FME004895

FME004896

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
FME004897

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 4.6, 3.1, and 3.1 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 4.6, 3.1, and 3.1
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.
FME004898

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.
FME004899

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
FME004900
FME004901
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 ..............................................................................................................................2-9 
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 April 7, 2008

i
FME004902
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

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008

ii
FME004903
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination

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) propose 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 4.6, 3.1, and 3.1 miles in length. Detailed descriptions of the segments are
13 presented in Section 2.2.2. For much of its length, the proposed tactical
14 infrastructure would follow the International Boundary and Water Commission
15 (IBWC) levee. The IBWC applies the boundary and water treaties of the United
16 States and Mexico and settles differences that may arise in their application
17 (IBWC 2007). Some portions of the tactical infrastructure would also encroach
18 on multiple privately owned land parcels and would cross predominantly rural
19 and 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 April 7, 2008

1-1
FME004904
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
Texas
U N I T E D
Marfa
S T A T E S Sector

MEXICO

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
Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008

1-2
FME004905
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.

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 safer 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 an appropriate
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.

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008

1-3
FME004906
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination

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.
10 [[Preparer’s Note: More information on lights in the Marfa Sector is
11 requested.]]

12 1.4 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS

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

24 The process for implementing NEPA is codified in 40 Code of Federal

25 Regulations (CFR) 1500–1508, Regulations for Implementing the Procedural
26 Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, and DHS’s Management
27 Directive (MD) 5100.1, Environmental Planning Program. The CEQ was
28 established under NEPA to implement and oversee Federal policy in this
29 process. CEQ regulations specify 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
Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008

1-4
FME004907
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination

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

22 1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

23 Agency and public involvement in the NEPA process promotes open
24 communication between the public and the government and enhances the
25 decisionmaking process. All persons or organizations having a potential interest
26 in the Proposed Action are encouraged to participate in the decisionmaking
27 process.
28 NEPA and implementing regulations from the President’s CEQ and DHS direct
29 agencies to make their EAs and EISs available to the public during the
30 decisionmaking process and prior to actions being taken. The premise of NEPA
31 is that the quality of Federal decisions will be enhanced if proponents provide
32 information to the public and involve the public in 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 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
FME004908
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.

7 [[Preparer’s Note: Information on Spanish newspapers in the Marfa Sector

8 is requested.]]

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. (b) (6) 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.

16 1.6 COOPERATING AGENCIES

17 As cooperating agencies, the USACE-Albuquerque District, the USFWS, and the
18 IBWC also have decisionmaking authority for components of the Proposed
19 Action and intend for this EA to fulfill their requirements for compliance with
20 NEPA. The CEQ regulations implementing NEPA instruct agencies to combine
21 environmental documents in compliance with NEPA to reduce duplication and
22 paperwork (40 CFR 1506.4).

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

24 Army permits pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33
25 United States Code [U.S.C.] 403), and Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344).
26 In a _date to be inserted here_ letter, the USACE-Albuquerque District
27 identified the Proposed Action as the alternative for placement of assets with the
28 least potential for environmental damage.

29 [[Preparer’s Note: Information on additional cooperating agencies (if any)

30 will be incorporated when that information becomes available.]]

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
FME004909
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

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008

1-7
FME004910
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination

1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008

1-8
FME004911
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination

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 (location, construction, and tactical infrastructure
6 operation) to the Proposed Action considered in this EA must be reasonable and
7 meet USBP’s Purpose and Need (as described in Section 1.2). Such
8 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. Locations without existing fence

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

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008

2-1
FME004912
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination

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 practicable. USBP is working with the Texas SHPO to identify
5 potential conservation and mitigation measures.

6 2.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

7 Section 2.2.1 presents the No Action Alternative. Section 2.2.2 provides
8 specific details of the Proposed Action, Section 2.2.3 discusses the Secure
9 Fence Act Alignment Alternative.

10 2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

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

20 2.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

21 USBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate tactical infrastructure
22 consisting of pedestrian and hybrid fence; access roads; patrol roads; and
23 construction staging areas along the U.S./Mexico international border in the
24 Marfa Sector, Texas. Congress has appropriated funds for the construction of
25 the proposed tactical infrastructure. Construction of additional tactical
26 infrastructure might be required in the future as mission and operational
27 requirements are continually reassessed.
28 The proposed tactical infrastructure would be constructed in three distinct
29 segments along the border within USBP Marfa Sector in Hudspeth and Presidio
30 counties, Texas. These three segments of tactical infrastructure are designated
31 as segments L-1, L-1A, and L1-B on Figure 1-1. Table 2-1 presents general
32 information for each of the three proposed segments. Two segments in Presidio
33 County would be approximately 3.1 miles in length to the east and west of the
34 POE and the third segment in Hudspeth County would each be approximately
35 4.6 miles in length. Consistent with Federal mandates, USBP has identified this
36 area of the border as a location where a fence would contribute significantly to its
37 priority homeland security mission.

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008

2-2
FME004913
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination

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

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:

7 • 15 - 18 feet high and extend 3 - 6 feet 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.

18 [[Preparer’s Note: Additional information is requested regarding new

19 patrol roads, access roads (construction roads) (locations, miles and acres
20 potentially impacted), staging areas, sensors, etc. to include here.]]

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
FME004914
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination

1 B represents a compromise alignment that takes into account a balance between

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

16 [[Preparer’s Note: Information on segments and parcels (number of

17 parcels and acres) is requested where the Government proposes to acquire
18 land. Also information regarding additional lengths of fence that are
19 proposed is requested.]]

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

21 privately-owned land parcels.

22 The proposed tactical infrastructure would impact an approximately 60-foot wide

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

30 Construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure would require minor

31 adjustments in USBP operations in the Marfa Sector.

32 [[Preparer’s Note: Input on potential changes in operations due to the new

33 tactical infrastructure, and reasonably foreseeable maintenance issues
34 with the fence and patrol road are requested.]]

35

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008

2-4
FME004915
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination

1 [[Preparer’s Note: More details on Route A and B alignment differences

2 will be developed for Figure 2-1 once they are available. Appendix C will be
3 compiled once that information is received.]]

9 Figure 2-1. Alternative 2, Routes A and B

10

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008

2-5
FME004916
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 Figure 2-2. Schematic of Proposed Impact Areas – Alternative 2

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008

2-6
FME004917
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.

6 [[Preparer’s Note: Information about access gates and ramps under Route
7 A and B will be included when available.]]

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) authorized the construction of 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

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008

2-7
FME004918
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination

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

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008

2-8
FME004919
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination

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 Section 2.3 discusses alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail.

5 2.3.1 Fence Types

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

14 2.3.2 Additional USBP Agents in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure

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

22 [[Preparer’s Note: USBP requests additional information why hiring new

23 agents alone would not meet the Purpose and Need.]]

24 2.3.3 Technology in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure

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

35 2.4 SUMMARY
36 [[Preparer’s Note: This section will be included in the Preliminary Draft
37 EA.]]
Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008

2-9
FME004920
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination

1 2.5 IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED

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

8 Implementation of Route B would meet USBP’s purpose and need described in

9 Section 1.2. The No Action Alternative would not meet USBP’s purpose and
10 need. Route A would meet the purpose and need described in Section 1.2, but
11 it would cause environmental impacts greater than the impacts identified for
12 Route B. Alternative 3 would meet USBP’s purpose and need but would have
13 greater environmental impacts compared to the preferred alternative without
14 substantially increasing USBP’s ability to effectively control these areas of the
15 U.S./Mexico international border.

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008

2-10
FME004921
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.

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.

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008

3-1
FME004922
Internal Agency Review/Predecisional Draft, Not For Public Dissemination

1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Marfa Tactical Infrastructure EA – Rev. 1 April 7, 2008

3-2
FME004923

APPENDIX A
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION
FME004924
FME004925

APPENDIX B
POTENTIAL FENCING DESIGNS
FME004926
FME004927

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

25 photograph are provided in Figures B-1 through B-x.

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
39 specifications Figure B-1 through B-x provides photographs of several
40 prototypes.

B-1
FME004928

1 [[Preparer’s Note: USBP will insert additional photographs of standard

2 fence types when available.]]

3
4 Figure B-1. Typical Pedestrian Fence Foundation

5
6 Figure B-2. Typical Pedestrian Fence Design

B-2