO will be 

notified.

5.5 LIGHT POLLUTION 

In order to minimize the possibility of stray light affecting the night sky or Cottonwood Creek, 

both vertical and back lighting shields will be installed on each light fixture. All lights will be 

turned off when the checkpoint is not in operation and, to the greatest extent practicable, the 

lights’ angle of elevation will be below the horizon to minimize upward pointing components. 
SECTION 6.0

REFERENCES
6-1 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

6.0 REFERENCES 

American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American Birds. Seventh 

edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 829 pp. 

Brown, B.T. 1993. “Bell’s Vireo.” The Birds of North America, No. 34 (A. Poole, P. 

Stettenheim, and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2011. 

California Air Resource Board (CARB). 2010. Area Designations Maps / State and National. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Last accessed September 8, 2010. 

California Employment and Development Department, County Snapshot. 2011. 

http://www.calmis.cahwnet.gov/file/COsnaps/sandisnap.pdf. 

California Energy Commission. 2007. 2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report, CEC-100-2007-

008-CMF.

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2011. California Department of Fish and 

Game. 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1994. Water Quality Control Plan for the 

San Diego Basin. San Diego Region. San Diego, California. 320pp. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2010. Memorandum for Heads of Federal 

Departments and Agencies. Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of 

Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Nancy H. Sutley. February 18, 2010.

County of San Diego. 2004a. http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/cnty/sandiego/history.html. Last 

accessed: March 11, 2004. 

County of San Diego. 2004b. Basic Facts Internet website: http://www.co.sandiego.ca.us/cnty/sandiego/basic.html. Last accessed: March 11, 2004. 

Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands 

and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, U.S. DOI. Washington, D.C. 

DiGregoria, John. 2004. Personal conversation between J. DiGregoria (USFWS) and Chris 

Ingram, Josh McEnany, and Stefanie Greig (GSRC) on February 24, 2004. Site 

reconnaissance visit at the Old Highway 80 checkpoint. 

Dice, L.R. 1943. The Biotic Provinces of North America. University of Michigan Press, Ann 

Arbor, Michigan. 78p. 
6-2 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

Etzel, Paul. 2004. Comment letter regarding the DHS 2004 Draft EA for Permanent Lights at 

Old Highway 80 Temporary Checkpoint Station Campo, California. Submitted to Mr. 

Glenn Bixler and dated on June 22, 2004. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2007. Special Report: Highway Construction Noise: 

Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation, Appendix A Construction Equipment Noise 

Levels and Ranges. www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/highway/hcn06.htm. 

Garret, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. The Birds of Southern California: Status and Distribution.

Los Angeles Audubon Society. 408 pp. 

Holt, H. 1990. A Birder’s Guide to Southern California. American Birding Association, Inc. 

Colorado Springs, Colorado. 238p. 

Ingles, L.G. 1957. Mammals of California and its Coastal Waters. Stanford University Press, 

Stanford, California. 396p. 

Midwest Research Institute. 1996. Improvement of Specific Emission Factors (BACM Project 

No. 1) Prepared for South Coast Air Quality Management District. SCAQMD Contract 

95040, Diamond Bar, CA. March 1996. 

Muiznieks, B.D., T.E. Corman, S.J. Sferra, M.K. Sogge, and T.J. Tibbitts. 1994. Arizona 

Partners in Flight: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher survey, 1993. Arizona Game and 

Fish Department report. Phoenix, Arizona. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2011. Web Soil Survey. Last Accessed on 4 

October at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2010. San Diego County Current Land 

Use. http://www.sandag.cog.ca.us/ris/gis/metadata.html. 

San Diego State University (SDSU). 2011. SDSU Department of Astronomy Mount Laguna 

Observatory. Last Accessed on 7 October 2011 at: http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/.

Sipe, Russell. 2002. Star Cruiser #444. Observations, Issue #3, April 15, 2002.

http://www.sipe.com/starcruiser/observatory/html/observations_report03_01.html#map. 

Sogge, M.K. and T.J. Tibbitts. 1994. Distribution and status of the southwestern willow 

flycatcher along the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon--1994. Summary report. 

National Biological Service Colorado Plateau Research Station/Northern Arizona 

University and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix. 37 pp. 

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin 

Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 336p. 
6-3 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

Steinhart, P. 1990. California’s Wild Heritage Threatened and Endangered Animals in the 

Golden State. California Department of Fish and Game, California Academy of 

Sciences, Sierra Club Books. 108p. 

Sweet, S.S. 1993. Second report on the biology and status of the arroyo toad (Bufo

microscaphus californicus) on the Los Padres National Forest of southern California.

Report to United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Los Padres National 

Forest, Goleta, California. 

Townsend, Jan. 1986. Prehistoric Lifeways in the Jacumba Valley- Volume I, II, and 

Appendices. Wirth Environmental Services. Submitted to San Diego Gas and 

Electric. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego, CA 92182 

Unitt, P. 1987. Empidonax traillii extimus: An Endangered Subspecies. Western Birds

18:137162.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2005-2009 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Internet Website: http://www.census.gov. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 2007. Record of Environmental Consideration for 

the Relocation of the Old Highway Temporary Vehicle Checkpoint, San Diego Sector, 

Campo Station, San Diego County, California

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental 

Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.

Report 550/9-74-004. March 1974. 

EPA. 2001. Procedures Document for National Emission Inventory, Criteria Air Pollutants 1985-

1999. EPA-454/R-01-006. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research 

Triangle Park NC 27711.

EPA. 2005a. User’s Guide for the Final NONROAD2005 Model. EPA420-R-05-013 

December 2005. 

EPA. 2005b. Emission Facts: Average In-Use Emissions from Heavy Duty Trucks. EPA 420-

F-05-0yy, May 2005. 

EPA. 2005c. Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for GasolineFueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. EPA 420-F-05-022. 

EPA. 2010. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Internet resource: 

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. Last Accessed: 4/11/2010U. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986. Determination of Endangered Status for the 

Least Bell’s Vireo. Federal Register: May 2, 1986. 51 CFR 16482. 
6-4 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

USFWS. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered 

status for the arroyo southwestern toad. Federal Register 59(241):64589 - 64866. 

USFWS. 1995. Determination of Endangered Status for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. 

Federal Register: February 27, 1995. 60 CFR 10693 

USFWS. 1997. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered 

status for the Laguna Mountains skipper and Quino checkerspot butterfly. Federal 

Register 62(11):2313 – 2322.

USFWS. 1998. Draft Recovery Plan for the Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). Portland, 

OR. 139 pp.

USFWS. 1999. Arroyo southwestern toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus) recovery plan.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. vi + 119 pp. 

USFWS. 2001. Designation of Critical Habitat for the Arroyo Toad; Final Rule. Federal 

Register: February 7, 2001. 50 CFR 9414. 

USFWS. 2003. Recovery Plan for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino).

Portland, Oregon. x + 179 pp.

USFWS. 2011. Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC). Accessed on October 

4, 2011 at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wizard/trustResourceList!prepare.action.

United States Forest Service (USFS). 2004. United States Forest Service, Cleveland National 

Forest. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/cleveland/about/cnf-statistics.htm. 

Vezina, Meredith. 1993. Defending the Border: The Cavalry at Camp Lockett. The Journal of 

San Diego History. Volume 39, No.1-2. 

http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/93spring/border.htm. 

Wade, Sue A. 1995. Cultural Resource Survey Report Form for the Richard Cox Property, 

Jacumba, California. Cultural Resource Management. Submitted to Mr. Richard Cox. 

Unpublished Report on file at SCIC, San Diego University, San Diego, CA 92182.

Wyle Research Corporation. 1992. Noise Measurement and Assessment Methodologies. 

Arlington Virginia.
SECTION 7.0

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
7-1 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

7.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATION 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

AOU American Ornithologists Union 

APE Area of Potential Effect 

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practices 

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards 

CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency 

Caltrans California Department of Transportation 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

CO2-E CO2 equivalent 

CPUC California Public Utilities Commission 

CWA Clean Water Act 

dB Decibel 

dBA A-Weighted Decibel 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DNL Day-Night Sound Level 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act 

FR Federal Register 

FRM Federal reference method 

GHG greenhouse gases 

GSRC Gulf South Research Corporation 

Highway 80 Old Highway 80 

I-8 Interstate 8 

INA Immigration and Nationality Act 

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service 

mg/m3

 milligram per cubic meter 

MLO Mount Laguna Observatory 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide 
7-2 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

 July 2012 

NOA Notice of Availability 

NOx nitrous oxide 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

O3 Ozone 

OBP Office of Border Patrol 

Pb Lead 

PCPI Per Capita Personal Income 

PF Primary fence 

PL Public Law 

PM-10 Particulate Matter <10 micrometers 

PM-2.5 Particulate Matter <2.5 micrometers 

POL petroleum, oil, and lubricant 

ppb Parts Per Billion 

ppm Parts Per Million 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

ROI Region of Influence 

ROW Right-of-Way 

SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments 

SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric 

SDSU San Diego State University 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

TMDL total maximum daily load 

TPI Total Personal Income 

U.S. United States 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USBP United States Border Patrol 

USC United States Code 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

μg/m3

 micrograms per cubic meter
SECTION 8.0

LIST OF PREPARERS
 July 2012 

I-8/Highway 80 Checkpoints EA Final 

8-1 

8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 

The following people were primarily responsible for preparing this EA. 

Name Agency/Organization Discipline/Expertise Experience Role in Preparing EA

John Petrilla U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection 

NEPA/CBP PM and Regional 

Environmental Officer 

5 years Environmental 

Management and Review EA Review 

Mike McGregor U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection Engineering and Planning 20 years in engineering design 

and planning CBP Program Manager 

Charles McGregor USACE, Fort Worth District, 

ECSO Environmental Planning 20 years NEPA and 

environmental studies ECSO Program Manager 

Hope Pollman USACE, Fort Worth District Environmental Planning 12 years NEPA and 

environmental studies USACE Project Manager 

Chris Ingram Gulf South Research Corporation 

(GSRC) 

Ecology; Wetlands Environmental 

Planning 

33 years Natural Resources and 

NEPA studies 

GSRC Project Manager; 

DOPAA; Technical 

Review 

Dennis Peters GSRC Biology/Ecology 28 years EA/EIS studies Technical Review 

Steve Oivanki GSRC Hazardous Waste 20 years EA and Remediation Hazardous Waste and 

QA/QC Review 

Steve Kolian GSRC Environmental Science 13 years Natural Resources Noise, Air and Water 

Quality 

Josh McEnany GSRC Natural Resources 12 years Natural Resources and 

Environmental Studies 

Land Use/Biological 

Resources 

Ann Guissinger GSRC Economics 30 years socioeconomic studies Socioeconomics 

David Hart GSRC Cultural Resources 

20 years Professional 

Archaeologist/Cultural 

Resources 

Cultural Resources 

Nicole Forsyth GSRC Environmental Engineer 10 years of Environmental 

Planning and Engineering QA/QC Review 

Sharon Newman GSRC GIS/Graphics 22 years GIS/Graphics GIS/Graphics 
APPENDIX A

PROTECTED SPECIES
State of California 

The Natural Resources Agency 

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 

Biogeographic Data Branch 

California Natural Diversity Database 

STATE & FEDERALLY LISTED ENDANGERED & THREATENED ANIMALS OF CALIFORNIA

January 2011 

This is a list of animals found within California or off the coast of the State that have been classified as Endangered or Threatened by the 

California Fish & Game Commission (state list) or by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior or the U.S. Secretary of Commerce (federal list). 

The official California listing of Endangered and Threatened animals is contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, 

Section 670.5. The official federal listing of Endangered and Threatened animals is published in the Federal Register, 50 CFR 17.11. 

The California Endangered Species Act of 1970 created the categories of “Endangered” and “Rare”. The California Endangered Species

Act of 1984 created the categories of “Endangered” and “Threatened”. On January 1, 1985, all animal species designated as “Rare”

were reclassified as “Threatened”. 

Animals that are candidates for state listing and animals proposed for federal listing are also included on this list. A state candidate 

species is one that the Fish and Game commission had formally noticed as being under review by the Department for addition to the 

State list. A federal proposed species is one for which a proposed regulation has been published in the Federal Register. 

Code Designation: Totals as of January 2011 

SE = State-listed as Endangered 46 

ST = State listed as Threatened 35 

SR = State listed as Rare – old designation, all animals reclassified to Threatened on 1/1/85 0 

FE = Federally listed as Endangered (21.2% of all U.S. listed endangered animals as of 1/10/11) 88 

FT = Federally listed as Threatened (24.4% of all U.S. listed threatened animals as of 1/10/11) 40 

SCE = State candidate (Endangered) 2 

SCT = State Candidate (Threatened) 0 

SCD = State Candidate (Delisting) 1 

FPE = Federally proposed (Endangered) 1 

FPT = Federally proposed (Threatened) 1 

FPD = Federally proposed (Delisting) 0 

Total number of animals listed (includes subspecies & population segments) 157 

Total number of candidate/proposed animals for listing 4 

Number of animals State listed only 31 

Number of animals Federally listed only 71 

Number of animals listed under both State & Federal Acts 55 

Common and scientific names are shown as they appear on the state or federal lists. If the nomenclature differs for a species that is 

included on both lists, the state nomenclature is given and the federal nomenclature is shown in a footnote. Synonyms, name changes,

and other clarifying points are also footnoted. 

Critical Habitat is defined in Section 3 of the federal Endangered Species Act as specific areas, both occupied and unoccupied, that is 

essential to the conservation of a listed species and that may require special management considerations or protection. 

Recovery Plans are discussed in Section 4 of the federal Endangered Species Act. Each plan incorporates site-specific management 

actions necessary for the conservation and survival of the species. 

The “List Date” for final federal listing and final Critical Habitat designation is the date the listing or designation becomes effective, this 

is usually not the date of publication of the rule in the Federal Register; it is usually about 30 days after publication, but may be longer.

If a taxa that was previously listed or proposed for listing no longer has any listing status the entry has been grayed out. 

For taxa that have more than one status entry, the current status is in bold and underlined. 

Changes to this update of the list are denoted by * 
Endangered and Threatened Animals of California 

LISTING STATUS CRITICAL RECOVERY

 HABITAT PLAN

Effective

 List List Effective 

 State Date Federal Date Designation Date Version Date 

2 January 2011 

GASTROPODS 

 

Trinity bristle snail 

Monadenia setosa1

ST2 10-02-80 

Morro shoulderband (=banded dune) snail 

Helminthoglypta walkeriana 

 FE 1-17-95 Final 3-09-01 Final 1998 

White abalone 

 Haliotis sorenseni 

 FE 6-28-01 Not 

prudent 

6-28-01 Final 2008 

Black abalone 

Haliotis cracherodii

 FE 2-13-09 

*Proposed 9-28-10 

 

CRUSTACEANS 

Riverside fairy shrimp 

Streptocephalus woottoni 

 FE 8-03-93 Final3

Proposed

Final

5-12-05 

4-27-04 

6-29-01 

Final 1998 

Conservancy fairy shrimp 

Branchinecta conservatio 

 FE 9-19-94 Final4

Proposed

Final

Proposed

2-10-06 

12-28-04 

8-06-03 

9-24-02 

Final 2005 

Longhorn fairy shrimp 

Branchinecta longiantenna 

 FE 9-19-94 Final 4

Proposed

Final

Proposed

2-10-06 

12-28-04 

8-06-03 

9-24-02 

Final 2005 

Vernal pool fairy shrimp 

Branchinecta lynchi 

 FT 9-19-94 Final 4

Proposed

Final

Proposed

2-10-06 

12-28-04 

8-06-03 

9-24-02 

Final 2005 

San Diego fairy shrimp 

Branchinecta sandiegoensis 

 FE 2-03-97 Final 

Proposed5

Final

1-11-08 

4-22-03 

10-23-00 

Final 1998 

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp 

Lepidurus packardi 

 FE 9-19-94 Final 4

Proposed

Final

Proposed

2-10-06 

12-28-04 

8-06-03 

9-24-02 

Final 2005 

Shasta crayfish 

Pacifastacus fortis 

SE

ST

2-26-88 

10-02-80 

FE 9-30-88 Final 1998 

California freshwater shrimp 

Syncaris pacifica 

SE 10-02-80 FE 10-31-88 Final 1998 

 

INSECTS 

 

Zayante band-winged grasshopper 

Trimerotropis infantilis 

 FE 2-24-97 Final 3-09-01 Final 1998 

1 Current taxonomy is Monadenia infumata setosa. 2 On January 1, 1985, all species designated as “rare” were reclassified as “threatened”, as stipulated by the California Endangered Species Act. 3 The Federal Circuit Court vacated critical habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp on 10-30-02. The judge instructed the USFWS to begin the process of re-designating 

critical habitat for this species. New critical habitat was proposed 4-27-04 and finalized effective 5-12-05. 4 On October 28, 2004 the courts ordered the USFWS to reconsider the areas excluded from the final critical habitat designation made August 6, 2003. The December 28 

2004 proposed rule is only for lands previously excluded and does not affect the areas included in the August 6, 2003 final rule. The non-economic exclusions made to the 

August 6, 2003 final rule were confirmed effective March 8, 2005 

5 Due to court order the previously designated critical habitat was vacated and the USFWS was directed to re-proposed critical habitat. 
Endangered and Threatened Animals of California 

LISTING STATUS CRITICAL RECOVERY

 HABITAT PLAN

Effective

 List List Effective 

 State Date Federal Date Designation Date Version Date 

3 January 2011 

Mount Hermon June beetle 

Polyphylla barbata 

 FE 2-24-97 Final 1998 

Casey’s June beetle 

Dinacoma caseyi 

 FPE 7-09-09 Proposed 7-09-09 

Delta green ground beetle 

Elaphrus viridis 

 FT 8-08-80 Final 8-08-80 Final 

Final

2006 

1985 

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle 

Desmocerus californicus dimorphus 

 FT 8-08-80 Final 8-08-80 Final 1984 

Ohlone tiger beetle 

Cicindela ohlone 

 FE 10-03-01 Final 1998 

Kern primrose sphinx moth 

Euproserpinus euterpe 

 FT 4-08-80 Proposed 7-03-78 Final 1984 

Mission blue butterfly 

Icaricia icarioides missionensis6

 FE 6-01-76 Proposed 2-08-77 Final 1984 

Lotis blue butterfly 

Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis7

 FE 6-01-76 Proposed 2-08-77 Final 1985 

Palos Verdes blue butterfly 

Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis 

 FE 7-02-80 Final 7-02-80 Final 1984 

El Segundo blue butterfly 

Euphilotes battoides allyni 

 FE 6-01-76 Proposed 2-08-77 Final 1998 

Smith’s blue butterfly 

Euphilotes enoptes smithi 

 FE 6-01-76 Proposed 2-08-77 Final 1984 

San Bruno elfin butterfly 

Callophrys mossii bayensis 

 FE 6-01-76 Proposed 2-08-77 Final 1984 

Lange’s metalmark butterfly 

Apodemia mormo langei 

 FE 6-01-76 Proposed 2-08-77 Revised 1984 

Bay checkerspot butterfly 

Euphydryas editha bayensis 

 FT 10-18-87 Final 

Proposed

Final

9-25-08 

8-22-07 

5-30-01 

Final 1998 

Quino checkerspot 

Euphydras editha quino (=E.e.wrighti) 

 FE 1-16-97 Proposed8

Final 

Proposed

1-17-08 

5-15-02 

2-07-01 

Final 2003 

Carson wandering skipper 

Pseudocopaeodes enus obscurus 

 FE 8-07-02 Final 

Draft 

2007 

2005 

Laguna Mountains skipper 

Pyrgus ruralis lagunae 

 FE 1-16-97 Final 1-11-07 

Callippe silverspot butterfly 

Speyeria callippe callippe 

 FE 12-05-97 Proposed 3-28-80 

Behren’s silverspot butterfly 

Speyeria zerene behrensii 

 FE 12-05-97 Draft 2004 

Oregon silverspot butterfly9

Speyeria zerene hippolyta 

 FT 7-02-80 Final 7-02-80 Revised 2001 

Myrtle’s silverspot butterfly 

Speyeria zerene myrtleae 

 FE 6-22-92 Final 1998 

Delhi Sands flower-loving fly 

Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis 

 FE 9-23-93 Final 1997 

 

6 Current taxonomy is Plebejus icarioides missionensis 7 Current taxonomy is Plebejus idas lotis 8 Proposed rule is to revise designated Critical Habitat 

9 Current common name is Hippolyta frittilary 
Endangered and Threatened Animals of California 

LISTING STATUS CRITICAL RECOVERY

 HABITAT PLAN

Effective

 List List Effective 

 State Date Federal Date Designation Date Version Date 

4 January 2011 

FISHES 

 

Green sturgeon – southern DPS 

Acipenser medirostris 

 FT10 6-06-06 Final 

Proposed

11-09-09 

9-08-08 

Chinook salmon-Winter-run11

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 

SE 9-22-89 FE12

FE

8-29-05 

2-03-94 

Final 3-23-99 Draft 2009 

1997 

Chinook salmon-California coastal ESU13

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 

FT14

FT15

8-29-05 

11-15-99 

Final

Proposed

Rescinded

Final

1-02-06 

12-10-04 

4-30-02 

2-16-00 

Chinook salmon-Spring-run 

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 

ST16 2-05-99 FT17

FT18

8-29-05 

11-15-99 

Final

Proposed

Rescinded

Final

1-02-06 

12-10-04 

4-30-02 

2-16-00 

Draft 2009 

Coho salmon-Central California Coast ESU 

Oncorhynchus kisutch 

SE19 3-30-05 FE20

FT21

8-29-05 

12-02-96 

Final 6-04-99 Final 

(state)

2004 

Coho salmon-So. Oregon/No. Calif ESU 

 Oncorhynchus kisutch 

ST22 3-30-05 FT23

FT24

8-29-05 

6-05-97 

Final 3-17-00 Final 

(state)

2004 

Little Kern golden trout 

Oncorhynchus mykiss whitei 

 FT 4-13-78 Final 4-13-78 Exempt 

Lahontan cutthroat trout 

Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi 

FT

FE

7-16-75 

10-13-70 

 Final 1995 

Paiute cutthroat trout 

Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris 

FT

FE

7-16-75 

3-11-6725

 Revised 

Final

2004 

1985 

Steelhead-Northern California DPS26 27

Oncorhynchus mykiss 

FT28

FT

2-06-06 

8-07-00 

Final

Proposed

1-02-06 

12-10-04 

10 Includes all spawning populations south of the Eel River 11 Federal: Sacramento River winter run Chinook salmon 12 The NMFS has completed comprehensive status reviews for 27 west coast salmon & steelhead ESUs, 10 of these in California. The 29 Aug 2005 list date refers to the 

final designations made as a result of those status reviews. 

13 ESU = Evolutionarily Significant Unit 14 The NMFS has completed comprehensive status reviews for 27 west coast salmon & steelhead ESUs, 10 of these in California. The 29 Aug 2005 list date refers to the 

final designations made as a result of those status reviews.

15 Naturally spawned coastal spring & fall Chinook salmon between Redwood Creek in Humboldt County & the Russian River in Sonoma County. 16 State listing is for the Sacramento River drainage. 17 The NMFS has completed comprehensive status reviews for 27 west coast salmon & steelhead ESUs, 10 of these in California. The 29 Aug 2005 list date refers to the 

final designations made as a result of those status reviews. 

18 Federal: Central Valley Spring-Run ESU. Includes populations spawning in the Sacramento River & its tributaries. 19 The Coho south of San Francisco Bay were state listed in 1995; in February 2004 the Fish and Game Commission determined that the Coho from San Francisco to 

Punta Gorda should also be listed as Endangered. This changed was finalized by of Office of Administrative Law on March 30, 2005. 20 The NMFS has completed comprehensive status reviews for 27 west coast salmon & steelhead ESUs, 10 of these in California. The 29 Aug 2005 list date refers to the 

final designations made as a result of those status reviews. 

21 The Federal listing is limited to naturally spawning populations in streams between Punta Gorda, Humboldt County & the San Lorenzo River, Santa Cruz County. 22 The Fish and Game Commission determined that the Coho from Punta Gorda to the Oregon border should be listed as Threatened on February 25, 2004. This 

determination was finalized by the Office of Administrative Law on March 30, 2005. 

23 The NMFS has completed comprehensive status reviews for 27 west coast salmon & steelhead ESUs, 10 of these in California. The 29 Aug 2005 list date refers to the 

final designations made as a result of those status reviews.

24 The Federal listing is for populations between Cape Blanco, Oregon & Punta Gorda, California. 25 All species with a list date of 03-11-67 were listed under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of Oct 15, 1966. 
Endangered and Threatened Animals of California 

LISTING STATUS CRITICAL RECOVERY

 HABITAT PLAN

Effective

 List List Effective 

 State Date Federal Date Designation Date Version Date 

5 January 2011 

Steelhead-Central California Coast DPS29

Oncorhynchus mykiss 

FT30

FT

2-06-06 

10-17-97 

Final

Proposed

Rescinded

Final

1-02-06 

12-10-04 

4-30-02 

3-17-00 

Steelhead-South/Central Calif Coast DPS31

Oncorhynchus mykiss 

FT32

FT

2-06-06 

10-17-97 

Final

Proposed

Rescinded

Final

1-02-06 

12-10-04 

4-30-02 

3-17-00 

Steelhead-Southern California DPS33

Oncorhynchus mykiss 

FE34

FE

2-06-06 

10-17-97 

Final

Proposed

Rescinded

Final

1-02-06 

12-10-04 

4-30-02 

3-17-00 

Draft 2009 

Steelhead-Central Valley DPS35

Oncorhynchus mykiss 

FT36

FT

2-06-06 

5-18-98 

Final

Proposed

Rescinded

Final

1-02-06 

12-10-04 

4-30-02 

3-17-00 

Draft 2009 

Bull trout 

Salvelinus confluentus 

SE 10-02-80 FT 12-01-99 *Proposed 

(revised)37

Final

1-14-10 

10-26-05 

Delta smelt 

Hypomesus transpacificus 

SE

ST

1-20-10 

12-09-93 

FT 3-05-93 Final 12-19-94 Final 1996 

Longfin smelt 

Spirinchus thaleichthys

ST

SCE

4-09-10 

2-02-08 

 

Eulachon – southern DPS 

Thaleichthys pacificus 

 FT 5-17-10 *Proposed 1-05-11 

Mohave tui chub 

Gila bicolor mohavensis38

SE 6-27-71 FE 10-13-70 Final 1984 

Owens tui chub 

Gila bicolor snyderi39

SE 1-10-74 FE 8-05-85 Final 8-05-85 Final 1998 

Cowhead Lake tui chub 

Gila bicolor vaccaceps 

withdrawn 

FPE

10-11-06 

3-30-98 

26 Naturally spawned populations residing below impassable barriers in coastal basins from Redwood Creek in Humboldt County to, and including, the Gualala River in 

Mendocino County. 

27 DPS = Distinct Population Segment 28 The NMFS has completed comprehensive status reviews for 27 west coast salmon & steelhead ESUs. The 6 Feb 2006 list date refers to the final designations made as a 

result of those status reviews. There was no change in listing status for the steelhead ESUs in California.

29 Coastal basins from the Russian River, south to Soquel Creek, inclusive. Includes the San Francisco & San Pablo Bay basins, but excludes the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

River basins. 

30 The NMFS has completed comprehensive status reviews for 27 west coast salmon & steelhead ESUs. The 6 Feb 2006 list date refers to the final designations made as a 

result of those status reviews. There was no change in listing status for the steelhead ESUs in California.

31 Coastal basins from the Pajaro River south to, but not including, the Santa Maria River. 32 The NMFS has completed comprehensive status reviews for 27 west coast salmon & steelhead ESUs. The 6 Feb 2006 list date refers to the final designations made as a 

result of those status reviews. There was no change in listing status for the steelhead ESUs in California.

33 Coastal basins from the Santa Maria River (inclusive), south to the U.S.-Mexico Border. 34 The NMFS has completed comprehensive status reviews for 27 west coast salmon & steelhead ESUs. The 6 Feb 2006 list date refers to the final designations made as a 

result of those status reviews. There was no change in listing status for the steelhead ESUs in California.

35 The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. 36 The NMFS has completed comprehensive status reviews for 27 west coast salmon & steelhead ESUs. The 6 Feb 2006 list date refers to the final designations made as a 

result of those status reviews. There was no change in listing status for the steelhead ESUs in California.

37 There is no designated or proposed Critical Habitat for bull trout in California. 38 Current taxonomy: Siphateles bicolor mohavensis 39 Current taxonomy: Siphateles bicolor snyderi 
Endangered and Threatened Animals of California 

LISTING STATUS CRITICAL RECOVERY

 HABITAT PLAN

Effective

 List List Effective 

 State Date Federal Date Designation Date Version Date 

6 January 2011 

Tecopa pupfish (Extinct)

Cyprinodon nevadensis calidae 

delisted

SE

1987 

6-27-71 

delisted

FE

1-15-82 

10-13-70 

Bonytail40

Gila elegans 

SE

SR

1-10-74 

6-27-71 

FE 4-23-80 Final 3-21-94 Revised 

Revised

2002 

1990 

Sacramento splittail 

Pogonichthys macrolepidotus 

deleted41

FT

9-22-03 

3-10-99 

Colorado squawfish42

Ptychocheilus lucius 

SE 6-27-71 FE 3-11-67 Final 3-21-94 Revised 

Revised 

2002 

1991 

Lost River sucker 

Deltistes luxatus 

SE

SR

1-10-74 

6-27-67 

FE 7-18-88 Proposed 12-01-94 Final 1993 

Modoc sucker 

Catostomus microps 

SE

SR

10-02-80 

1-10-74 

FE 6-11-85 Final 6-11-85 Exempt 

Santa Ana sucker 

Catostomus santaanae 

 FT43 5-12-00 *Final 

Proposed

(revised)

Final

1-13-11 

12-09-09 

2-03-05 

Shortnose sucker 

Chasmistes brevirostris 

SE

SR

1-10-74 

6-27-71 

FE 7-18-88 Proposed 12-01-94 Final 1993 

Razorback sucker 

Xyrauchen texanus 

SE

SR

1-10-74 

6-27-71 

FE 10-23-91 Final 3-21-94 Revised 

Final

2002 

1998 

Desert pupfish 

Cyprinodon macularius 

SE 10-02-80 FE 3-31-86 Final 3-31-86 Final 1993 

Cottonball Marsh pupfish 

Cyprinodon salinus milleri 

ST 1-10-74 

Owens pupfish 

Cyprinodon radiosus 

SE 6-27-71 FE 3-11-67 Final 1998 

Thicktail chub (Extinct)

Gila crassicauda 

delisted

SE

10-02-80 

1-10-74 

Unarmored threespine stickleback 

Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni 

SE 6-27-71 FE 10-13-70 Designati

on should 

not be 

made 44

Proposed

9-17-02

11-17-80 

Final 1985 

Tidewater goby 

Eucyclogobius newberryi 

Withdrawn 

FPD45

FE

12-09-02 

6-24-99 

2-04-94 

Final

Proposed

Final

3-03-08 

11-28-06 

11-20-00 

Final 2005 

Rough sculpin 

Cottus asperrimus 

ST 1-10-74 

 

40 Federal: Bonytail chub 41 On 23 June 2000, the Federal Eastern District Court of Calif. found the final rule to be unlawful and on 22 Sept 2000 remanded the determination back to the USFWS 

for a reevaluation of the final decision. After a thorough review the USFWS removed the Sacramento splittail from the list of threatened species. 42 Current nomenclature and federal listing: Colorado pikeminnow 43 Populations in the Los Angeles, San Gabriel and Santa Ana River basins. 44 Full explanation of this situation is given in the Federal Register notice. 45 Proposal to delist refers to populations north of Orange County only. 
Endangered and Threatened Animals of California 

LISTING STATUS CRITICAL RECOVERY

 HABITAT PLAN

Effective

 List List Effective 

 State Date Federal Date Designation Date Version Date 

7 January 2011 

AMPHIBIANS 

 

California tiger salamander (central valley 

DPS) 

Ambystoma californiense 

ST4647 5-20-10 FT48 9-03-04 Final49

Proposed

50

9-22-05 

8-10-04 

California tiger salamander (Santa Barbara 

County DPS) 

Ambystoma californiense 

(ST) FE 48 9-15-00 Final51 11-24-04 

California tiger salamander (Sonoma 

County DPS) 

Ambystoma californiense 

(ST) FE 48 3-19-03 Proposed

52 8-18-09 

8-02-05 

Santa Cruz long-toed salamander 

Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum 

SE 6-27-71 FE 3-11-67 Proposed 6-22-78 Draft 1999 

Siskiyou Mountains salamander 

Plethodon stormi 

SCD

ST

9-30-05 

6-27-71 

 

Scott Bar salamander 

Plethodon asupak

ST53 6-27-71 

Techachapi slender salamander 

Batrachoseps stebbinsi 

ST 6-27-71 

Kern Canyon slender salamander 

Batrachoseps simatus 

ST 6-27-71 

Desert slender salamander 

Batrachoseps aridus54

SE 6-27-71 FE 6-04-73 Final 1982 

Shasta salamander 

Hydromantes shastae 

ST 6-27-71 

Limestone salamander 

Hydromantes brunus 

ST 6-27-71 

Black toad 

Bufo exsul55

ST 6-27-71 

Arroyo toad56

Bufo californicus57

 FE 1-17-95 Proposed

(Revised)

Final

Proposed

58

Final

10-13-09 

5-13-05 

2-14-05 

4-27-04 

3-09-01 

Final 1999 

46 The state listing refers to the entire range of the species. 47 The Office of Administrative Law approved the listing on Aug 2, 2010. The regulations become effective on Aug 19, 2010. 48 In 2004 the California tiger salamander was listed as “threatened” statewide. The Santa Barbara County and Sonoma County Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments 

(DPS), formerly listed as “endangered”, were reclassified to “threatened”. On Aug 19 2005 U.S. District court vacated the downlisting of the Sonoma and Santa Barbara 

populations from “endangered” to “threatened”. Therefore, the Sonoma & Santa Barbara populations are once again listed as “endangered” 49 Final rule published Aug 23, 2005 is for the central valley population only. 50 Critical Habitat proposal published Aug 10, 2004 is for the central valley population only. 51 Final rule published Nov 24, 2004 is for the Santa Barbara County population only. 52 Proposed rule published Aug 2, 2005 is for the Sonoma County population only. The proposed rule published Aug 18, 2009 encompasses the same geographic area as 

the Aug 2, 2005 proposal. 

53 Since this newly described species was formerly considered to be a subpopulation of Plethodon stormi, and since Plethodon stormi is listed a Threatened under the 

California Endangered Species Act (CESA), Plethodon asupak retains the designation as a Threatened species under CESA. 54 Current taxonomy: Batrachoseps major aridus. 55 Current taxonomy: Anaxyrus exsul 56 Former taxonomy: Bufo microscaphus californicus. 57 Current taxonomy: Anaxyrus californicus
Endangered and Threatened Animals of California 

LISTING STATUS CRITICAL RECOVERY

 HABITAT PLAN

Effective

 List List Effective 

 State Date Federal Date Designation Date Version Date 

8 January 2011 

California red-legged frog59

Rana aurora draytonii 

 FT 5-20-96 Final 

Proposed

60

Final

4-16-10 

9-16-08 

4-12-01 

Final 2002 

Mountain yellow-legged frog – Southern 

California DPS6162

Rana muscosa 

*SCE 

or 

SCT63

9-21-10 FE 8-01-02 Final 

Proposed

10-16-06 

9-13-05 

Mountain yellow-legged frog 

 Rana sierrae 

*SCE 

or 

SCT

9-21-10 

 

REPTILES 

 

Desert tortoise 

Gopherus agassizii 

ST 8-03-89 FT 4-02-90 Final 2-08-94 Draft 

Revised

Final

2008 

1994 

Green sea turtle 

Chelonia mydas 

FT

FE

7-28-78 

10-13-70 

Final 3-23-99 Revised 1998 

Loggerhead sea turtle – North Pacific DPS64

Caretta caretta 

 FPE 

FT

3-16-10 

7-28-78 

Proposed 3-19-80 Revised 1998 

Olive (=Pacific) Ridley sea turtle 

Lepidochelys olivacea 

 FT 7-28-78 Proposed 3-19-80 Revised 1998 

Leatherback sea turtle 

Dermochelys coriacea 

 FE 6-02-70 Proposed

(Revised)

Final

1-05-10 

3-23-99 

Revised 1998 

Barefoot banded gecko65

Coleonyx switaki 

ST 10-02-80 

Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard 

Uma inornata 

SE 10-02-80 FT 9-25-80 Final 9-25-80 Final 1985 

Blunt-nosed leopard lizard 

Gambelia silus66

SE 6-27-71 FE 3-11-67 Final 1998 

Flat-tailed horned lizard 

Phrynosoma mcallii 

Withdrawn67

FPT68

6-28-06 

11-29-93 

Island night lizard 

Xantusia riversiana 

 FT 8-11-77 Final 1984 

Southern rubber boa 

Charina bottae umbratica69

ST 6-27-71 

58 The Federal Circuit Court vacated critical habitat for the Arroyo toad on 10-30-02. The judge instructed the USFWS to begin the process of re-designating critical 

habitat for this species. New critical habitat was first proposed on 4-27-04 and proposed with revisions on 2-14-05. A new final rule became effective 5-13-05. 59 Current taxonomy: Rana draytoni 60 Proposed rule is for revised Critical Habitat boundaries 61 Federal listing refers to the distinct population segment (DPS) in the San Gabriel, San Jacinto & San Bernardino Mountains only. 62 The current common name for this species is Sierra Madre yellow-legged frog. 63 The Fish and Game Commission notice of finding states that the mountain yellow-legged frog, Rana muscosa and Rana sierrae are candidates for listing as either 

endangered or threatened species. 

64 1978 listing was for the worldwide range of the species. The Mar 16, 2010 proposed rule is for the north pacific DPS (north of the equator & south of 60 degrees north 

latitude).

65 Current nomenclature: Barefoot gecko. 66 Current taxonomy: Gambelia sila.is the scientific name and bluntnose leopard lizard is the common name 67 On June 28, 2006 the USFWS determined that the posposed listing was not warranted and the proposed rule that had been reinstated on Nov 17, 2005 was withdrawn. 68 On November 17, 2005, the U. S. District Court for the District of Arizona vacated the January 3, 2003 withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned 

lizard and reinstated the 1993 proposed rule. 

69 Current taxonomy: Charina umbratica.
Endangered and Threatened Animals of California 

LISTING STATUS CRITICAL RECOVERY

 HABITAT PLAN

Effective

 List List Effective 

 State Date Federal Date Designation Date Version Date 

9 January 2011 

 

Alameda whipsnake 

Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus 

ST 6-27-71 FT 12-05-97 Final 

Proposed

70

Vacated71

Final

11-01-06 

10-18-05

5-09-03 

10-03-00 

Draft 2003 

San Francisco garter snake 

Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia 

SE 6-27-71 FE 3-11-67 Final 1985 

Giant garter snake 

Thamnophis couchi gigas72

ST 6-27-71 FT 10-20-93 Draft 1999 

 

BIRDS 

Short-tailed albatross 

Phoebastria albatrus

 FE 8-30-00 Final 2009 

California brown pelican73 (Recovered)

Pelecanus occidentalis californicus 

delisted

 SE 

6-03-09 

6-27-71 

delisted

FE

12-17-09 

2-20-08 

10-13-70 

Final 1983 

Aleutian Canada goose (Recovered) 

Branta canadensis leucopareia74

delisted

FT

FE

3-20-01 

12-12-90 

3-11-67 

Final 1991 

California condor 

Gymnogyps californianus 

SE 6-27-71 FE 3-11-67 Final 9-22-77 Revised 1996 

Bald eagle 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

SE(rev)

 SE

10-02-80 

6-27-71 

delisted75

FT

FE(rev) 

FE

8-08-07 

7-06-99 

8-11-95 

2-14-78 

3-11-67 

 Final 1982 

Swainson’s hawk 

Buteo swainsoni 

ST 4-17-83 

American peregrine falcon (Recovered)

Falco peregrinus anatum 

 delisted

SE 

11-04-09 

6-27-71 

delisted

FE

8-25-99 

6-02-70 

Final 9-22-77 Final 1982 

Arctic peregrine falcon (Recovered)

Falco peregrinus tundrius 

delisted

FT

FE

10-05-94 

3-20-84 

6-02-70 

California black rail 

Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus 

ST 6-27-71 

California clapper rail 

Rallus longirostris obsoletus 

SE 6-27-71 FE 10-13-70 Final 1984 

Light-footed clapper rail 

Rallus longirostris levipes 

SE 6-27-71 FE 10-13-70 Revised 

Final

1985 

1979 

Yuma clapper rail 

Rallus longirostris yumanensis 

ST

SE

2-22-78 

6-27-71 

FE 3-11-67 Final 1983 

70 The proposed rule redesignates Critical Habitat that was vacated in 2003. 71 Due to legal action on 9 May 2003, the Critical Habitat designation has been completely vacated; there is currently no Critical Habitat for Alameda whipsnake. 72 Current taxonomy and Federal listing: Thamnophis gigas. 73 Federal: Brown pelican, Pelecanus occidentalis. 74 Current taxonomy: Branta hutchinsii leucopareia, and common name is now cackling goose. 75 The Post-delisting Monitoring Plan will monitor the status of the bald eagle over a 20 year period with sampling events held once every 5 years. 
Endangered and Threatened Animals of California 

LISTING STATUS CRITICAL RECOVERY

 HABITAT PLAN

Effective

 List List Effective 

 State Date Federal Date Designation Date Version Date 

10 January 2011 

Greater sandhill crane 

Grus Canadensis tabida 

ST 4-17-83 Draft 

(state)

Western snowy plover76

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus 

 FT 4-05-93 Final 

Proposed 

Final

10-31-05 

8-16-05 

12-07-9977

Final

Draft 

2007 

2001 

Mountain plover78

Charadrius montanus

 FPT 6-29-10 

California least tern 

Sterna antillarum browni79

SE 6-27-71 FE 10-13-70 Revised 

Final

1985 

1980 

Marbled murrelet 

Brachyramphus marmoratus80

SE 3-12-92 FT 9-30-92 Proposed

81

Final

7-31-08 

5-24-96 

Final 1997 

Xantus’s murrelet 

Synthliboramphus hypoleucus 

ST82 12-22-04 

Western yellow-billed cuckoo 

Coccyzus americanus occidentalis 

SE

ST

3-26-88 

6-27-71 

 

Elf owl 

Micrathene whitneyi 

SE 10-02-80 

Northern spotted owl 

Strix occidentalis caurina 

 FT 6-22-90 Final 

Proposed

Final

9-12-08 

6-17-07 

1-15-92 

Final

Draft 

2008 

2007 

Great gray owl 

Strix nebulosa 

SE 10-02-80 

Gila woodpecker 

Melanerpes uropygialis 

SE 3-17-88 

Gilded northern flicker83

Colaptes auratus chrysoides 

SE 3-17-88 

Willow flycatcher 

Empidonax traillii 

SE84 1-02-91 

Southwestern willow flycatcher 

Empidonax traillii extimus 

(SE) FE 3-29-95 Final 

Proposed 

Final85

11-18-05 

10-12-04 

7-22-97 

Final 2002 

Bank swallow 

Riparia riparia 

ST 6-11-89 Final 

(state)

1993 

Coastal California gnatcatcher 

Polioptila californica californica 

 FT 3-30-93 Final 

Proposed

86

Final

1-18-08 

4-24-03 

10-24-00 

Exempt 

 

76 Federal status applies only to the Pacific coastal population. 77 The Dec 7, 1999 designation was remanded & partially vacated by the US District Court for the District of Oregon on July 2, 2003. 78 The Jun 29, 2010 proposed rule reinstates that portion of the Dec 5, 2002 proposed rule concerning the listing of the plover as threatened. It doesn’t reinstate the 

portion of the rule regarding a special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA. 79 Current taxonomy is Sternula antillarum browni 80 Federal: Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus with a proposal (7-31-08) to change the name to Brachyramphus marmoratus. 81 Proposed rule to revise the previously designated Critical Habitat. 82 The Fish and Game Commission determined that Xantus’s murrelet should be listed as a Threatened species February 24, 2004. As part of the normal listing process, 

this decision was reviewed by the Office of Administrative Law. The listing became effective on Dec 22, 2004. 

83 Current taxonomy: Gilded flicker (Colaptes chrysoides). 84 State listing includes all subspecies. 85 On May 11, 2001 the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the previously designated Critical Habitat 86 Due to court order the previously designated critical habitat was vacated and the USFWS was directed to re-propose critical habitat. 
Endangered and Threatened Animals of California 

LISTING STATUS CRITICAL RECOVERY

 HABITAT PLAN

Effective

 List List Effective 

 State Date Federal Date Designation Date Version Date 

11 January 2011 

San Clemente loggerhead shrike 

Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi 

 FE 8-11-77 Final 1984 

Arizona Bell’s vireo 

Vireo bellii arizonae 

SE 3-17-88 

Least Bell’s vireo 

Vireo bellii pusillus 

SE 10-02-80 FE 5-02-86 Final 2-02-94 Draft 1998 

Inyo California towhee87 88

Pipilo crissalis eremophilus 

SE 10-02-80 FT 8-03-87 Final 8-03-87 Final 1998 

San Clemente sage sparrow 

Amphispiza belli clementeae 

 FT 8-11-77 Final 1984 

Belding’s savannah sparrow 

Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi 

SE 1-10-74 

Santa Barbara song sparrow (Extinct) 

Melospiza melodia graminea 

delisted

FE

10-12-83 

6-04-73 

 

MAMMALS 

 

Buena Vista Lake shrew 

Sorex ornatus relictus 

 FE89 4-05-02 Final 

Proposed

2-23-05 

8-19-04 

Final 1998 

Lesser long-nosed bat 

Leptonycteris yerbabuenae 

 FE 10-31-88 Final 1997 

Riparian brush rabbit 

Sylvilagus bachmani riparius 

SE 5-29-94 FE 3-24-00 Final 1998 

Point Arena mountain beaver 

Aplodontia rufa nigra 

 FE 12-12-91 Final 1998 

San Joaquin antelope squirrel90

Ammospermophilus nelsoni 

ST 10-02-80 

Mohave ground squirrel91

Spermophilus mohavensis 

ST 6-27-71 

Pacific pocket mouse 

Perognathus longimembris pacificus 

 FE 9-26-94 Final 1998 

Morro Bay kangaroo rat 

Dipodomys heermanni morroensis 

SE 6-27-71 FE 10-13-70 Final 8-11-77 Draft 

revision 

Final

2000 

1982 

Giant kangaroo rat 

Dipodomys ingens 

SE 10-02-80 FE 1-05-87 Final 1998 

Stephens’ kangaroo rat 

Dipodomys stephensi92

ST 6-27-71 FE 9-30-88 

San Bernardino kangaroo rat 

Dipodomys merriami parvus 

 FE93 9-24-98 Final94

Final

11-17-08 

5-23-02 

Tipton kangaroo rat 

Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides 

SE 6-11-89 FE 7-08-88 Final 1998 

Fresno kangaroo rat 

Dipodomys nitratoides exilis 

SE

SR

10-02-80 

6-27-71 

FE 3-01-85 Final 1-30-85 Final 1998 

87 Federal: Inyo California (=brown) towhee. 88 Current taxonomy is Melozone crissalis eremophilus 89 Federal: Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew 90 Current taxonomy: Nelson’s antelope squirrel 91 Current taxonomy: Xerospermophilus mohavensis 92 Federal: includes Dipodomys cascus. 93 Federal: San Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat 94 This final revised designation constitutes a reduction of approximately 25,516 acres from the 2002 designation of Critical Habitat. 
Endangered and Threatened Animals of California 

LISTING STATUS CRITICAL RECOVERY

 HABITAT PLAN

Effective

 List List Effective 

 State Date Federal Date Designation Date Version Date 

12 January 2011 

Salt-marsh harvest mouse 

Reithrodontomys raviventris 

SE 6-27-71 FE 10-13-70 Final 1984 

Amargosa vole 

Microtus californicus scirpensis 

SE 10-02-80 FE 11-15-84 Final 11-15-84 Final 1997 

Riparian woodrat 

Neotoma fuscipes riparia 

 FE95 3-24-00 Final 1998 

Sierra Nevada red fox 

Vulpes vulpes necator 

ST 10-02-80 

San Joaquin kit fox 

Vulpes macrotis mutica 

ST 6-27-71 FE 3-11-67 Final 1998 

Island fox 

Urocyon littoralis 

ST96 6-27-71 

San Miguel Island Fox 

Urocyon littoralis littoralis 

(ST) FE 4-05-04 Final97

(none) 

Proposed

98

12-09-05 

10-07-04 

Santa Rosa Island Fox 

Urocyon littoralis santarosa 

(ST) FE 4-05-04 Final 97

(none)

Proposed

98

12-09-05 

10-07-04 

Santa Cruz Island Fox 

Urocyon littoralis santacruzae 

(ST) FE 4-05-04 Final 97

(none) 

Proposed

98

12-09-05 

10-07-04 

Santa Catalina Island Fox 

Urocyon littoralis catalinae

(ST) FE 4-05-04 Final 97

(none) 

Proposed

98

12-09-05 

10-07-04 

Guadalupe fur seal 

Arctocephalus townsendi 

ST 6-27-71 FT

FE

1-15-86 

3-11-67 

 Draft 

(revised) 

2007 

Stellar (=northern) sea lion 

Eumetopias jubatus 

 FT 4-05-90 Final 3-23-99 Revised

Final

2008 

1992 

Wolverine 

Gulo gulo 

ST 6-27-71 

Southern sea otter 

Enhydra lutris nereis 

 FT 1-14-77 Revised 

Final

2003 

1981 

Pacific fisher 

Martes pennanti(pacifica) DPS

SCT

or 

SCE99

Listing 

Not

warranted 

Gray whale (Recovered)

Eschrichtius robustus 

delisted

FE

6-15-94 

6-02-70 

Sei whale 

Balaenoptera borealis 

 FE 6-02-70 

 

95 Federal: Riparian (=San Joaquin Valley) woodrat 96 State listing includes all 6 subspecies on all 6 islands. Federal listing is for only 4 subspecies on 4 islands 97 The USFWS did not find any habitat on the 4 islands occupied by the foxes that meets the definition of Critical Habitat under the Act. Therefore, the final rule does not 

designate any Critical Habitat 

98 The USFWS did not find any habitat on the 4 islands occupied by the foxes that meets the definition of Critical Habitat under the Act. Therefore, the proposal is that 

zero Critical Habitat be designated. 

99 The Fish and Game Commission notice of finding states that the Pacific fisher is a candidate for listing as either an endangered or a threatened species. At the June 23, 

2010 meeting the Commission determined that the listing was not warranted. 
Endangered and Threatened Animals of California 

LISTING STATUS CRITICAL RECOVERY

 HABITAT PLAN

Effective

 List List Effective 

 State Date Federal Date Designation Date Version Date 

13 January 2011 

Blue whale 

Balaenoptera musculus 

 FE 6-02-70 Final 1998 

Fin whale 

Balaenoptera physalus 

 FE 6-02-70 Draft 2006 

Humpback whale100

Megaptera novaeangliae 

 FE 6-02-70 Final 1991 

Right whale101

Eubalaena japonica102

 FE 6-02-70 Final 1991 

Sperm whale 

Physeter macrocephalus 

 FE 6-02-70 Draft 2006 

Killer whale (Southern resident DPS) 

Orcinus orca 

 FE103

FE

4-04-07 

2-16-06 

12-22-04 

 Final 2008 

California (=Sierra Nevada) bighorn sheep 

Ovis canadensis californiana104

SE

ST

8-27-99 

6-27-71 

FE 1-03-00 Final 

Proposed

9-04-08 

7-25-07 

Final

Draft 

2008 

2003 

Peninsular bighorn sheep DPS105

Ovis canadensis cremnobates 

ST 6-27-71 FE 3-18-98 Final 

Proposed 

(Revised)

Final

5-14-09 

10-10-07 

3-05-01 

Final 2000 

100 Also known as Hump-backed whale. 101 Also known as Black right whale. 102 The scientific name was clarified in the Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 69 April 10, 2003. 103 The killer whale was listed as endangered by the NMFS on Feb 16, 2006 and by the USFWS on Apr 4, 2007. 104 Current & Federal taxonomy: Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis sierrae) 105 Current taxonomy: the subspecies O.c. cremnobates has been synonymized with O.c. nelsoni. Peninsular bighorn sheep are now considered to be a Distinct 

Vertebrate Population Segment (DPS). 
State of California 

The Resources Agency 

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 

Resource Management and Planning Division 

Biogeographic Data Branch 

California Natural Diversity Database

STATE AND FEDERALLY LISTED 

ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND RARE PLANTS OF CALIFORNIA 

October 2011 

Designations and Subtotals for each Designation:

Designations: Subtotals: 

SE State-listed endangered 134 

ST State-listed threatened 22 

SR State-listed rare 64 

SC State candidate for listing 0 

FE Federally listed endangered 139 

FT Federally listed threatened 47 

FPE Federally proposed endangered 0 

FPT Federally proposed threatened 0 

Both State and Federally listed 125 

State listing is pursuant to §1904 (Native Plant Protection Act of 1977) and §2074.2 and §2075.5 (California 

Endangered Species Act of 1984) of the Fish and Game Code, relating to listing of Endangered, Threatened 

and Rare species of plants and animals. Federal listing is pursuant with the Federal Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended. For information regarding plant conservation, contact the Habitat Conservation 

Planning Branch, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, phone (916) 653-9767, or the nearest 

Department of Fish and Game office. For information on this list, contact CNDDB’s Information Services 

at (916) 324-3812. Scientific and common names for State-listed plants are listed in Title 14, §670.2. 

Scientific or common names in parentheses are the most scientifically accepted nomenclature but have yet to 

be officially adopted into the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1, §670.2. 

State Designated Plants Classification

State List Date Federal List Date

Acanthomintha duttonii

San Mateo thorn-mint 

SE Jul 1979 FE Sep 18,1985 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia San Diego thorn-mint 

SE Jan 1982 FT Oct 13,1998 

Agrostis blasdalei var. marinensis (=Agrostis blasdalei)

Marin bent grass 

Delisted

April 2008. 

Allium munzii

Munz's onion 

ST Jan 1990 FE Oct 13,1998 

Allium yosemitense Yosemite onion SR Jul 1982 
2

State Designated Plants Classification

State List Date Federal List Date

Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis

Sonoma alopecurus 

FE Oct 22,1997 

Ambrosia pumila San Diego ambrosia 

FE July 2, 2002 

Amsinckia grandiflora large-flowered fiddleneck

SE Apr 1982 FE May 08,1985 

Arabis hoffmannii Hoffmann's rock cress 

FE Jul 31,1997 

Arabis macdonaldiana

McDonald's rock cress 

SE Jul 1979 FE Sep 28,1978 

Arctostaphylos bakeri (=A. b. ssp. bakeri and A. b. ssp. sublaevis)

Baker's manzanita 

SR Sep 1979 

Arctostaphylos confertiflora Santa Rosa Island manzanita 

FE Jul 31,1997 

Arctostaphylos densiflora Vine Hill manzanita 

SE Aug 1981 

Arctostaphylos edmundsii var. parvifolia Hanging Gardens manzanita 

Delisted

April 2008 

Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia Del Mar manzanita FE Oct 07,1996 

Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. hearstiorum

Hearst's manzanita 

SE Sep 1979 

Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. ravenii

Presidio manzanita 

SE Nov 1978 FE Oct 26,1979 

Arctostaphylos imbricata San Bruno Mountain manzanita 

SE Sep 1979 

Arctostaphylos morroensis Morro manzanita 

FT Dec 15,1994 

Arctostaphylos myrtifolia Ione manzanita 

FT May 26,1999 

Arctostaphylos pacifica Pacific manzanita 

SE Sep 1979 

Arctostaphylos pallida pallid manzanita 

SE Nov 1979 FT Apr 22,1998 

Arenaria paludicola marsh sandwort 

SE Feb 1990 FE Aug 03,1993 

Arenaria ursina

Big Bear Valley sandwort 

FT Sep 14,1998 

Astragalus agnicidus Humboldt milk-vetch 

SE Apr 1982 

Astragalus albens Cushenbury milk-vetch 

FE Aug 24,1994 
3

State Designated Plants Classification

State List Date Federal List Date

Astragalus brauntonii Braunton's milk-vetch 

FE Jan 29,1997 

Astragalus claranus (= A. clarianus)

Clara Hunt's milk-vetch 

ST Jan 1990 FE Oct 22,1997 

Astragalus jaegerianus Lane Mountain milk-vetch 

FE Oct 06,1998 

Astragalus johannis-howellii Long Valley milk-vetch 

SR Jul 1982 

Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae

Coachella Valley milk-vetch 

FE Oct 06,1998 

Astragalus lentiginosus var. piscinensis Fish Slough milk-vetch FT Oct 06,1998 

Astragalus lentiginosus var. sesquimetralis Sodaville milk-vetch SE Sep 1979 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii Peirson's milk-vetch SE Nov 1979 FT Oct 06,1998 

Astragalus monoensis (= A. monoensis var. monoensis)

Mono milk-vetch 

SR Jul 1982 

Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus

Ventura Marsh milk-vetch 

SE Apr 2000 FE May 21,2001 

Astragalus tener var. titi

coastal dunes milk-vetch 

SE Feb 1982 FE Aug 12,1998 

Astragalus traskiae Trask's milk-vetch 

SR Nov 1979 

Astragalus tricarinatus triple-ribbed milk-vetch 

FE Oct 06,1998 

Atriplex coronata var. notatior

San Jacinto Valley crownscale 

FE Oct 13,1998 

Atriplex tularensis Bakersfield smallscale 

SE Jan 1987 

Baccharis vanessae

Encinitas baccharis 

SE Jan 1987 FT Oct 07,1996 

Bensoniella oregona bensoniella

SR Jul 1982 

Berberis nevinii

Nevin's barberry 

SE Jan 1987 FE Oct 13,1998 

Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis

island barberry 

SE Nov 1979 FE Jul 31,1997 

Blennosperma bakeri Sonoma sunshine 

SE Feb 1992 FE Dec 02,1991 

Blennosperma nanum var. robustum

Point Reyes blennosperma 

SR Nov 1978 

Bloomeria humilis 

dwarf goldenstar

SR Nov 1978 

Brodiaea coronaria ssp. rosea

Indian Valley brodiaea

SE Sep 1979 
4

State Designated Plants Classification

State List Date Federal List Date

Brodiaea filifolia thread-leaved brodiaea 

SE Jan 1982 FT Oct 13,1998 

Brodiaea insignis Kaweah brodiaea 

SE Nov 1979 

Brodiaea pallida Chinese Camp brodiaea 

SE Nov 1978 FT Sep 14,1998 

Calamagrostis foliosa leafy reed grass

SR Nov 1979 

Calochortus dunnii

Dunn's mariposa lily 

SR Nov 1979 

Calochortus persistens Siskiyou mariposa lily 

SR Jul 1982 

Calochortus tiburonensis

Tiburon mariposa lily 

ST May 1987 FT Feb 03,1995 

Calyptridium pulchellum Mariposa pussypaws 

FT Sep 14,1998 

Calystegia stebbinsii Stebbins's morning-glory 

SE Aug 1981 FE Oct 18,1996 

Camissonia benitensis

San Benito evening-primrose 

FT Feb 12,1985 

Carex albida 

white sedge

SE Nov 1979 FE Oct 22,1997 

Carex tompkinsii Tompkins's sedge 

SR Nov 1979 

Carpenteria californica

tree-anemone 

ST Jan 1990 

Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta Tiburon Indian paintbrush ST Jan 1990 FE Feb 03, 1995 

Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta

succulent owl's-clover 

SE Sep 1979 FT Mar 26,1997 

Castilleja cinerea ash-gray Indian paintbrush 

FT Sep 14,1998 

Castilleja gleasonii Mt. Gleason Indian paintbrush 

SR Jul 1982 

Castilleja grisea San Clemente Island Indian paintbrush 

SE Apr 1982 FE Aug 11,1977 
5

State Designated Plants Classification

State List Date Federal List Date

Castilleja mollis soft-leaved Indian paintbrush 

FE Jul 31,1997 

Castilleja uliginosa Pitkin Marsh Indian paintbrush 

SE Nov 1978 

Caulanthus californicus California jewel-flower 

SE Jan 1987 FE Jul 19,1990 

Caulanthus stenocarpus slender-pod jewel-flower 

Delisted

April 2008 

Ceanothus ferrisae coyote ceanothus 

FE Feb 03,1995 

Ceanothus hearstiorum

Hearst's ceanothus 

SR Aug 1981 

Ceanothus maritimus

maritime ceanothus 

SR Nov 1978 

Ceanothus masonii

Mason's ceanothus

SR Nov 1978 

Ceanothus ophiochilus

Vail Lake ceanothus 

SE Jan 1994 FT Oct 13,1998 

Ceanothus roderickii

Pine Hill ceanothus 

SR Jul 1982 FE Oct 18,1996 

Cercocarpus traskiae Catalina Island mountain-mahogany 

SE Apr 1982 FE Aug 08,1997 

Chamaesyce hooveri Hoover's spurge 

FT Mar 26,1997 

Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum

1

purple amole 

FT Mar 20,2000 

Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum2

Camatta Canyon amole 

SR Nov 1978 FT Mar 20,2000 

Chorizanthe howellii

Howell's spineflower 

ST Jan 1987 FE Jun 22,1992 

Chorizanthe orcuttiana

Orcutt's spineflower 

SE Nov 1979 FE Oct 07,1996 

1 The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listed the entire species, Chlorogalum purpureum.

2

 The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listed the entire species, Chlorogalum purpureum.
6

State Designated Plants Classification

State List Date Federal List Date

Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina San Fernando Valley spineflower SE Aug 2001 

Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana Ben Lomond spineflower FE Feb 04,1994 

Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens Monterey spineflower FT Feb 04,1994 

Chorizanthe robusta (includes vars. hartwegii and robusta)

robust spineflower 

FE Feb 04,1994 

Chorizanthe valida 

Sonoma spineflower 

SE Jan 1990 FE Jun 22,1992 

Cirsium ciliolatum

Ashland thistle

SE Sep 1982 

Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale fountain thistle SE Jul 1979 FE Feb 03,1995 

Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense Chorro Creek bog thistle SE Jun 1993 FE Dec 15,1994 

Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum Suisun thistle FE Nov 20,1997 

Cirsium loncholepis La Graciosa thistle ST Feb 1990 FE Mar 20,2000 

Cirsium rhothophilum surf thistle 

ST Feb 1990 

Clarkia franciscana Presidio clarkia 

SE Nov 1978 FE Feb 03,1995 

Clarkia imbricata

Vine Hill clarkia

SE Nov 1978 FE Oct 22,1997 

Clarkia lingulata Merced clarkia

SE Jan 1989 

Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata

Pismo clarkia 

SR Nov 1978 FE Dec 15,1994 

Clarkia springvillensis Springville clarkia

SE Sep 1979 FT Sep 14,1998 

Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus

salt marsh bird's-beak 

SE Jul 1979 FE Sep 28,1978 

Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis

soft bird's-beak 

SR Jul 1979 FE Nov 20,1997 

Cordylanthus nidularius Mt. Diablo bird's-beak 

SR Nov 1978 

Cordylanthus palmatus palmate-bracted bird's-beak 

SE May 1984 FE Jul 01, 1986 

Cordylanthus rigidus ssp. littoralis

seaside bird's-beak 

SE Jan 1982 
7

State Designated Plants Classification

State List Date Federal List Date

Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillaris Pennell's bird's-beak SR Nov 1978 FE Feb 03,1995 

Croton wigginsii Wiggins’ croton 

SR Jan 1982 

Cryptantha roosiorum bristlecone cryptantha 

SR Jul 1982 

Cupressus abramsiana (= Callitropsis abramsiana)

Santa Cruz cypress 

SE Nov 1979 FE Jan 08,1987 

Cupressus goveniana ssp. goveniana (=Callitropsis goveniana)

Gowen cypress 

FT Aug 12,1998 

Dedeckera eurekensis

July gold

SR Nov 1978 

Deinandra arida (=Hemizonia arida)

Red Rock tarplant

SR Jul 1982 

Deinandra conjugens (=Hemizonia conjugens)

 Otay tarplant

SE Nov 1979 FT Oct 13,1998 

Deinandra increscens ssp. villosa(=Hemizonia increscens ssp. villosa)

Gaviota tarplant

SE Jan 1990 FE Mar 20,2000 

Deinandra minthornii (= Hemizonia minthornii)

Santa Susana tarplant

SR Nov 1978 

Deinandra mohavensis (= Hemizonia mohavensis)

Mojave tarplant

SE Aug 1981 

Delphinium bakeri Baker's larkspur 

SE April 2007 FE Jan 26,2000 

Delphinium hesperium ssp. cuyamacae Cuyamaca larkspur SR Jul 1982 

Delphinium luteum yellow larkspur 

SR Sep 1979 FE Jan 26,2000 

Delphinium variegatum ssp. kinkiense

San Clemente Island larkspur 

SE Sep 1979 FE Aug 11,1977 

Dichanthelium lanuginosum var. thermale

Geysers dichanthelium 

SE Sep 1978 

Dieteria asteroides var. lagunensis

 Mount Laguna aster (= Machaeranthera asteroides var. lagunensis)

SR Sep 1979 

Dithyrea maritima beach spectaclepod 

ST Feb 1990 

Dodecahema leptoceras slender-horned spineflower 

SE Jan 1982 FE Sep 28,1987 

Downingia concolor var. brevior

Cuyamaca Lake downingia 

SE Feb 1982 
8

State Designated Plants Classification

State List Date Federal List Date

Dudleya abramsii ssp. parva (=D. parva)

Conejo dudleya

FT Jan 29,1997 

Dudleya brevifolia (=D. blochmaniae ssp. brevifolia)

short-leaved dudleya

SE Jan 1982 

Dudleya cymosa ssp. agourensis 3

Santa Monica Mtns. dudleya 

FT Jan 29, 1997 

Dudleya cymosa ssp. marcescens

marcescent dudleya 

SR Nov 1978 FT Jan 29,1997 

Dudleya cymosa ssp. ovatifolia Santa Monica Mountains dudleya FT Jan 29,1997 

Dudleya nesiotica Santa Cruz Island dudleya 

SR Nov 1979 FT Jul 31,1997 

Dudleya setchellii Santa Clara Valley dudleya 

FE Feb 03,1995 

Dudleya stolonifera Laguna Beach dudleya 

ST Jan 1987 FT Oct 13,1998 

Dudleya traskiae Santa Barbara Island dudleya 

SE Nov 1979 FE Apr 26,1978 

Dudleya verityi Verity's dudleya 

FT Jan 29,1997 

Enceliopsis nudicaulis var. corrugata Ash Meadows daisy FT May 20,1985 

Eremalche kernensis

Kern mallow 

FE Jul 19,1990 

Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum

Santa Ana River woollystar 

SE Jan 1987 FE Sep 28,1987 

Eriastrum hooveri

Hoover's woolly-star 

Delisted Oct 7,2003 

Eriastrum tracyi Tracy's eriastrum 

SR Jul 1982 

Erigeron parishii Parish's daisy 

FT Aug 24,1994 

Eriodictyon altissimum Indian Knob mountainbalm 

SE Jul 1979 FE Dec 15,1994 

Eriodictyon capitatum Lompoc yerba santa 

SR Sep 1979 FE Mar 20,2000 

3 The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has listed the more encompassing Dudleya cymosa ssp. ovatifolia from which ssp. agourensis

was split. 
9

State Designated Plants Classification

State List Date Federal List Date

Eriogonum alpinum Trinity buckwheat

SE Jul 1979 

Eriogonum apricum var. apricum4

Ione buckwheat

SE Aug 1981 FE May 26,1999 

Eriogonum apricum var. prostratum5

Irish Hill buckwheat

SE Jan 1987 FE May 26,1999 

Eriogonum butterworthianum Butterworth's buckwheat 

SR Nov 1979 

Eriogonum crocatum Conejo buckwheat 

SR Sep 1979 

Eriogonum giganteum var. compactum Santa Barbara Island buckwheat SR Nov 1979 

Eriogonum grande ssp. timorum (= Eriogonum grande var. timorum)

San Nicolas Island buckwheat

SE Nov 1979 

Eriogonum kelloggii Kellogg's buckwheat SE Apr 1982 

Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum

southern mountain buckwheat 

FT Sep 14,1978 

Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum

Cushenbury buckwheat 

FE Aug 24,1994 

Eriogonum thornei (= E. ericifolium var. thornei)

Thorne's buckwheat 

SE Nov 1979 

Eriogonum twisselmannii Twisselmann's buckwheat 

SR Jul 1982 

Eriophyllum congdonii Congdon's woolly sunflower 

SR Jul 1982 

Eriophyllum latilobum San Mateo woolly sunflower 

SE Jun 1992 FE Feb 03,1995 

Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii San Diego button-celery SE Jul 1979 FE Aug 03,1993 

Eryngium constancei Loch Lomond button-celery 

SE Jan 1987 FE Dec 23,1986 

Eryngium racemosum Delta button-celery 

SE Aug 1981 

Erysimum capitatum var. angustatum Contra Costa wallflower SE Nov 1978 FE Apr 26,1978 

4 The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has listed Eriogonum apricum as the species, which includes both rare varieties.

5 The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has listed Eriogonum apricum as the species, which includes both rare varieties.
10

State Designated Plants Classification

State List Date Federal List Date

Erysimum menziesii6

Menzies’ wallflower 

 SE Sep 1984 FE Jun 22,1992 

Erysimum teretifolium Santa Cruz wallflower 

SE Aug 1981 FE Feb 04,1994 

Fremontodendron decumbens

Pine Hill flannelbush 

SR Jul 1979 FE Oct 18,1996 

Fremontodendron mexicanum

Mexican flannelbush

SR Jul 1982 FE Oct 13,1998 

Fritillaria gentneri Gentner’s fritillary 

FE Dec 10,1999 

Fritillaria roderickii

Roderick's fritillary 

SE Nov 1979 

Fritillaria striata

striped adobe-lily 

ST Jan 1987 

Galium angustifolium ssp. borregoense Borrego bedstrawSR Sep 1979 

Galium buxifolium box bedstraw 

SR Nov 1979 FE Jul 31,1997 

Galium californicum ssp. sierrae

El Dorado bedstraw 

SR Nov 1979 FE Oct 18,1996 

Galium catalinense ssp. acrispum San Clemente Island bedstraw SE Apr 1982 

Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria sand gilia 

ST Jan 1987 FE Jun 22,1992 

Gilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii Hoffmann’s slender-flowered gilia 

FE Jul 31,1997 

Gratiola heterosepala Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop 

SE Nov 1978 

Grindelia fraxino-pratensis Ash Meadows gumplant FT May 20,1985 

Hazardia orcuttii

Orcutt’s hazardia 

ST Aug 2002 

Helianthemum greenei island rush-rose 

FT Jul 31,1997 

Helianthus niveus ssp. tephrodes Algodones Dunes sunflower SE Nov 1979 

Hesperolinon congestum Marin western flax 

ST Jun 1992 FT Feb 03,1995 

6 The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service separately listed all as endangered, E. menziesii ssp. eurekense, E. menziesii ssp. menziesii, and 

E. menziesii ssp. yadonii.
11

State Designated Plants Classification

State List Date Federal List Date

Hesperolinon didymocarpum Lake County western flax 

SE Aug 1981 

Holmgrenanthe petrophila (= Maurandya petrophila)

rock lady

SR Jul 1982 

Holocarpha macradenia Santa Cruz tarplant 

SE Sep 1979 FT Mar 20,2000 

Howellia aquatilis water howellia 

FT Jul 14,1994 

Ivesia callida 

Tahquitz ivesia 

SR Jul 1982 

Lasthenia burkei

Burke's goldfields 

SE Sep 1979 FE Dec 02,1991 

Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa goldfields 

FE Jun 18,1997 

Layia carnosa beach layia 

SE Jan 1990 FE Jun 22,1992 

Lembertia congdonii (=Monolopia congdonii)

San Joaquin woollythreads

FE Jul 19,1990 

Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina

San Bernardino Mountains bladderpod 

FE Aug 24,1994 

Lessingia germanorum San Francisco lessingia

SE Jan 1990 FE Jun 19,1997 

Lewisia congdonii Congdon's lewisia 

SR Jul 1982 

Lilaeopsis masonii Mason's lilaeopsis 

SR Nov 1979 

Lilium occidentale

western lily 

SE Jan 1982 FE Aug 17,1994 

Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense Pitkin Marsh lilySE Nov 1978 FE Oct 22,1997 

Limnanthes bakeri

Baker's meadowfoam 

SR Nov 1978 

Limnanthes douglasii var. sulphurea (=Limnanthes douglasii ssp. 

sulphurea)

Point Reyes meadowfoam 

SE Apr 1982 

Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica Butte County meadowfoam SE Feb 1982 FE Jun 08,1992 

Limnanthes gracilis var. parishii (=Limnanthes gracilis ssp. parishii)

Parish’s meadowfoam 

SE Jul 1979 

Limnanthes vinculans

Sebastopol meadowfoam 

SE Nov 1979 FE Dec 02,1991 
12

State Designated Plants Classification

State List Date Federal List Date

Lithophragma maximum San Clemente Island woodland star 

SE Feb 1982 FE Aug 08,1997 

Lotus argophyllus var. adsurgens San Clemente Island bird's-foot trefoil SE Nov 1979 

Lotus argophyllus var. niveus

Santa Cruz Island bird's-foot trefoil 

SE Aug 1981 

Lotus dendroideus var. traskiae

San Clemente Island lotus 

SE Apr 1982 FE Aug 11,1977 

Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus Mariposa lupine ST Jan 1990 

Lupinus milo-bakeri Milo Baker's lupine 

ST Jan 1987 

Lupinus nipomensis Nipomo Mesa lupine 

SE Jan 1987 FE Mar 20,2000 

Lupinus padre-crowleyi Father Crowley's lupine 

SR Aug 1981 

Lupinus tidestromii var. tidestromii (=L. tidestromii)

Tidestrom's lupine 

SE Jan 1987 FE Jun 22,1992 

Machaeranthera lagunensis (see Dieteria asteroides var. lagunensis)

Mahonia sonnei (= Berberis sonnei)

Truckee barberry 

Delisted

April 2008 

Delisted Oct 1,2003 

Malacothamnus clementinus

San Clemente Island bush mallow 

SE Feb 1982 FE Aug 11,1977 

Malacothamnus fasciculatus var. nesioticus

Santa Cruz Island bush mallow 

SE Nov 1979 FE Jul 31,1997 

Malacothrix indecora

Santa Cruz Island malacothrix 

FE Jul 31,1997 

Malacothrix squalida island malacothrix 

FE Jul 31,1997 

Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (=M. viminea)

willowy monardella 

SE Nov 1979 FE Oct 13,1998 

Nasturtium gambellii (= Rorippa gambellii)

Gambel's water cress 

ST Feb 1990 FE Aug 03,1993 

Navarretia fossalis spreading navarretia 

FT Oct 13,1998 

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora few-flowered navarretiaST Jan 1990 FE Jun 18,1997 
13

State Designated Plants Classification

State List Date Federal List Date

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha many-flowered navarretia SE Nov 1979 FE Jun 18,1997 

Nemacladus twisselmannii

Twisselmann's nemacladus 

SR Jul 1982 

Neostapfia colusana Colusa grass 

SE Nov 1979 FT Mar 26,1997 

Nitrophila mohavensis Amargosa nitrophila 

SE Nov 1979 FE May 20,1985 

Nolina interrata

Dehesa nolina 

SE Nov 1979 

Oenothera californica ssp. eurekensis

Eureka Dunes evening-primrose 

SR Nov 1978 FE Apr 26,1978 

Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii

Antioch Dunes evening-primrose 

SE Nov 1978 FE Apr 26,1978 

Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei

Bakersfield cactus

SE Jan 1990 FE Jul 19,1990 

Orcuttia californica California Orcutt grass

SE Sep 1979 FE Aug 03,1993 

Orcuttia inaequalis San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass 

SE Sep 1979 FT Mar 26,1997 

Orcuttia pilosa hairy Orcutt grass 

SE Sep 1979 FE Mar 26,1997 

Orcuttia tenuis

slender Orcutt grass 

SE Sep 1979 FT Mar 26,1997 

Orcuttia viscida

Sacramento Orcutt grass 

SE Jul 1979 FE Mar 26,1997 

Ornithostaphylos oppositifolia

 Baja California birdbush 

SE Apr 2001 

Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana (=Acanthoscyphus parishii 

var. goodmaniana

Cushenbury oxytheca 

FE Aug 24,1994 

Packera ganderi (= Senecio ganderi)

 Gander’s ragwort

SR Jul 1982 

Packera layneae (= Senecio layneae)

Layne's ragwort 

SR Nov 1979 FT Oct 18,1996 

Parvisedum leiocarpum (=Sedella leiocarpa)

Lake County stonecrop

SE Jan 1990 FE Jun 18,1997 

Pedicularis dudleyi Dudley's lousewort 

SR Sep 1979 

Pentachaeta bellidiflora white-rayed pentachaeta 

SE Jun 1992 FE Feb 03,1995 

Pentachaeta lyonii Lyon's pentachaeta 

SE Jan 1990 FE Jan 29,1997 

Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis

northern Channel Islands phacelia 

FE Jul 31,1997 
14

State Designated Plants Classification

State List Date Federal List Date

Phlox hirsuta

Yreka phlox 

SE Jan 1987 FE Feb 3,2000 

Piperia yadonii Yadon's rein orchid 

FE Aug 12,1998 

Plagiobothrys diffusus San Francisco popcorn-flower 

SE Sep 1979 

Plagiobothrys strictus Calistoga popcorn-flower 

ST Jan 1990 FE Oct 22,1997 

Pleuropogon hooverianus North Coast semaphore grass 

ST Dec 2002 

Poa atropurpurea San Bernardino blue grass 

FE Sep 14,1998 

Poa napensis Napa blue grass

SE Jul 1979 FE Oct 22,1997 

Pogogyne abramsii San Diego mesa mint 

SE Jul 1979 FE Sep 28,1978 

Pogogyne clareana Santa Lucia mint 

SE Nov 1979 

Pogogyne nudiuscula Otay Mesa mint 

SE Jan 1987 FE Aug 03,1993 

Polygonum hickmanii Scott’s Valley polygonum 

SE May 2005 FE Apr 8,2003 

Potentilla hickmanii

Hickman's cinquefoil 

SE Sep 1979 FE Aug 12,1998 

Pseudobahia bahiifolia Hartweg's golden sunburst 

SE Aug 1981 FE Feb 06,1997 

Pseudobahia peirsonii San Joaquin adobe sunburst 

SE Jan 1987 FT Feb 06,1997 

Rorippa subumbellata Tahoe yellow cress 

SE Apr 1982 

Rosa minutifolia small-leaved rose 

SE Oct 1989 

Sanicula maritima

adobe sanicle 

SR Aug 1981 

Sanicula saxatilis

rock sanicle 

SR Jul 1982 

Sedella leiocarpa (= Parvisedum leiocarpum)

Lake County stonecrop

SE Jan 1990 FE Jun 18,1997 

Senecio ganderi (see Packera ganderi)

Senecio layneae (=Packera layneae)

Sibara filifolia Santa Cruz Island rock cress 

FE Aug 08,1997 

Sidalcea covillei

Owens Valley checkerbloom 

SE Jul 1979 
15

State Designated Plants Classification

State List Date Federal List Date

Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. anomala

Cuesta Pass checkerbloom 

SR Nov 1979 

Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. parishii Parish's checkerbloom SR Nov 1979 Removed as 

FC, 2006 

Fed.

Register

Sidalcea keckii

Keck’s checker-mallow 

FE Feb 16,2000 

Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida

Kenwood Marsh checkerbloom 

SE Jan 1982 FE Oct 22,1997 

Sidalcea pedata bird-foot checkerbloom 

SE Jan 1982 FE Aug 31,1984 

Sidalcea stipularis Scadden Flat checkerbloom 

SE Jan 1982 

Silene campanulata ssp. campanulata Red Mountain catchfly SE Apr 1982 

Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus

Metcalf Canyon jewel-flower 

FE Feb 03,1995 

Streptanthus niger Tiburon jewel-flower 

SE Feb 1990 FE Feb 03,1995 

Suaeda californica California seablite 

FE Dec 15,1994 

Swallenia alexandrae

Eureka Valley dune grass 

SR Aug 1981 FE Apr 26,1978 

Taraxacum californicum California dandelion 

FE Sep 14,1998 

Thelypodium stenopetalum slender-petaled thelypodium 

SE Feb 1982 FE Aug 31,1984 

Thermopsis macrophylla var. angina (=T. macrophylla)

Santa Ynez false lupine

SR Aug 1981 

Thlaspi californicum Kneeland Prairie penny-cress 

FE Feb 9,2000 

Thysanocarpus conchuliferus Santa Cruz Island fringepod 

FE Jul 31,1997 

Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum Hidden Lake bluecurls FT Sep 14,1998 

Trifolium amoenum showy Indian clover 

FE Oct 22,1997 

Trifolium polyodon Pacific Grove clover 

SR Sep 1979 

Trifolium trichocalyx Monterey clover

SE Nov 1979 FE Aug 12,1998 

Tuctoria greenei Greene's tuctoria 

SR Sep 1979 FE Mar 26,1997 

Tuctoria mucronata

Crampton’s tuctoria 

SE Jul 1979 FE Sep 28,1978 

Verbena californica California vervain 

ST Aug 1994 FT Sep 14,1998 
16

State Designated Plants Classification

State List Date Federal List Date

Verbesina dissita

Big-leaved crownbeard 

ST Jan 1990 FT Oct 07,1996 
APPENDIX B

CORRESPONDENCE


























Figure 1: Project Location Map

July 2011

!C"/

Existing I-8 Checkpoint

Existing Old Highway 80

Checkpoint

§ ̈¦8

£¤80

!.

Project Location

· 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Miles

0 0.3 0.6 0.9

Kilometers Existing Old Highway 80 Checkpoint

"/

!C

Existing I-8 Checkpoint
Figure 2: Project Footprint for I-8 Checkpoint

July 2011

£¤80

§ ̈¦8

§ ̈¦8

!.

Project Location

·

0 60 120 180 240 300

Feet

0 30 60 90

Meters Project Footprint
Figure 3: Project Footprint for Old Highway 80 Checkpoint

July 2011

£¤80

§ ̈¦8

§ ̈¦8

!.

Project Location

·

0 60 120 180 240 300

Feet

0 30 60 90

Meters

Existing Old Highway 80 Checkpoint

Project Footprint
















231
4

5

6

7

8
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Caltrans) 

Caltrans #1. The EA and FONSI have been revised to indicate that an encroachment permit will be 

required prior to the implementation of the improvements. 

Caltrans #2. 

The EA and FONSI address the environmental concerns that would typically be addressed 

in a CEQA document, including growth inducing impacts and mitigation. This project 

does not have any unique issues that would be identified by CEQA that are not addressed 

by the NEPA process. CEQA allows for use of NEPA documents in place of CEQA 

documents. This is common practice for other Federal projects that do not have unique 

issues not addressed by the NEPA process. The California Code of Regulations (CCR), 

Title 14, Sections 15220 to 15229 allows the use of an EIS/ROD or EA/FONSI to meet the 

requirements for an EIR or Negative Declaration under CEQA. Submission through the 

ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ'ŽǀĞƌŶŽƌ͛ƐKĨĨŝĐĞŽĨWůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂŶĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ͕^ƚĂƚĞůĞĂƌŝŶŐŚŽƵƐĞŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽ

use those provisions, which CBP has done. 

Caltrans #3. CBP and USBP have coordinated with Caltrans throughout the planning stages of the 

proposed activities. 

Caltrans #4. CBP will continue to coordinate with Caltrans to identify approved barrier designs that 

will comply with Caltrans safety requirements and CBP/USBP operational needs. 

Caltrans #5. CBP has submitted the designs for the shade canopy and other proposed improvements 

at the checkpoint sites. 

Caltrans #6. CBP agrees that the utilities will be tied in under separate meter. 

Caltrans #7. CBP will continue to coordinate with Caltrans to identify and receive approval of a spike 

system that will comply with Caltrans safety requirements and meet CBP/USBP 

operational needs. 

2

3

1
3,

continued

4

5
67
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (CDFG) 

CDFG #1. CBP thanks California Department of Fish and Game/Caltrans for its review and comment 

CDFG #2. 

A biological report has been added to the appendices of the EA. Surveys were conducted 

in July and August 2011. While protocol surveys, including multi-seasonal surveys, were 

not conducted, the surveys that were conducted were sufficient to perform habitat 

assessments to determine suitability to support rare, threatened or endangered species. 

CDFG #3. 

The determination that the loss of 0.14 acre of habitat was not a major cumulative 

impact was based on several factors including the small size, the disturbed condition of 

the site, the location (i.e., existing highway ROW), and the spatial and temporal 

juxtaposition of other projects. The cumulative effects were adequately described in 

Section 4 of the EA, including quantification of CBP/USBP projects throughout San Diego 

County. Based on county and state agency websites, no proposed or planned projects 

were identified along U.S. Highway 80 or I-8; thus, there are no other projects 

anticipated that would add to the cumulative effects within the project region. After 

further review of the County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance for 

Biological Resources, CBP has confirmed the conclusion that no major cumulative 

impacts would result from the proposed action and, therefore, no mitigation is 

warranted. 

CDFG #4. 

These effects were considered and determined to be negligible or minor, primarily for 

the reasons stated in the response to CDFG #2. The EA has been revised to clearly state 

that there will be no increase in traffic (frequency or duration). The use of permanent 

lighting will reduce noise, air quality and vibration effects, as stated in the Draft EA. 

CDFG #5. CBP has committed to restrict the initial site preparation to the period between 

September 1 and March 1, which is outside the typical migratory bird breeding/nesting 

season (see FONSI page 4 and EA sections 3.6.2.2 and 5.3) 

CDFG #6. CBP has committed to having an on-site biological monitor during the initial site 

preparation (i.e., clearing, grubbing and grading) as stated in the FONSI (page 4) and 

sections 3.6.2.2 and 5.3 of the EA. 

CDFG #7. 

CBP will continue to coordinate with CDFG to identify and negotiate potential mitigation 

for coast live oaks, in the event that the three trees must be removed. However, as 

stated in the EA (page 2-5), every attempt will be made to avoid removal of these trees. 

It should also be noted that three other coast live oak trees are within the footprint; the 

design of the checkpoint was developed to avoid disturbances to these trees. 
APPENDIX C

AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS
CALCULATION SHEET-COMBUSTION EMISSIONS-CONSTRUCTION

Type of Construction Equipment Num. of 

Units HP Rated Hrs/day Days/yr Total hphrs

Water Truck 1 300 8 160 384000

Diesel Road Compactors 1 100 8 30 24000

Diesel Dump Truck 1 300 8 30 72000

Diesel Excavator 1 300 8 15 36000

Diesel Hole Trenchers 1 175 8 15 21000

Diesel Bore/Drill Rigs 0 300 8 160 0

Diesel Cement & Mortar Mixers 1 300 8 30 72000

Diesel Cranes 0 175 8 160 0

Diesel Graders 1 300 8 15 36000

Diesel Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 100 8 160 128000

Diesel Bulldozers 1 300 8 30 72000

Diesel Front-End Loaders 2 300 8 30 144000

Diesel Forklifts 1 100 8 160 128000

Diesel Generator Set 1 40 8 160 51200

Type of Construction Equipment VOC g/hphr

CO g/hphrNOx g/hphrPM-10 

g/hp-hr

PM-2.5 

g/hp-hr

SO2 g/hphr CO2 g/hp-hr

Water Truck 0.440 2.070 5.490 0.410 0.400 0.740 536.000

Diesel Road Compactors 0.370 1.480 4.900 0.340 0.330 0.740 536.200

Diesel Dump Truck 0.440 2.070 5.490 0.410 0.400 0.740 536.000

Diesel Excavator 0.340 1.300 4.600 0.320 0.310 0.740 536.300

Diesel Trenchers 0.510 2.440 5.810 0.460 0.440 0.740 535.800

Diesel Bore/Drill Rigs 0.600 2.290 7.150 0.500 0.490 0.730 529.700

Diesel Cement & Mortar Mixers 0.610 2.320 7.280 0.480 0.470 0.730 529.700

Diesel Cranes 0.440 1.300 5.720 0.340 0.330 0.730 530.200

Diesel Graders 0.350 1.360 4.730 0.330 0.320 0.740 536.300

Diesel Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1.850 8.210 7.220 1.370 1.330 0.950 691.100

Diesel Bulldozers 0.360 1.380 4.760 0.330 0.320 0.740 536.300

Diesel Front-End Loaders 0.380 1.550 5.000 0.350 0.340 0.740 536.200

Diesel Forklifts 1.980 7.760 8.560 1.390 1.350 0.950 690.800

Diesel Generator Set 1.210 3.760 5.970 0.730 0.710 0.810 587.300

Emission Factors

Assumptions for Combustible Emissions
CALCULATION SHEET-COMBUSTION EMISSIONS-CONSTRUCTION

Type of Construction Equipment VOC tons/yr CO 

tons/yr

NOx 

tons/yr

PM-10 

tons/yr

PM-2.5 

tons/yr

SO2 

tons/yr CO2 tons/yr

Water Truck 0.186 0.876 2.323 0.173 0.169 0.313 226.818

Diesel Road Paver 0.010 0.039 0.130 0.009 0.009 0.020 14.181

Diesel Dump Truck 0.035 0.164 0.436 0.033 0.032 0.059 42.528

Diesel Excavator 0.013 0.052 0.182 0.013 0.012 0.029 21.276

Diesel Hole Cleaners\Trenchers 0.012 0.056 0.134 0.011 0.010 0.017 12.399

Diesel Bore/Drill Rigs 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Diesel Cement & Mortar Mixers 0.048 0.184 0.578 0.038 0.037 0.058 42.029

Diesel Cranes 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Diesel Graders 0.014 0.054 0.188 0.013 0.013 0.029 21.276

Diesel Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.261 1.158 1.018 0.193 0.188 0.134 97.484

Diesel Bulldozers 0.029 0.109 0.378 0.026 0.025 0.059 42.552

Diesel Front-End Loaders 0.060 0.246 0.793 0.056 0.054 0.117 85.089

Diesel Aerial Lifts 0.279 1.095 1.207 0.196 0.190 0.134 97.441

Diesel Generator Set 0.068 0.212 0.337 0.041 0.040 0.046 33.137

Total Emissions 1.016 4.246 7.704 0.802 0.780 1.015 736.211

Conversion factors

Grams to tons 1.102E-06

Emission factors (EF) were generated from the NONROAD2005 model for the 2006 calendar year. The VOC EFs includes exhaust and evaporative emissions. The VOC evaporative 

components included in the NONROAD2005 model are diurnal, hotsoak, running loss, tank permeation, hose permeation, displacement, and spillage. The construction equipment age 

distribution in the NONROAD2005 model is based on the population in U.S. for the 2006 calendar year.

Emission Calculations
CALCULATION SHEET-TRANSPORTATION COMBUSION EMISSIONS-CONSTRUCTION

Pollutants Passenger Cars 

g/mile

Pick-up 

Trucks, SUVs 

g/mile

Mile/day Day/yr Number of 

cars

Number of 

trucks

Total 

Emissions 

Cars tns/yr

Total Emissions 

Trucks tns/yr Total tns/yr

VOCs 1.36 1.61 60 160 15 15 0.22 0.26 0.47 

CO 12.4 15.7 60 160 15 15 1.97 2.49 4.46 

NOx 0.95 1.22 60 160 15 15 0.15 0.19 0.34 

PM-10 0.0052 0.0065 60 160 15 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 

PM 2.5 0.0049 0.006 60 160 15 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 

CO2 369 511 60 160 15 15 58.56 81.09 139.65 

Pollutants

10,000-19,500 

lb Delivery 

Truck

33,000-60,000 

lb semi trailer 

rig

Mile/day Day/yr Number of 

trucks

Number of 

trucks

Total 

Emissions 

Cars tns/yr

Total Emissions 

Trucks tns/yr Total tns/yr

VOCs 0.29 0.55 60 120 2 2 0.00 0.01 0.01 

CO 1.32 3.21 60 120 2 2 0.02 0.05 0.07 

NOx 4.97 12.6 60 120 2 2 0.08 0.20 0.28 

PM-10 0.12 0.33 60 120 2 2 0.00 0.01 0.01 

PM 2.5 0.13 0.36 60 120 2 2 0.00 0.01 0.01 

CO2 536 536 60 120 2 2 8.51 8.51 17.01 

Pollutants Passenger Cars 

g/mile

Pick-up 

Trucks, SUVs 

g/mile

Mile/day Day/yr Number of 

Cars

Number of 

trucks

Total 

Emissions 

cars tns/yr

Total Emissions 

Trucks tns/yr Total tns/yr

VOCs 1.36 1.61 40 365 15 15 0.33 0.39 0.72 

CO 12.4 15.7 40 365 15 15 2.99 3.79 6.78 

NOx 0.95 1.22 40 365 15 15 0.23 0.29 0.52 

PM-10 0.0052 0.0065 40 365 15 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 

PM 2.5 0.0049 0.006 40 365 15 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 

CO2 369 511 40 365 15 15 89.05 123.32 212.38 

Truck Emission Factor Source: MOBILE6.2 USEPA 2005 Emission Facts: Average annual emissions and fuel consumption for gasoline-fueled 

passenger cars and light trucks. EPA 420-F-05-022 August 2005. Emission rates were generated using MOBILE.6 highway. 

Construction Worker Personal Vehicle Commuting to Construction Site-Passenger and Light Duty Trucks

Assumptions Results by Pollutant

Heavy Duty Trucks Delivery Supply Trucks to Construction Site

Assumptions Results by Pollutant

Emission Factors

Emission Factors Assumptions Results by Pollutant

Daily Commute New Staff Associated with Proposed Action

Emission Factors
CALCULATION SHEET-TRANSPORTATION COMBUSION EMISSIONS-CONSTRUCTION

Conversion factor: gms to tons

0.000001102

Conversion Factor

311

25

Construction 

Commuters Conversion

Emissions 

CO2 tons/yr Total CO2

VOCs 25 11.78 

NOx 311 0.34 

Total 12.13 151.77 

Delivery Trucks Conversion

Emissions 

CO2 tons/yr Total CO2

VOCs 25 0.33 

NOx 311 86.71 

Total 87.04 104.06 

Kirtland AFB staff 

and Students Conversion

Emissions 

CO2 tons/yr Total CO2

VOCs 25 17.92 

NOx 311 162.87 

Total 180.79 393.17 

Source: EPA 2010 Reference, Tables and Conversions, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks; 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

CARBON EQUIVALENTS

Carbon Equivalents

N2O or NOx

Methane or VOCs
CALCULATION SHEET-FUGITIVE DUST-CONSTRUCTION 

Construction Fugitive Dust Emission Factors

Emission Factor Units Source

General Construction Activities 0.19 ton PM10/acre-month MRI 1996; EPA 2001; EPA 2006

New Road Construction 0.42 ton PM10/acre-month MRI 1996; EPA 2001; EPA 2006

PM2.5 Emissions

PM2.5 Multiplier 0.10 EPA 2001; EPA 2006

Control Efficiency 0.50 EPA 2001; EPA 2006

Construction Area (0.19 ton PM10/acre-month) Conversion Factors

Duration of Construction Project 6 months 0.000022957 acres per sq feet

Length miles 5280 feet per mile

Length (converted) 1000 feet

Width 12 feet

Area 5.00 acres

Staging Areas

Duration of Construction Project 6 months

Length miles

Length (converted) feet

Width feet

Area 0.00 acres

PM10 uncontrolled PM10 controlled PM2.5 uncontrolled PM2.5 controlled

Construction Area (0.19 ton PM10/ac 5.70 2.85 0.57 0.29

Staging Areas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 5.70 2.85 0.57 0.29

References:

Construction Fugitive Dust Emissions

(10% of PM10 emissions 

assumed to be PM2.5)

(assume 50% control 

efficiency for PM10 and 

PM2.5 emissions)

MRI 1996. Improvement of Specific Emission Factors (BACM Project No. 1). Midwest Research Institute (MRI). Prepared for the California South Coast Air Quality 

Management District, March 29, 1996.

Project Assumptions

Project Emissions (tons/year)

EPA 2001. Procedures Document for National Emissions Inventory, Criteria Air Pollutants, 1985-1999. EPA-454/R-01-006. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. March 2001.

EPA 2006. Documentation for the Final 2002 Nonpoint Sector (Feb 06 version) National Emission Inventory for Criteria and Hazardous Air Pollutants. Prepared for: Emissions 

Inventory and Analysis Group (C339-02) Air Quality Assessment Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, United States Environmental Protection Agency. July 

2006.
General Construction Activities Emission Factor

0.19 ton PM10/acre-month Source: MRI 1996; EPA 2001; EPA 2006

New Road Construction Emission Factor

0.42 ton PM10/acre-month Source: MRI 1996; EPA 2001; EPA 2006

PM2.5 Multiplier 0.10

Control Efficiency for PM10 and PM2.5 0.50

References:

EPA 2001. Procedures Document for National Emissions Inventory, Criteria Air Pollutants, 1985-1999. EPA-454/R-01-006. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. March 2001.

EPA 2006. Documentation for the Final 2002 Nonpoint Sector (Feb 06 version) National Emission Inventory for Criteria and Hazardous Air Pollutants. Prepared for: Emissions Inventory and 

Analysis Group (C339-02) Air Quality Assessment Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, United States Environmental Protection Agency. July 2006.

MRI 1996. Improvement of Specific Emission Factors (BACM Project No. 1). Midwest Research Institute (MRI). Prepared for the California South Coast Air Quality Management District, March 

29, 1996.

Construction Fugitive Dust Emission Factors

The area-based emission factor for construction activities is based on a study completed by the Midwest Research Institute (MRI) Improvement of Specific Emission Factors (BACM Project No. 

1), March 29, 1996. The MRI study evaluated seven construction projects in Nevada and California (Las Vegas, Coachella Valley, South Coast Air Basin, and the San Joaquin Valley). The 

study determined an average emission factor of 0.11 ton PM10/acre-month for sites without large-scale cut/fill operations. A worst-case emission factor of 0.42 ton PM10/acre-month was 

calculated for sites with active large-scale earth moving operations. The monthly emission factors are based on 168 work-hours per month (MRI 1996). A subsequent MRI Report in 1999, 

Estimating Particulate Matter Emissions from Construction Operations, calculated the 0.19 ton PM10/acre-month emission factor by applying 25% of the large-scale earthmoving emission factor 

(0.42 ton PM10/acre-month) and 75% of the average emission factor (0.11 ton PM10/acre-month).

The emission factor for new road construction is based on the worst-case conditions emission factor from the MRI 1996 study described above (0.42 tons PM10/acre-month). It is assumed that 

road construction involves extensive earthmoving and heavy construction vehicle travel resulting in emissions that are higher than other general construction projects. The 0.42 ton PM10/acremonth emission factor for road construction is referenced in recent procedures documents for the EPA National Emission Inventory (EPA 2001; EPA 2006).

PM2.5 emissions are estimated by applying a particle size multiplier of 0.10 to PM10 emissions. This methodology is consistent with the procedures documents for the National Emission 

Inventory (EPA 2006).

The 0.19 ton PM10/acre-month emission factor is referenced by the EPA for non-residential construction activities in recent procedures documents for the National Emission Inventory (EPA 

2001; EPA 2006). The 0.19 ton PM10/acre-month emission factor represents a refinement of EPA's original AP-42 area-based total suspended particle (TSP) emission factor in Section 13.2.3 

Heavy Construction Operations. In addition to the EPA, this methodology is also supported by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP) which is funded by the EPA and is administered jointly by the Western Governor's Association and the National Tribal Environmental Council. The emission factor is assumed to 

encompass a variety of non-residential construction activities including building construction (commercial, industrial, institutional, governmental), public works, and travel on unpaved roads. The 

EPA National Emission Inventory documentation assumes that the emission factors are uncontrolled and recommends a control efficiency of 50% for PM10 and PM2.5 in PM nonattainment 

areas.

The EPA National Emission Inventory documentation recommends a control efficiency of 50% for PM10 and PM2.5 in PM nonattainment areas. Wetting controls will be applied during project 

construction (EPA 2006).
CALCULATION SHEET-SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS

Emission Source VOC CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5 SO2 CO2 CO2 Equivalents Total CO2

Combustion Emissions 1.02 4.25 7.70 0.80 0.78 1.02 736.21 2421.47 3157.68

Construction Site-Fugitive PM-10 NA NA NA 2.85 0.29 NA NA NA NA

Construction Workers Commuter 

& Trucking 0.48 4.53 0.62 0.01 0.01 NA 139.65 205.92 345.57

Total emissionsCONSTRUCTION 1.50 8.78 8.33 3.66 1.07 1.02 876 2,627 3,503 

De minimis Threshold (1) 100 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA 27,557 

Conversion Factor

311

25

1. New Hanover County is in attainment for all NAAQS

Alternative 1 Construction Emissions for Criteria Pollutants (tons per year)

N2O or NOx

Methane or VOCs

Carbon Equivalents

Source: EPA 2010 Reference, Tables and Conversions, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks; 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
APPENDIX D

QCB ASSESSMENT
August 24, 2011 

Chris Ingram 

Gulf South Research Corporation 

8081 GSRI Avenue 

Baton Rouge, LA 70820 

Subject: Results of Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Habitat assessment for the I-8 Checkpoint 

and the Old Highway 80 Checkpoint Project Located in San Diego County, 

California

Mr. Ingram, 

FLITE Tours, Inc., DBA: Klein-Edwards Professional Services (KEPS) was retained by Gulf 

South Research Corporation to conduct a Habitat Assessment for the federally endangered Quino 

Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) (QCB) I-8 Checkpoint and Old Highway 80 

Checkpoint Project located in the County of San Diego, California. KEPS’s Assessment was 

conducted based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2002 QCB Protocol. 

Site Location and Description

The I-8 Checkpoint and the Old Highway 80 Checkpoint Project is located along Interstate 8 and 

Old Highway 80 just east of Sunrise Highway in Pine Valley in San Diego County. The I-8 

Checkpoint consists of Great Basin Sage vegetation with great basin sagebrush (Artemisia

tridentate), Muller’s scrub oak (Quercus cornelius-mulleri) and California buckwheat 

(Eriogonum fasciculatum) as the dominant plants. The Old Highway 80 Checkpoint consists of 

Oak woodland and chaparral with Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), non-native grasses, and 

California buckwheat as dominant plants. 

Both sites were visited on August 24, 2011 between 0830 – 1000 to assess each Checkpoint for 

QCB suitability. 

Results

I-8 Checkpoint has some open areas within the proposed impact area as well as open areas within 

the scrub upslope. There is also lots of California buckwheat in these open areas as well as darktip bird’s beak (Cordylanthus rigidus). Dark-tip bird’s beak is one of the Quino Checkerspot 

Butterfly’s larval host plants and the California buckwheat is one the butterfly’s preferred 

diapause sites. 

Klein-Edwards Professional Services, a division of F.L.I.T.E. Tours, Inc P. O. Box 4326, San Diego, CA 92164-4326 

619-282-8687 toll free 877-763-5483 fax: 619-282-8678 e-mail: KEPS2@flite-tours.com web: www.flite-tours.com

Klein-Edwards

Professional Services
Old Highway 80 Checkpoint has open areas within the proposed impact area as well as open area 

adjacent to the impact area. There is California buckwheat as Dark-tip bird’s beak within the 

impact area and in the area adjacent to it. 

Both locations contain suitable conditions for the butterfly and its larvae. Attach are examples of 

the habitat as the buckwheat and bird’s beak. 

If you have any further questions or comments regarding this report, please contact me directly at 

619.282.8687 or on my cell at 619.347.3244. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

KLEIN-EDWARDS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 

Michael W. Klein 

Principal / Biologist 
I-8 Checkpoint example of the Great Basin Sage Brush vegetation with Dark-tip Bird’s Beak in 

the foreground 

I-8 Checkpoint showing example of Dark-tip Bird’s Beak 
Old Highway 80 Checkpoint showing open areas and Dark-tip Bird’s Beak and California 

buckwheat