CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: CBP-MAR2.002 - Marfa DOPAA - 10.13.07 (Redacted)

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
BO Biological Opinion U.S.C. United States Code

CBP Customs and Border USACE U.S. Army Corps of
Protection Engineers
CEQ Council on Environmental USBP U.S. Border Patrol
Quality USEPA U.S. Environmental
CFR Code of Federal Protection Agency
Regulations USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife
CWA Clean Water Act Service
DHS Department of Homeland
Security
DOPAA Description of the
Proposed Action and
Alternatives
EA Environmental
Assessment
ECSO Engineering Construction
Support Office
EIS Environmental Impact
Statement
EO Executive Order
ESA Endangered Species Act
FONSI Finding of No Significant
Impact
IBWC International Boundary
and Water Commission
MD Management Directive
NEPA National Environmental
Policy Act
NOA Notice of Availability
NPDES National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
System
P.L. Public Law
POE Port of Entry
ROW right-of-way
SHPO State Historic
Preservation Office
COVER SHEET
REVISED DRAFT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,
U.S. BORDER PATROL, MARFA SECTOR, TEXAS
Responsible Agencies: U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP).
Affected Location: U.S./Mexico international border in Hudspeth and Presidio

counties, Texas.
Proposed Action: The Proposed Action includes the construction,

maintenance, and operation of tactical infrastructure to include a primary
pedestrian fence (locations without existing fence), hybrid fence (pedestrian
fence with vehicle barrier), and access and patrol roads along approximately
11 miles of the U.S./Mexico international border within USBP Marfa Sector,
Texas. The Proposed Action would be implemented in three segments.
Individual segments would be approximately 3.1 miles and 4.6 miles in length.
Report Designation: Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

(DOPAA) for an Environmental Assessment (EA).
Abstract: USBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate approximately

11 miles of tactical infrastructure, including fences, access roads, and patrol
roads, along the U.S./Mexico international border in Hudspeth and Presidio
counties, Texas.
The Proposed Action includes the construction of tactical infrastructure in three

segments along the international border in the vicinity of Sierra Blanca and
Presidio, Texas. Individual segments would be approximately 3.1 miles and 4.6
miles in length. For much of its length, the proposed infrastructure would follow
the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) levee; however, some
portions would also encroach on parcels of privately owned land. The
infrastructure would cross predominantly rural and agricultural land.
The EA will analyze and document potential environmental consequences

associated with the Proposed Action. If the analyses presented in the EA
indicate that implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in significant
environmental or socioeconomic impacts then a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) will be prepared. If potential environmental concerns arise that cannot
be mitigated to insignificance, a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) would be required.
Throughout the National Environmental Policy Act process, the public may obtain
information concerning the status and progress of the Proposed Action and the EA
via the project web site at www.BorderFenceNEPA.com, by emailing
information@BorderFenceNEPA.com, or by written request to Mr. Charles
McGregor, Environmental Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort
Worth District, Engineering Construction Support Office (ECSO), 814 Taylor
Street, Room 3A28, Fort Worth, TX 76102; Fax: (817) 886-6404.
You may submit comments to CBP by contacting the SBInet, Tactical

Infrastructure Program Office. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the
following methods:
(a) Electronically through the web site at: www.BorderFenceNEPA.com;

(b) By email to: MScomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com;
(c) By mail to: Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o e²M, 2751 Prosperity
Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031; or
(d) By fax to: (757) 299-8444.
Privacy Notice
Your comments on this document are requested. Comments will normally be

addressed in the EA and made available to the public. Any personal information
included in comments will therefore be publicly available.
REVISED DRAFT
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND

ALTERNATIVES
FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND
OPERATION OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,
U.S. BORDER PATROL, MARFA SECTOR, TEXAS
OCTOBER 2007
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
1 REVISED DRAFT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2 FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED
3 CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
5 U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,
6 U.S. BORDER PATROL, MARFA SECTOR, TEXAS
7
8 TABLE OF CONTENTS
9 SECTION PAGE
10 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................1-1
11 1.1 USBP BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................1-1

12 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ...........................................................................................................1-3
13 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................................................................1-4
14 1.4 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS..............................................................................................1-4
15 1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .........................................................................................................1-5
16 1.6 COOPERATING AGENCIES ..................................................................................................1-6
17 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................2-1
18 2.1 SCREENING CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES .....................................................................2-1

19 2.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................2-2
20 2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative..........................................................................2-2
21 2.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action .................................................................................2-2
22 2.2.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative ............................................2-7
23 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER DETAILED
24 ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................................................2-9
25 2.3.1 Fence Types .............................................................................................................2-9
26 2.3.2 Additional USBP Agents in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure ........................................2-9
27 2.3.3 Technology in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure ............................................................2-9
28 2.4 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................2-10
29 2.5 IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ...............2-10
30 3. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................3-1
31
32 APPENDICES
33 APPENDIX PAGE
34
35 A Public Involvement and Agency Coordination................................................................................... A-1
36 B Descriptions of Tactical Infrastructure ............................................................................................... B-1
37
38
Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 October 13, 2007
i
1 FIGURES
2 FIGURE PAGE
3
4 1-1. Locations of Proposed Tactical Infrastructure ......................................................................................1-2
5 2-1. Alternative 2, Routes A and B...............................................................................................................2-5
6 2-2. Schematic of Proposed Impact Areas – Alternative 2...........................................................................2-6
7 2-3. Schematic of Proposed Impact Areas – Alternative 3...........................................................................2-8
8
9 TABLES
10 TABLE PAGE
11
12 2-1. Proposed Fence Segments for USBP Marfa Sector .............................................................................2-3
13
ii
1 1. INTRODUCTION
2 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border

3 Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (herein referred to as USBP) proposes to
4 construct, maintain, and operate approximately 11 miles of tactical infrastructure,
5 including primary pedestrian fences (locations without existing fence), hybrid
6 (pedestrian fence with vehicle barriers), access roads and patrol roads along the
7 U.S./Mexico international border in the Marfa Sector, Texas.
8 The Proposed Action includes the construction of tactical infrastructure in three

9 segments along the international border with Mexico in the vicinity of Sierra
10 Blanca and Presidio, Texas (see Figure 1-1). The three segments are
11 designated as L-1, L-1A, and L-1B on Figure 1-1 and would be approximately
12 3.1 and 4.6 miles in length. Detailed descriptions of the segments are presented
13 in Section 2.2.2. For much of its length, the proposed tactical infrastructure
14 would follow the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) levee.
15 The IBWC applies the boundary and water treaties of the United States and
16 Mexico and settles differences that may arise in their application (IBWC 2007).
17 Some portions of the tactical infrastructure would also encroach on multiple
18 privately owned land parcels and would cross predominantly rural and
19 agricultural land.
20 This Environmental Assessment (EA) is divided into six sections plus

21 appendices. Section 1 provides background information on USBP missions,
22 identifies the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, describes the area in
23 which the Proposed Action would occur, and explains the public involvement
24 process. Section 2 provides a detailed description of the Proposed Action,
25 alternatives considered, and the No Action Alternative. Section 3 describes
26 existing environmental conditions in the areas where the Proposed Action would
27 occur, and identifies potential environmental impacts that could occur within each
28 resource area under the alternatives evaluated in detail. Section 4 discusses
29 potential cumulative impacts and other impacts that might result from
30 implementation of the Proposed Action, combined with foreseeable future
31 actions. Sections 5 and 6 provide a list of preparers and references for the EA.
32 1.1 USBP BACKGROUND

33 USBP has multiple missions, including the following:
34 • Prevention of terrorists and terrorist weapons, including weapons of

35 mass destruction, from entering the United States
36 • Interdicting illegal drugs and those who attempt to smuggle them into
37 the United States
38 • Interdicting illegal aliens and those who attempt to smuggle them into
39 the United States (CBP 2006).
40 Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 October 13, 2007
1-1
10
10 Sierra
Blanca
R
an
ch
Ne w Me xico
10
Ro
Rd
ss
ad 1 Pa
an
10
tm
2 L-1
9
i
Qu Van Horn
M oo
Texas
U N I T E D
n R
d
Marfa
S T A T E S Sector
ME XICO
90
Texas
10
28
a d
Ro
h
anc
R
M E X I C O
d
P i n to C R
a nyo n
67
Fa
rm
To
M
a rk
et
R
oa
d
Proposed Marfa
17
0
Sector Fence Segments Presidio

L-1B
L-1 Fence Segment Label
Miles
0 5 10 20
L-1A
Scale
Map Projection: Geographic
GCS North American 1983
North American Datum of 1983
1 Source: ESRI StreetMap USA 2005
2 Figure 1-1. Locations of Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
3
1-2
1 USBP’s new and traditional missions, both of which are referred to above, are
2 complementary.
3 USBP has nine administrative sectors along the U.S./Mexico international border.
4 USBP Marfa Sector is responsible for over 135,000 square miles encompassing
5 118 counties in Texas and Oklahoma, and 420 miles of the Rio Grande River
6 border (CBP 2006). Drug cartels and others looking for alternatives to their
7 traditional crossing routes in the Marfa Sector have increased the need for
8 additional USBP personnel resources and tactical infrastructure.
9 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

10 The purpose of the Proposed Action is to construct, maintain, and operate
11 tactical infrastructure in the form of fences, roads, and supporting technological
12 assets to fortify the border with Mexico. The Proposed Action would assist USBP
13 agents and officers in gaining effective control of our nation’s borders.
14 The Proposed Action is needed to provide USBP agents with the tools necessary
15 to strengthen their control of the U.S. borders between ports of entry (POEs).
16 The Proposed Action will also help to deter illegal entries through improved
17 enforcement, prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the U.S.,
18 reduce the flow of illegal drugs, and provide a safe work environment and
19 enhance the response time of USBP agents.
20 In many areas, fences are a critical element of border security. To achieve

21 effective control of our nation’s borders, USBP is developing the right
22 combination of personnel, technology, and infrastructure; mobilizing and rapidly
23 deploying people and resources; and fostering partnerships with other law
24 enforcement agencies.
25 In the Marfa Sector, the Rio Grande forms a natural border between the United
26 States and Mexico. Although it is a logical geographic demarcation between the
27 two countries, the Rio Grande provides little deterrence and is easily crossed by
28 those seeking to gain illegal entry into the United States from Mexico.
29 USBP Marfa Sector has identified several areas along the border it considers to
30 be “hot spots” for illegal immigration and drug trafficking. These hot spots occur
31 in areas that are, among other factors, remote and not easily accessed by USBP
32 agents, areas near the POEs where concentrated populations might live on
33 opposing sides of the border, areas with thick vegetation that provide
34 concealment on opposing sides of the border, or areas with quick access to U.S.
35 transportation routes. Based on operational challenges in these areas, USBP
36 needs to construct, maintain, and operate the proposed tactical infrastructure to
37 gain the required effective control of our nation’s borders.
1-3
1 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION

2 USBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate tactical infrastructure
3 consisting of pedestrian, aesthetic, or hybrid fence; access roads; lights, and
4 patrol roads along the U.S./Mexico international border in the Marfa Sector,
5 Texas. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 DHS Appropriations Act (Public Law [P.L.]
6 109-295) provided $1.2 billion for the installation of fencing, infrastructure, and
7 technology along the border (CRS 2006). Figure 1-1 illustrates the location of
8 the proposed tactical infrastructure within the Marfa Sector. Details of the
9 Proposed Action are included in Section 2.2.2.
(b) (5)
10
11
12 1.4 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS

13 NEPA is a Federal statute requiring the identification and analysis of potential
14 environmental impacts of proposed Federal actions before those actions are
15 taken. NEPA also established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
16 which is charged with the development of implementing regulations and ensuring
17 agency compliance with NEPA. CEQ regulations mandate that all Federal
18 agencies use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to environmental planning
19 and the evaluation of actions which might affect the environment. This process
20 evaluates potential environmental consequences associated with a proposed
21 action and considers alternative courses of action. The intent of NEPA is to
22 protect, restore, or enhance the environment through well-informed Federal
23 decisions.
24 The process for implementing NEPA is codified in 40 CFR 1500–1508,

25 Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National
26 Environmental Policy Act, and DHS’s Management Directive (MD) 5100.1,
27 Environmental Planning Program. The CEQ was established under NEPA to
28 implement and oversee Federal policy in this process. CEQ regulations specify
29 that the following when preparing an EA:
30 • Briefly provide evidence and analysis for determining whether to

31 prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No
32 Significant Impact (FONSI)
33 • Aid in an agency’s compliance with NEPA when an EIS is unnecessary
34 • Facilitate preparation of an EIS when one is necessary.
35 To comply with NEPA, the planning and decisionmaking process for actions
36 proposed by Federal agencies involves a study of other relevant environmental
37 statutes and regulations. The NEPA process, however, does not replace
38 procedural or substantive requirements of other environmental statutes and
39 regulations. It addresses them collectively in the form of an EA or EIS, which
1-4
1 enables the decisionmaker to have a comprehensive view of major

2 environmental issues and requirements associated with the Proposed Action.
3 According to CEQ regulations, the requirements of NEPA must be integrated
4 “with other planning and environmental review procedures required by law or by
5 agency so that all such procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively.”
6 Within the framework of environmental impact analysis under NEPA, additional

7 authorities include the Clean Air Act, CWA (including a National Pollutant
8 Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] storm water discharge permit), Noise
9 Control Act, ESA, National Historic Preservation Act, Archaeological Resources
10 Protection Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Toxic Substances
11 Control Act. Executive Orders (EOs) bearing on the Proposed Action include EO
12 11988 (Floodplain Management), EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), EO 12088
13 (Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards), EO 12580 (Superfund
14 Implementation), EO 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
15 Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), EO 13045 (Protection of
16 Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks), EO 13423
17 (Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation
18 Management), EO 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
19 Governments), and EO 13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect
20 Migratory Birds).
21 1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

22 Agency and public involvement in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
23 process promotes open communication between the public and the government
24 and enhances the decisionmaking process. All persons or organizations having
25 a potential interest in the Proposed Action are encouraged to participate in the
26 decisionmaking process.
27 NEPA and implementing regulations from the President’s CEQ and DHS direct
28 agencies to make their EAs and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
29 available to the public during the decisionmaking process and prior to actions
30 being taken. The premise of NEPA is that the quality of Federal decisions will be
31 enhanced if proponents provide information to the public and involve the public in
32 the planning process.
33 Through the public involvement process, USBP notified relevant Federal, state,
34 and local agencies of the Proposed Action and requested input regarding
35 environmental concerns they might have regarding the Proposed Action. The
36 public involvement process provides USBP with the opportunity to cooperate with
37 and consider state and local views in its decision regarding implementing this
38 Federal proposal. As part of the EA process, USBP has coordinated with
39 agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); U.S. Fish
40 and Wildlife Service (USFWS); Texas State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO);
41 and other Federal, state, and local agencies (see Appendix A). Input from
1-5
1 agency responses has been incorporated into the analysis of potential

2 environmental impacts.
3 A Notice of Availability (NOA) for this EA and proposed FONSI will be published
4 in the Big Bend Sentinel and the Van Horn Advocate. This is done to solicit
5 comments on the Proposed Action and involve the local community in the
6 decisionmaking process. Comments from the public and other Federal, state,
7 and local agencies will be incorporated into the Final EA and included in
8 Appendix A.
(b) (5)
9
10
11 Throughout the NEPA process, the public may obtain information concerning the
12 status and progress of the EA via the project Web site at
13 www.BorderFenceNEPA.com, by emailing information@BorderFenceNEPA.com,
14 or by written request to Mr. Charles McGregor, Environmental Manager, U.S.
15 Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District, Engineering Construction
16 Support Office (ECSO), 814 Taylor Street, Room 3A28, Fort Worth, TX 76102;
17 and Fax: (817) 886-6404.
18 1.6 COOPERATING AGENCIES

19 As cooperating agencies, the USACE-Albuquerque District, the USFWS, and the
20 IBWC also have decisionmaking authority for components of the Proposed
21 Action and intend for this EA to fulfill their requirements for compliance with
22 NEPA. The CEQ regulations implementing NEPA instruct agencies to combine
23 environmental documents in compliance with NEPA to reduce duplication and
24 paperwork (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1506.4).
25 The USACE-Albuquerque District will act on applications for Department of the

26 Army permits pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33
27 United States Code [U.S.C.] 403), and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
28 (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344). In a (b) (5) etter, the USACE-
29 Albuquerque District identified he alternative for
30 placement of assets with the least potential for environmental damage.
(b) (5)
31
32
33 Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (P.L. 93-205, December 28,
34 1973) states that any project authorized, funded, or conducted by any Federal
35 agency should not “…jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
36 species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
37 of habitat of such species which is determined … to be critical.” The USFWS is a
38 cooperating agency regarding this Proposed Action to determine whether any
39 federally listed, proposed endangered, or proposed threatened species or their
1-6
1 designated critical habitats would be adversely impacted by the Proposed Action.

2 As a cooperating agency, USFWS will assist in streamlining the Section 7
3 consultation process, identifying the nature and extent of potential effects, and
4 developing measures that would avoid or reduce potential effects on any species
5 of concern. The USFWS will issue their Biological Opinion (BO) of the potential
6 for jeopardy. If their opinion is that the project is not likely to jeopardize any listed
7 species, they can also issue an incidental take statement as an exception to the
8 prohibitions in Section 9 of the ESA.
9 For much of the proposed segments, the tactical infrastructure would follow the
10 levee rights-of-way (ROW) administered by the IBWC. The IBWC is an
11 international body composed of the U.S. Section and the Mexican Section, each
12 headed by an Engineer-Commissioner appointed by his/her respective president.
13 Each Section is administered independently of the other. The U.S. Section of the
14 IBWC is a Federal government agency headquartered in El Paso, Texas, and
15 operates under the foreign policy guidance of the Department of State (IBWC
16 2007). The U.S. Section of the IBWC will provide access and ROWs to construct
17 proposed tactical infrastructure along its levee system within the Marfa Sector.
18 They will also ensure that design and placement of the proposed tactical
19 infrastructure does not impact flood control and does not violate treaty obligations
20 between the United States and Mexico.
21
1-7
1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1-8
1 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2 2.1 SCREENING CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES

3 This section presents USBP’s proposal to construct, maintain, and operate
4 tactical infrastructure along the U.S./Mexico international border in USBP Marfa
5 Sector, Texas. Each alternative to the Proposed Action considered in this EA
6 concerning location, construction, and operation of tactical infrastructure must be
7 reasonable and meet USBP’s Purpose and Need (as described in Section 1.2).
8 Such alternatives must also meet essential technical, engineering, and economic
9 threshold requirements to ensure that each is environmentally sound,
10 economically viable, and complies with governing standards and regulations.
11 The following screening criteria were used to develop the Proposed Action and
12 evaluate potential alternatives.
13 • USBP Operational Requirements. Primary border fencing (locations

14 without existing fence) must support USBP mission needs to hinder or
15 delay individuals crossing the border. Once they have entered an
16 urban area or suburban neighborhood, it is much more difficult for
17 USBP agents to identify and apprehend suspects engaged in unlawful
18 border entry. In addition, around populated areas it is relatively easy
19 for illegal border crossers to find transportation into the interior of the
20 United States. USBP undertook a detailed screening process to
21 develop a combination of tactical infrastructure to include fence,
22 technology, and other resources that would best meet its operational
23 needs.
24 • Border Areas Without Primary Fence. To meet USBP mission and
25 operational requirements, areas along the U.S./Mexico international
26 border that do not currently have primary fencing have been identified
27 as locations where primary fence would significantly contribute to
28 USBP’s priority mission of homeland security.
29 • Threatened or Endangered Species and Critical Habitat. The
30 construction, maintenance, and operation of the proposed tactical
31 infrastructure would be designed to minimize adverse impacts on
32 threatened or endangered species and their critical habitat to the
33 maximum extent practical. USBP is working with the USFWS as a
34 cooperating agency to identify potential conservation and mitigation
35 measures.
36 • Wetlands and Floodplains. The construction, maintenance, and
37 operation of the proposed tactical infrastructure would be designed to
38 minimize impacts on wetlands, waters, and floodplain resources to the
39 maximum extent practical. USBP is working with the USACE-
40 Albuquerque District and IBWC as cooperating agencies to minimize
41 wetland and floodplain impacts.
2-1
1 • Cultural and Historic Resources. The construction, maintenance, and

2 operation of the proposed tactical infrastructure would be designed to
3 minimize impacts on cultural and historic resources to the maximum
4 extent practical. USBP is working with the Texas SHPO to identify
5 potential conservation and mitigation measures.
6 Section 2.2.1 presents the No Action Alternative. Section 2.2.2 provides

7 specific details of the Proposed Action, Section 2.2.3 discusses the Secure
8 Fence Act Alignment Alternative, and Section 2.3 discusses alternatives
9 considered but not analyzed in detail.
10 2.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

11 2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
12 Under the No Action Alternative, proposed tactical infrastructure would not be
13 built and there would be no change in fencing, access roads, or other facilities
14 along the U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations
15 within USBP Marfa Sector. The No Action Alternative would not meet USBP
16 mission needs and does not address the Congressional mandates for gaining
17 effective control of our borders. However, inclusion of the No Action Alternative
18 is prescribed by the CEQ regulations and will be carried forward for analysis in
19 the EA. The No Action Alternative also serves as a baseline against which to
20 evaluate the impacts of the Proposed Action.
21 2.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

22 USBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate tactical infrastructure
23 consisting of pedestrian and hybrid fence; access roads; patrol roads; and
24 construction staging areas along the U.S./Mexico international border in the
25 Marfa Sector, Texas. Congress has appropriated funds for the construction of
26 the proposed tactical infrastructure. Construction of additional tactical
27 infrastructure might be required in the future as mission and operational
28 requirements are continually reassessed.
29 The proposed tactical infrastructure would be constructed in three distinct
30 segments along the border within USBP Marfa Sector in Hudspeth and Presidio
31 counties, Texas. These three segments of tactical infrastructure are designated
32 as segments L-1, L-1A, and L1-B on Figure 1-1. Table 2-1 presents general
33 information for each of the three proposed segments. Two segments in Presidio
34 County would be approximately 3.1 miles in length to the east and west of the
35 POE and the third segment in Hudspeth County would be approximately 4.6
36 miles in length. In alignment with Federal mandates, USBP has identified this
37 area of the border as a location where a fence would contribute significantly to its
38 priority homeland security mission.
2-2
1 Table 2-1. Proposed Fence Segments for USBP Marfa Sector
Fence Length of
Border Patrol General Land
Segment Fence
Station Location Ownership
Number Segment
L-1 Sierra Blanca Neely’s Public (IBWC) 4.63
Crossing
L-1A Presidio Rio Grande Public (IBWC) 3.05
East of POE and private
L-1B Presidio Rio Grande Public (IBWC) 3.05
West of POE and private
Total 10.73
2
3 If approved, the final design would be developed by a design/build contractor
4 overseen by the USACE. However, design criteria that have been established
5 based on USBP operational needs require that, at a minimum, any fencing must
6 meet the following requirements:
7 • 15 feet high and extend below ground

8 • Capable of withstanding a crash of a 10,000-pound (gross weight)
9 vehicle traveling at 40 miles per hour
10 • Capable of withstanding vandalism, cutting, or various types of
11 penetration
12 • Semi-transparent, as dictated by operational need
13 • Designed to survive extreme climate changes
14 • Designed to reduce or minimize impacts on small animal movements
15 • Not impede the natural flow of surface water
16 • Aesthetically pleasing to the extent possible.
17 Typical fence designs that could be used are included in Appendix B.

(b) (5)
18
19
20
21 Two Route Alternatives for tactical infrastructure are being considered under the
22 Proposed Action. Route A is the route initially identified by USBP Marfa Sector
23 as best meeting its operational needs. Route B would modify the alignment to
24 avoid or minimize environmental impacts. Route B was developed during the EA
25 development process through consultation with cooperating agencies to identify
26 a route alternative with fewer adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, Route
27 B represents a compromise alignment that takes into account a balance between
2-3
1 operational effectiveness of proposed tactical infrastructure and environmental

2 quality. Detailed differences between Route A and B are shown on Figure 2-1
3 and presented in Appendix C.
4 Routes A and B would follow the IBWC levee system for the majority of its length.
5 In Sierra Blanca, Segment L-1 would be constructed as a “floating fence” and
6 placed atop of the levee. This configuration would allow the majority of the
7 proposed infrastructure to be placed on property owned by the IBWC without
8 major disturbance to current the IBWC operations or USBP patrol roads. In
9 Presidio (Segments L-1A and L1-B), the proposed segment alignments along the
10 IBWC levee would be constructed as new levee retaining walls on the side of the
11 levee facing the Rio Grande. However, there are several sections along the
12 levee that the IBWC does not have ownership of but has ROWs which would
13 require new agreements or the acquisition of land. In addition, ROWs or land
14 acquisition would be required for access roads and staging areas.
(b) (5)
15
16
17
18
19 The tactical infrastructure of the three segments would also encroach on

20 privately-owned land parcels.
21 The proposed tactical infrastructure would impact an approximate 60-foot wide

22 corridor along each fence segment. This corridor would include fences, access
23 roads, patrol roads, and construction staging areas. Vegetation would be cleared
24 and grading may occur where needed. The area temporarily impacted within the
25 three segments (both route alternatives) would total approximately 78 acres.
26 Wherever possible, existing roads would be used for construction access.
27 Figure 2-2 shows a typical schematic of temporary and permanent impact areas
28 for tactical infrastructure.
29 Construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure would require minor

30 adjustments in USBP operations in the Marfa Sector.
(b) (5)
31
32
33
34
2-4
(b) (5)
1
2
3
9 Figure 2-1. Alternative 2, Routes A and B
10
2-5
NOT TO SCALE
±
PRIMARY FENCE
FENCE PERMANENT IMPACT AREA
50'
PATROL ROAD
TEMPORARY IMPACT AREA
10'
CONSTRUCTION
60'
2 Figure 2-2. Schematic of Proposed Impact Areas – Alternative 2
2-6
1 USBP is working closely with local landowners and others potentially affected by
2 the proposed infrastructure. For both route alternatives, gates and ramps would
3 be constructed to allow USBP, IBWC and other landowners access to land, the
4 Rio Grande, and water resources, including pump houses and related
5 infrastructure.
(b) (5)
6
7
8 If approved, construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure would begin in

9 Spring 2008 and continue through December 31, 2008.
10 To the extent that additional actions are known, they are discussed in Section 4,
11 Cumulative Impacts, of this EA. Both Routes A and B under Alternative 2 are
12 viable and will be evaluated in the EA.
13 2.2.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative

14 The Secure Fence Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-367) directed USBP to construct at
15 least two layers of reinforced fencing along the U.S./Mexico international border.
16 Two layers of fence, known as primary and secondary fence, would be
17 constructed approximately 130 feet apart along the same route as Alternative 2,
18 Route B.
19 This alternative would also include construction and maintenance of access and
20 patrol roads. The patrol road would be between the primary secondary fences.
21 Figure 2-3 shows a typical schematic of permanent and temporary impact areas
22 for this alternative. The design of the tactical infrastructure for Alternative 3
23 would be similar to that of Alternative 2.
24 Construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure would impact an approximate

25 150-foot wide corridor for 11 miles along the three fence segments. This
26 construction corridor would accommodate access roads and construction staging
27 areas. Vegetation would be cleared and grading may occur where needed.
28 Wherever possible, existing roads would be used for construction access. This is
29 a viable alternative and will be evaluated in the EA.
30
2-7
NOT TO SCALE
±
SECONDARY FENCE
PRIMARY FENCE
PATROL ROAD
130’ PERMANENT IMPACT AREA

United States
Mexico
2 Figure 2-3. Schematic of Proposed Impact Areas – Alternative 3
2-8
1 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER

2 DETAILED ANALYSIS
3 USBP evaluated possible alternatives to be considered as the Proposed Action.
4 This section addresses options that were reviewed but not carried forward for
5 detailed analysis.
6 2.3.1 Fence Types

7 Pedestrian, aesthetic, or hybrid fence alternatives were considered. The final
8 fence design will be determined during the final design phase based on
9 operational parameters and maintenance requirements. The foundations, fence
10 heights, construction, maintenance, and operational requirements would be the
11 same for any fence alternative selected. Therefore the environmental impacts of
12 constructing, maintaining, and operating any of the three fence designs would be
13 virtually identical. Therefore, only the pedestrian fence design is evaluated in
14 detail in this EA.
15 2.3.2 Additional USBP Agents in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure

16 USBP maintains an aggressive hiring program and a cadre of well-trained and
17 disciplined agents. Solely, the physical presence of an increased number of
18 agents may provide an enhanced level of deterrence against illegal entry into the
19 United States. However, additional agents alone, in lieu of the proposed tactical
20 infrastructure, would not provide a practical solution to achieving effective control
21 of the border in Marfa Sector. As such, this alternative will not be carried forward
22 for further analysis.
(b) (5)
23
24
25 2.3.3 Technology in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure

26 Under this alternative, USBP would use radar, cameras, lights, and other
27 technology to identify illegal border crossings. The use of technology in certain
28 sparsely populated areas is a critical component of SBInet and an effective force
29 multiplier that allows USBP to monitor large areas and deploy agents to where
30 they will be most effective. However, in the more densely populated areas within
31 the Marfa Sector, physical barriers represent the most effective means to control
32 illegal entry into the United States. The use of technology alone would not
33 provide a practical solution to achieving effective control of the border in USBP
34 Marfa Sector. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need
35 as described in Section 1.2 and will not be carried forward for further analysis.
2-9
1 2.4 SUMMARY
(b) (5)
2
3
4 2.5 IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED

5 ALTERNATIVE
6 CEQ’s implementing regulation 40 CFR 1502.14(c) instructs EA preparers to
7 “Identify the agency’s preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists,
8 in the draft statement and identify such alternative in the final statement unless
9 another law prohibits the expression of such a preference.” USBP has identified
10 its Preferred Alternative as Alternative 2, Route B.
11 Implementation of Route B would meet USBP’s purpose and need described in

12 Section 1.2. The No Action Alternative would not meet USBP’s purpose and
13 need. Route A would meet the purpose and need described in Section 1.2, but
14 it would cause environmental impacts greater than the impacts identified for
15 Route B. Alternative 3 would meet USBP’s purpose and need but would have
16 greater environmental impacts compared to the preferred alternative without
17 substantially increasing USBP’s ability to effectively control these areas of the
18 U.S./Mexico international border.
2-10
1 3. REFERENCES
CBP 2006 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 2006. “Border Patrol
Overview.” Last updated January 11, 2006. Available online:
<http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/overvi
ew.xml>. Accessed October 2, 2007.
CBP 2007 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 2007. “Marfa Sector
Homepage.” Available online: <
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/border_
patrol_sectors/marfa_sector_tx/marfa_general.xml>. Accessed
October 3, 2007.
IBWC 2007 U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC).

2007. “The International Boundary and Water Commission, Its
Mission, Organization and Procedures for Solution of Boundary
and Water Problems.” Available online:
<www.ibwc.state.gov/About_Us/About_Us.html>. Accessed
October 3, 2007.
3-1
1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3-2
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION
APPENDIX B
POTENTIAL FENCING DESIGNS
1 USBP currently uses the following three main types of barriers along the border:
2 • Primary fencing on international border

3 • Secondary double fencing to complement the primary fencing
4 • Vehicle barriers meant to stop vehicles, but not people on foot.
5 There are several types of primary border fence designs USBP can select for
6 construction depending on various site conditions and law enforcement tactics
7 employed. Each option offers relative advantages and disadvantages. Fencing
8 based on concrete panels, for example, is among the more cost-effective
9 solutions but USBP agents cannot see through this type of barrier. USBP prefers
10 fencing structures offering visual transparency, allowing observation of activities
11 developing on the other side of the border.
12 Over the past decade, USBP has deployed a variety of types of primary fencing,
13 such as bollard-type fencing, ornamental picket fencing, landing mat fencing,
14 chain-link fencing. Bollard fencing has been effective in its limited deployment
15 and can also be seen through. However, it is expensive to construct and to
16 maintain. Landing mat fencing is composed of army surplus carbon steel landing
17 mats which were used to create landing strips during the Vietnam War. Chain-
18 link fencing is relatively economical, but more easily compromised. In selecting
19 particular fencing designs, USBP weighs various factors such as, their utility as
20 law enforcement tool, costs associated with its construction and maintenance,
21 potential environmental impacts, and other public interest concerns. USBP
22 continues to develop varying fence designs to best address these competing
23 objectives and constraints.
24 Prototypes of the current fencing designs, their performance specifications, and

(b) (5)
25 photograph are provided in
26 USBP developed a variety of barrier designs to stop vehicles from easily crossing
27 into the United States from Mexico. Some of these barriers are fabricated to be
28 used as temporary placement and typically not anchored with foundations.
29 Because they are not permanently anchored, they could be easily moved to
30 different locations with heavy construction equipment. Temporary vehicle
31 barriers are typically built from welded metal, such as railroad track, but can also
32 be constructed from telephone poles or pipe. These barriers are built so that
33 they cannot be easily rolled or moved using manual labor only. They are placed
34 and typically chained together on areas of high potential for vehicle entry.
35 Permanent vehicle barriers typically consist of steel posts or bollards with a

36 concrete foundation base. The posts alternate in aboveground height in order to
37 prevent individuals from forming a ramp over the barrier. USBP is working on
38 developing different types of vehicle barrier designs and performance
(b) (5)
39 specifications provides photographs of several
40 prototypes.
B-1
(b) (5)
1
2
3
4 Figure B-1. Typical Pedestrian Fence Foundation
5
6 Figure B-2. Typical Pedestrian Fence Design
B-2

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: CBP-MAR2.002 - Marfa DOPAA - 10.13.07 (Redacted)

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: CBP-MAR2.002 - Marfa DOPAA - 10.13.07 (Redacted)

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BO Biological Opinion U.S.C. United States Code

REVISED DRAFT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Responsible Agencies: U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S.

Affected Location: U.S./Mexico international border in Hudspeth and Presidio

Proposed Action: The Proposed Action includes the construction,

Report Designation: Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Abstract: USBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate approximately

The Proposed Action includes the construction of tactical infrastructure in three

The EA will analyze and document potential environmental consequences

You may submit comments to CBP by contacting the SBInet, Tactical

(a) Electronically through the web site at: www.BorderFenceNEPA.com;

Your comments on this document are requested. Comments will normally be

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

1 REVISED DRAFT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

10 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................1-1

11 1.1 USBP BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................1-1

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

18 2.1 SCREENING CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES .....................................................................2-1

30 3. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................3-1

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 October 13, 2007

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 October 13, 2007

2 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border

8 The Proposed Action includes the construction of tactical infrastructure in three

20 This Environmental Assessment (EA) is divided into six sections plus

32 1.1 USBP BACKGROUND

34 • Prevention of terrorists and terrorist weapons, including weapons of

Sector Fence Segments Presidio

1 Source: ESRI StreetMap USA 2005

2 Figure 1-1. Locations of Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

9 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

20 In many areas, fences are a critical element of border security. To achieve

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 October 13, 2007

1 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION

12 1.4 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS

24 The process for implementing NEPA is codified in 40 CFR 1500–1508,

30 • Briefly provide evidence and analysis for determining whether to

1 enables the decisionmaker to have a comprehensive view of major

6 Within the framework of environmental impact analysis under NEPA, additional

21 1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 October 13, 2007

1 agency responses has been incorporated into the analysis of potential

18 1.6 COOPERATING AGENCIES

25 The USACE-Albuquerque District will act on applications for Department of the

1 designated critical habitats would be adversely impacted by the Proposed Action.

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 October 13, 2007

1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 October 13, 2007

1 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2 2.1 SCREENING CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES

13 • USBP Operational Requirements. Primary border fencing (locations

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 October 13, 2007

1 • Cultural and Historic Resources. The construction, maintenance, and

6 Section 2.2.1 presents the No Action Alternative. Section 2.2.2 provides

10 2.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

21 2.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 October 13, 2007

1 Table 2-1. Proposed Fence Segments for USBP Marfa Sector

7 • 15 feet high and extend below ground

17 Typical fence designs that could be used are included in Appendix B.

1 operational effectiveness of proposed tactical infrastructure and environmental

19 The tactical infrastructure of the three segments would also encroach on