Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Privacy Notice
OCTOBER 2007
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
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
i
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
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
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
1 1. INTRODUCTION
1-1
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
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
0 5 10 20
L-1A
Scale
Map Projection: Geographic
GCS North American 1983
North American Datum of 1983
3
Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008
1-2
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
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.
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 safer work environment and
19 enhance the response time of USBP agents.
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
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
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
Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008
1-4
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
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 the
39 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
40 (USFWS); Texas State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO); and other Federal,
41 state, and local agencies (see Appendix A). Input from agency responses has
42 been incorporated into the analysis of potential environmental impacts.
Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008
1-5
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
1 A Notice of Availability (NOA) for this EA and proposed FONSI will be published
2 in the Big Bend Sentinel and the Van Horn Advocate.
3 The published NOA solicits comments on the Proposed Action and involves the
4 local community in the decisionmaking process. Comments from the public and
5 other Federal, state, and local agencies will be addressed in the Final EA and
6 included in Appendix A.
(b) (5)
7
8
9 Throughout the NEPA process, the public may obtain information concerning the
10 status and progress of the EA via the project Web site at
11 www.BorderFenceNEPA.com, by emailing information@BorderFenceNEPA.com,
12 or by written request to Mr. Charles McGregor, Environmental Manager, U.S.
13 Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District, Engineering Construction
14 Support Office (ECSO), 814 Taylor Street, Room 3A28, Fort Worth, TX 76102;
15 and Fax: (817) 886-6404.
31 Section 7 of the ESA (P.L. 93-205, December 28, 1973) states that any project
32 authorized, funded, or conducted by any Federal agency should not
33 “…jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened
34 species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such
35 species which is determined … to be critical.” The USFWS is a cooperating
36 agency regarding this Proposed Action to determine whether any federally listed,
37 proposed endangered, or proposed threatened species or their designated
38 critical habitats would be adversely impacted by the Proposed Action. As a
39 cooperating agency, USFWS is responsible for the Section 7 consultation
Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008
1-6
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
1 process, identifying the nature and extent of potential effects, and developing
2 measures that would avoid or reduce potential effects on any species of concern.
3 The USFWS will issue a Biological Opinion (BO) of the potential for jeopardy. If
4 USFWS determines that the project is not likely to jeopardize any listed species,
5 they can also issue an incidental take statement as an exception to the
6 prohibitions in Section 9 of the ESA.
7 For much of a proposed segment, the tactical infrastructure would follow a levee
8 rights-of-way (ROW) administered by the IBWC. The IBWC is an international
9 body composed of the U.S. Section and the Mexican Section, each headed by an
10 Engineer-Commissioner appointed by his/her respective president. Each Section
11 is administered independently of the other. The U.S. Section of the IBWC is a
12 Federal government agency headquartered in El Paso, Texas, and operates
13 under the foreign policy guidance of the Department of State (IBWC 2007). The
14 U.S. Section of the IBWC will provide access and ROWs to construct proposed
15 tactical infrastructure along its levee system within the Marfa Sector. They will
16 also ensure that design and placement of the proposed tactical infrastructure
17 does not impact flood control and does not violate treaty obligations between the
18 United States and Mexico.
19
1-7
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
1-8
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
2-1
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
2-2
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
Length of
Fence
Border Patrol General Land Fence
Segment
Station Location Ownership Segment
Number
(miles)
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 be:
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
Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008
2-3
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
35
2-4
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
(b) (5)
1
2
3
10
2-5
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
NOT TO SCALE
±
PRIMARY FENCE
FENCE PERMANENT IMPACT AREA
50'
PATROL ROAD
TEMPORARY IMPACT AREA
10'
CONSTRUCTION
60'
2-6
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
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
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.
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.
30
2-7
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
NOT TO SCALE
±
SECONDARY FENCE
PRIMARY FENCE
PATROL ROAD
2-8
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
35 2.4 SUMMARY
(b) (5)
36
37
Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008
2-9
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
2-10
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
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.
3-1
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination
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:
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.
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.
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