Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 166

Preliminary Final

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE

OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

FOR THE
U.S. Border Patrol Marfa Sector, Texas

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE


U.S. Border Patrol Marfa Sector, Texas U.S. Department of Homeland Security
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Border Patrol
OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

MARCH
2008 MARCH 2008
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter EPLCAI El Paso-Las Cruces-


AQCR Alamogordo Interstate Air
°F Degrees Fahrenheit Quality Control Region
APE Area of Potential Effect ESA Endangered Species Act
AQCR air quality control region FEMA Federal Emergency
Management Agency
BA Biological Assessment
FHWA Federal Highway
BLM Bureau of Land Management
Administration
BMP Best Management Practice
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
BO Biological Opinion
FONSI Finding of No Significant
CAA Clean Air Act Impact

CBP U.S. Customs and Border FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act
Protection
FY fiscal year
CEQ Council on Environmental
GLO General Land Office
Quality
hp horsepower
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
IBWC International Boundary and
CM&R Construction Mitigation and
Water Commission
Restoration
JD Jurisdictional Determination
CO carbon monoxide
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
CO2 carbon dioxide
MD Management Directive
CRS Congressional Research
Service mg/L Milligrams per liter
CWA Clean Water Act mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
CY calendar year MMTCE million metric tons of carbon
equivalent
dBA A-weighted decibels
MSL mean sea level
DHS U.S. Department of Homeland
Security NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
EA Environmental Assessment
NADB North American Development
EIS Environmental Impact
Bank
Statement
NAGPRA Native American Graves
EO Executive Order
Protection and Repatriation
Act

continued on back cover →


← continued from front cover SO2 sulfur dioxide

NEPA National Environmental Policy SPCC Spill Prevention Control and


Act Countermeasures

NHL National Historic Landmark SR State Route

NHPA National Historic Preservation SWPPP Storm Water Pollution


Act Prevention Plan

NO2 nitrogen dioxide TAAQS Texas Ambient Air Quality


Standards
NOA Notice of Availability
TAC Texas Administrative Code
NOx nitrogen oxide
TCEQ Texas Commission on
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Environmental Quality
Elimination System
TxDOT Texas Department of
NPS National Park Service Transportation
NRCS Natural Resources THC Texas Historical Commission
Conservation Service
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
NRHP National Register of Historic
Places TNRCC Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission
NWI National Wetland Inventory
TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife
O3 ozone Department
OSHA Occupational Safety and TXPF Texas Pacifico Transportation
Health Administration Limited
P.L. Public Law U.S.C. United States Code
Pb lead USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
PM10 particle matter equal to or less USBP U.S. Border Patrol
than 10 microns in diameter
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
PM2.5 particle matter equal to or less
than 2.5 microns in diameter USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
POE Port of Entry
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
ppm parts per million
USIBWC United States Section,
ROI Region of Influence International Boundary and
Water Commission
ROW right-of-way
VOC volatile organic compound
SBI Secure Border Initiative
SHPO State Historic Preservation
Office
1 COVER SHEET
2
3 PRELIMINARY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
4 FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE
5 OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
6 U.S. BORDER PATROL MARFA SECTOR, TEXAS
7
8 Responsible Agencies: U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S.
9 Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP).

10 Cooperating Agencies: United State Section, International Boundary and


11 Water Commission (USIBWC), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

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


13 counties, Texas.

14 Proposed Action: The Proposed Action includes the construction, operation and
15 maintenance, of tactical infrastructure to include primary pedestrian fencing,
16 patrol and access roads, and lights along approximately 11 miles of the
17 U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP Marfa Sector, Texas. The
18 Proposed Action would be implemented in three discrete sections. The three
19 sections would be approximately 2.9, 3.3, and 4.6 miles in length.

20 Report Designation: Preliminary Final Environmental Assessment (EA)

21 Abstract: CBP proposes to construct, operate, and maintain approximately


22 11 miles of tactical infrastructure, including pedestrian fencing, patrol roads,
23 access roads, and lights, along the U.S./Mexico international border in Hudspeth
24 and Presidio counties, Texas.

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


26 discrete sections along the international border in Hudspeth and Presidio
27 counties, Texas. Two tactical infrastructure sections would be approximately 3.3
28 and 2.9 miles in length, and one section would be approximately 4.6 miles in
29 length. For much of its length, the proposed tactical infrastructure sections would
30 follow the USIBWC levee. Some portions of the tactical infrastructure would
31 encroach on parcels of privately owned land. The infrastructure would cross
32 predominantly rural and agricultural land.

33 The EA process will serve as a planning tool to assist agencies with


34 decisionmaking authority associated with the Proposed Action and ensure that
35 the required public involvement under the National Environmental Policy Act
36 (NEPA) is accomplished. The EA presents potential environmental impacts
37 associated with the Proposed Action and provides information to assist in the
38 decisionmaking process addressing whether and how to implement the Proposed
39 Action.
1 Throughout the NEPA process, the public may obtain information concerning the
2 status and progress of the Proposed Action and the EA via the project web site at
3 www.BorderFenceNEPA.com; by emailing information@BorderFenceNEPA.com;
4 or by written request to Mr. Charles McGregor, Environmental Manager, U.S. Army
5 Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, Engineering and Construction Support
6 Office (ECSO), 814 Taylor Street, Room 3B10, Fort Worth, TX 76102, fax: (757)
7 299-8444.

8 You may submit comments to CBP by contacting the SBI Tactical Infrastructure
9 Program Office. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following
10 methods:

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


12 (b) By email to: MScomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com;
13 (c) By mail to: Marfa Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o e²M, 2751
14 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031; or
15 (d) By fax to (757) 299-8444.

16 Privacy Notice

17 Any personal information included in comments will therefore by publicly


18 available.
PRELIMINARY FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION,
AND MAINTENANCE
OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
U.S. BORDER PATROL MARFA SECTOR, TEXAS

U.S. Department of Homeland Security


U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Border Patrol

MARCH 2008

This document printed on paper that contains at least 30 percent postconsumer fiber.
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 INTRODUCTION
3 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border
4 Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) proposes to construct, operate, and
5 maintain approximately 11 miles of tactical infrastructure, including three discrete
6 sections of primary pedestrian fence and associated patrol roads, access roads,
7 and lights along the U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP Marfa Sector,
8 Texas.

9 The mission of CBP is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering
10 the United States, while also facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel. In
11 supporting CBP’s mission, USBP is charged with establishing and maintaining
12 effective control of the border of the United States. USBP’s mission strategy
13 consists of five main objectives:

14 • Establish substantial probability of apprehending terrorists and their


15 weapons as they attempt to enter illegally between the Ports of Entry
16 (POEs)
17 • Deter illegal entries through improved enforcement
18 • Detect, apprehend, and deter smugglers of humans, drugs, and other
19 contraband
20 • Leverage “smart border” technology to multiply the effect of enforcement
21 personnel
22 • Reduce crime in border communities and consequently improve quality of
23 life and economic vitality of targeted areas.

24 This Preliminary Final Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared


25 through coordination with Federal and state agencies to identify and assess the
26 potential impacts associated with the proposed construction, operation, and
27 maintenance of tactical infrastructure. This Preliminary Final EA is also being
28 prepared to fulfill the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
29 (NEPA) of 1969.

30 PURPOSE AND NEED


31 The Proposed Action is needed because of high levels of illegal cross-border
32 activity in the USBP Marfa Sector. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to
33 increase border security within the USBP Marfa Sector and respond to
34 Congressional direction in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 DHS Appropriations Act
35 (Public Law [P.L.] 109-295), Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and
36 Technology appropriation to install fencing, infrastructure, and technology along
37 the border. The USBP Marfa Sector has identified 3 discrete areas along the
38 border that experience high levels of illegal cross-border activity. Illegal cross-
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
ES-1
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 border activity typically occurs in areas that are remote and not easily accessed
2 by USBP agents, near POEs where concentrated populations might live on either
3 side of the border, or in places that have quick access to U.S. transportation
4 routes.

5 The Proposed Action would provide USBP agents with the tools necessary to
6 strengthen their control of the U.S. borders between POEs in the USBP Marfa
7 Sector. The Proposed Action would help to deter illegal cross-border activities
8 within the USBP Marfa Sector by improving enforcement, preventing terrorists
9 and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, reducing the flow of illegal
10 drugs and other contraband, and enhancing response time, while providing a
11 safer work environment for USBP agents.

12 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
13 CBP notified relevant Federal, state, and local agencies of the Proposed Action
14 and requested input regarding environmental concerns they might have. As part
15 of the NEPA process, CBP coordinated with the U.S. Environmental Protection
16 Agency (USEPA); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); Texas State Historic
17 Preservation Office (SHPO); and other Federal, state, and local agencies. Input
18 from agency responses has been incorporated into the analysis of potential
19 environmental impacts.

20 Notices of Availability (NOAs) for this EA and Draft Finding of No Significant


21 Impact (FONSI) were published in the Big Bend Sentinel, the International, the
22 Van Horn Advocate, the Hudspeth Herald, the Alpine Avalanche and El Diario.
23 This is done to solicit comments on the Proposed Action and involve the local
24 community in the decisionmaking process. Comments from the public and other
25 Federal, state, and local agencies will be incorporated into the Final EA.

26 During the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft EA, CBP
27 received approximately 135 comment submissions by fax, by email, through the
28 project-specific Web site (www.BorderFenceNEPA.com), and by mail from the
29 public, Federal and state agencies, Federal, state, and local elected officials,
30 stakeholder organizations, and businesses (see Appendix D of the EA).

31 COOPERATING AGENCIES
32 The USIBWC, the USACE-Albuquerque District, and the U.S. Department of the
33 Interior (USFWS) as cooperating agencies have decisionmaking authority for
34 components of the Proposed Action and intend for this EA to fulfill their
35 requirements for compliance with NEPA. The CEQ regulations implementing
36 NEPA instruct agencies to combine environmental documents in compliance with
37 NEPA to reduce duplication and paperwork (40 CFR 1506.4).

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


ES-2
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION


2 CBP proposes to construct, operate, and maintain tactical infrastructure
3 consisting of three discrete sections of primary pedestrian fence, lighting, patrol
4 roads, and access roads along the U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP
5 Marfa Sector, Texas. Proposed tactical infrastructure includes installation of
6 fence sections in areas of the border that are not currently fenced. The proposed
7 locations of tactical infrastructure are based on a USBP Marfa Sector
8 assessment of local operational requirements where such infrastructure would
9 assist USBP agents in reducing illegal cross-border activities. The FY 2007 DHS
10 Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-295) provided $1,187,565,000 under the Border
11 Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology appropriation for the installation
12 of fencing, infrastructure, and technology along the border (CRS 2006).

13 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
14 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
15 Under the No Action Alternative, proposed tactical infrastructure would not be
16 built and there would be no change in fencing, access roads, or other facilities
17 along the U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations
18 within USBP Marfa Sector. The USBP Marfa Sector would continue to use
19 agents and technology to identify illegal cross-border activity, and deploy agents
20 to make apprehensions. Although USBP agents would continue to patrol the
21 U.S./Mexico international border within the USBP Marfa Sector and make
22 apprehensions, their response time and success rate in apprehensions would
23 continue to be impeded. The No Action Alternative is no longer an efficient use
24 of USBP resources and would not meet future USBP mission or operational
25 needs. However, inclusion of the No Action Alternative is prescribed by the CEQ
26 regulations and will be carried forward for analysis in the EA. The No Action
27 Alternative also serves as a baseline against which to evaluate the impacts of the
28 Proposed Action.

29 Alternative 2: Proposed Action


30 Under this alternative, three discrete sections of primary pedestrian fence,
31 lighting, patrol roads, and access roads would be constructed along the
32 U.S./Mexico international border within the USBP Marfa Sector in Hudspeth and
33 Presidio counties, Texas. The two sections in Presidio County would be
34 approximately 3.3 miles in length to the east and approximately 2.9 miles in
35 length to the west of the Presidio POE and the third section would be
36 approximately 4.6 miles in length in Hudspeth County. Figures ES-1 and ES-2
37 shows the proposed locations of tactical infrastructure.
38 In alignment with Federal mandates, each proposed tactical infrastructure section
39 would be an individual project and could proceed to completion independent of

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


ES-3
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 the other sections. CBP has identified these areas where a fence would
2 contribute significantly to its priority homeland security mission.

3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative


4 Alternative 3 consists of constructing, operating, and maintaining two layers of
5 fence, known as primary and secondary pedestrian fence, along the same
6 alignment as Alternative 2. Under this alternative, the two layers of fence would
7 be constructed approximately 130 feet apart and would be most closely aligned
8 with the fence description in the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-367, 120
9 Stat. 2638, 8 U.S.C. § 1701 (note), and 8 U.S.C. § 1103 (note)).

10 This alternative would also include construction and maintenance of access and
11 patrol roads. The lighting and patrol roads would be between the primary and
12 secondary pedestrian fences. The design of the tactical infrastructure for this
13 alternative would be similar to that of Alternative 2.

14 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS


15 Table ES-1 provides an overview of potential impacts anticipated under each
16 alternative considered, broken down by resource area. Section 3 of this EA
17 addresses these impacts in more detail.

18

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


ES-4
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

Rd
Lasc a

Ne w Me xico
Rd Pacific
Diablo
Ocean
Pe
Hudspeth

c
County o s
Ri v

e
Texas r

10
Presidio
Fort Sierra County
10 de
Proposed Tactical an
Hancock Blanca

Gr
Infrastructure
U n i t e d

io
Locations

R
Ra
nc
S t a t e s Mex ico

h
R
ad

o
19
2 Rd
an
Cow

Rd
as s
P
an
u i tm

Q
Texas

L-1

R
i
o
G
r
a
n
d
e

M e x i c o

Proposed Action Route


L-1 Fence Section Label
Miles

0 1.5 3 6
Scale
Projection: Albers
USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic
North American Datum of 1983

WARNING: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO).


It contains information that may be exempt from public release under
the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled,
stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance
with DHS policy relating to FOUO information and is not be released
to the public or other personnel who do not have a valid “need-to-know”
without prior approval of an authorized DHS official.

1 Source: ESRI StreetMap USA 2005

2 Figure ES-1. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

3 Preliminary Final EA March 2008


ES-5
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

Ne w Me xico
Pacific
Ocean
P
Hudspeth e

c
County os
Riv

e
Texas r

U n i t e d Presidio
County
de
Proposed Tactical an

Gr
Infrastructure

io
Locations
S t a t e s

R
67
F ar
m

To
Mex ico
Ma r k

et
R
oa
d
1 70

Texas

dra
Presidio P ie
sa
Ca
L-1B
Big Bend
Ranch
State Park
L-1A
R i o G r
a
M e x i c o n
d
e

Proposed Action Route

Parks

L-1B Fence Section Label


Miles

0 1.5 3 6
Scale
Projection: Albers
USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic
North American Datum of 1983

WARNING: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO).


It contains information that may be exempt from public release under
the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled,
stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance
with DHS policy relating to FOUO information and is not be released
to the public or other personnel who do not have a valid “need-to-know”
without prior approval of an authorized DHS official.

1 Source: ESRI StreetMap USA 2005

2 Figure ES-2. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

3 Preliminary Final EA March 2008


ES-6
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Table ES-1. Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts by Alternative

Alternative 3:
Alternative 1: No Alternative 2:
Resource Area Secure Fence Act
Action Alternative Proposed Action
Alignment
Air Quality No tactical Emissions would Emissions would
infrastructure would result in major short- result in impacts
be constructed and and long-term similar to, but
USBP operations adverse impacts. greater than, the
would remain impacts described
unchanged. No under Alternative 2.
impacts would be
expected.
Noise No tactical Noise from Noise from
infrastructure would construction construction
be constructed and equipment and equipment and
USBP operations increased traffic increased traffic
would remain would result in would result in
unchanged. No short-term moderate adverse impacts
impacts would be to major adverse similar to, but
expected. impacts. slightly greater than,
the impacts
described under
Alternative 2.
Land Use Long-term minor to Land use changes Land use changes
major adverse and incompatibilities and incompatibilities
impacts would be would result in long- would result in
expected. term minor to major adverse impacts
adverse and similar to, but
beneficial impacts. slightly greater than,
the impacts
described under
Alternative 2.
Geology and Continuation in Grading and Grading and
Soils cross-border violator contouring would contouring would
traffic. Long-term result in short- and result in adverse
minor continuing long-term minor impacts similar to,
adverse impacts adverse impacts. but slightly greater
expected due to than, the impacts
compaction. described under
Alternative 2.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


ES-7
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

Alternative 3:
Alternative 1: No Alternative 2:
Resource Area Secure Fence Act
Action Alternative Proposed Action
Alignment
Hydrology and Long-term minor Grading and Grading and
Groundwater adverse impacts contouring would contouring would
would be expected. result in short- and result in adverse
long-term negligible impacts similar to,
adverse impacts on but slightly greater
hydrology and than, the impacts
groundwater. described under
Short-term, minor Alternative 2.
adverse impacts on
groundwater would
be expected.
Surface Waters Long-term minor Increased Increased
and Waters of the adverse impacts impervious surface impervious surface
United States would be expected. and runoff potential and runoff potential
would result in would result in
short- and long-term impacts that would
negligible adverse be similar to, but
impacts on surface slightly greater than,
waters and the impacts
wetlands. described under
Alternative 2.
Floodplains No tactical Construction Construction
infrastructure would activities would activities would
be constructed and result in short- and result in adverse
USBP operations long-term minor impacts similar to,
would remain adverse impacts. but slightly greater
unchanged. No than, the impacts
impacts would be described under
expected. Alternative 2.
Vegetative Continuation in Disturbance and Disturbance and
Resources cross-border violator clearing would result clearing would result
traffic would be in short- and long- in adverse and
expected. term minor adverse beneficial impacts
Vegetation would and minor beneficial similar to, but
continue to be impacts. slightly greater than,
trampled. Long- the impacts
term negligible to described under
moderate adverse Alternative 2.
impacts would be
expected.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


ES-8
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

Alternative 3:
Alternative 1: No Alternative 2:
Resource Area Secure Fence Act
Action Alternative Proposed Action
Alignment
Wildlife and Continuation in Habitat conversion Habitat conversion
Aquatic cross-border violator and fragmentation and fragmentation
Resources traffic would be would result in would result in
expected. Minor short- and long-term adverse and
long-term adverse moderate adverse beneficial impacts
impacts would be and minor beneficial similar to, but
expected. impacts. slightly greater than,
the impacts
described under
Alternative 2.
Threatened and Continuation in Loss of potential Loss of potential
Endangered cross-border activity habitat, habitat,
Species would result in long- fragmentation, and fragmentation, and
term minor to elevated noise elevated noise
moderate adverse would result in would result in
impacts. short- and long-term adverse impacts
minor adverse similar to, but
impacts. slightly greater than,
the impacts
described under
Alternative 2.
Protection of habitat
provided by the
fence would result in
long-term minor
beneficial impacts.
Cultural, Historic, No tactical Long-term Impacts would be
and infrastructure would potentially major similar to the
Archaeological be constructed and adverse impacts impacts described
Resources USBP operations would be expected. under Alternative 2.
would remain
unchanged. Long-
term minor adverse
impacts would
continue to be
expected from
continued cross-
border activity.
Aesthetics and No tactical Visual interruption Visual interruption
Visual Resources infrastructure would would result in would result in
be constructed and short- and long-term adverse impacts
USBP operations minor to major similar to, but
would remain adverse impacts. slightly greater than,
unchanged. No the impacts
impacts would be described under
expected. Alternative 2.
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
ES-9
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

Alternative 3:
Alternative 1: No Alternative 2:
Resource Area Secure Fence Act
Action Alternative Proposed Action
Alignment
Socioeconomic Continuation in Construction Construction
Resources, cross-border violator activities, increased activities, increased
Environmental traffic would be employment, and employment, and
Justice, and expected. Long- new income would new income would
Protection of term minor to major have direct and result in adverse
Children adverse impacts on indirect short-term and beneficial
safety would be minor beneficial impacts similar to,
expected. impacts. Minor but slightly greater
adverse effects on than, the impacts
minorities and low- described under
income populations Alternative 2.
would be expected.
Utilities and No new impacts Short-term Impacts would be
Infrastructure would be expected. negligible to minor similar to, but
adverse impacts slightly greater than,
would be expected. the impacts
described under
Alternative 2.
Roadways and No new impacts Short-term minor Impacts would be
Traffic would be expected. adverse impacts similar to, but
would be expected. slightly greater than,
the impacts
described under
Alternative 2.
1

2 CBP would follow design criteria to reduce adverse environmental impacts and
3 would implement mitigation measures to further reduce or offset adverse
4 environmental impacts to the extent possible. Design criteria to reduce adverse
5 environmental impacts include avoiding physical disturbance and construction of
6 solid barriers in wetlands/riparian areas and streambeds, consulting with Federal
7 and state agencies and other stakeholders to avoid or minimize adverse
8 environmental impacts, and developing appropriate Best Management Practices
9 (BMPs) to protect natural and cultural resources to the extent possible. BMPs
10 would include implementation of a Construction Mitigation and Restoration
11 (CM&R) Plan; Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan; Dust
12 Control Plan; and Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Cultural Resources.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


ES-10
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 PRELIMINARY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT


2 FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE
3 OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
4 U.S. BORDER PATROL MARFA SECTOR, TEXAS
5
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS
7 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................. INSIDE FRONT AND BACK COVERS
8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... ES-1
9 1.  INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1 
10 1.1  USBP BACKGROUND............................................................................................... 1-4 
11 1.2  PURPOSE AND NEED .............................................................................................. 1-4 
12 1.3  PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................ 1-5 
13 1.4  FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 1-5 
14 1.5  PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................... 1-6 
15 1.6  COOPERATING AGENCIES ..................................................................................... 1-8 
16 2.  PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................... 2-1 
17 2.1  SCREENING CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES ........................................................ 2-1 
18 2.2  ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 2-2 
19 2.2.1  Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .............................................................. 2-2 
20 2.2.2  Alternative 2: Proposed Action ..................................................................... 2-2 
21 2.2.3  Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative .............................. 2-10 
22 2.3  ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER
23 DETAILED ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 2-10 
24 2.3.1  Additional USBP Agents in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure........................... 2-12 
25 2.3.2  Technology in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure............................................... 2-12 
26 2.4  SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ACTION ALTERNATIVES ..................................... 2-13 
27 2.5  IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED
28 ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................................ 2-13 
29 3.  AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ..................... 3-1 
30 3.1  AIR QUALITY............................................................................................................. 3-2 
31 3.1.1  Definition of the Resource ............................................................................. 3-2 
32 3.1.2  Affected Environment .................................................................................... 3-4 
33 3.1.3  Environmental Consequences ...................................................................... 3-4 
34 3.2  NOISE ...................................................................................................................... 3-10 
35 3.2.1  Definition of the Resource ........................................................................... 3-10 
36 3.2.2  Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3-13 
37 3.2.3  Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-14 
38 3.3  LAND USE ............................................................................................................... 3-15 
39 3.3.1  Definition of the Resource ........................................................................... 3-15 
40 3.3.2  Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3-16 
41 3.3.3  Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-17 
42
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
i
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)


2 3.4  GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................... 3-19 
3 3.4.1  Definition of the Resource ........................................................................... 3-19 
4 3.4.2  Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3-21 
5 3.4.3  Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-22 
6 3.5  HYDROLOGY AND GROUNDWATER .................................................................... 3-26 
7 3.5.1  Definition of the Resource ........................................................................... 3-26 
8 3.5.2  Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3-26 
9 3.5.3  Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-27 
10 3.6  SURFACE WATERS AND WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ............................ 3-28 
11 3.6.1  Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3-30 
12 3.6.2  Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-34 
13 3.7  FLOODPLAINS ........................................................................................................ 3-36 
14 3.7.1  Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3-37 
15 3.7.2  Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-38 
16 3.8  VEGETATIVE RESOURCES ................................................................................... 3-39 
17 3.8.1  Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3-39 
18 3.8.2  Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-40 
19 3.9  WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES................................................................ 3-45 
20 3.9.1  Definition of the Resource ........................................................................... 3-45 
21 3.9.2  Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3-46 
22 3.9.3  Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-47 
23 3.10  THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES...................................................... 3-51 
24 3.10.1  Definition of the Resource ........................................................................... 3-51 
25 3.10.2  Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3-52 
26 3.10.3  Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-52 
27 3.11  CULTURAL, HISTORIC, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................ 3-57 
28 3.11.1  Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3-58 
29 3.11.2  Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-62 
30 3.12  AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES ............................................................. 3-63 
31 3.12.1  Definition of the Resource ........................................................................... 3-63 
32 3.12.2  Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3-65 
33 3.12.3  Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-71 
34 3.13  SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND
35 PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ................................................................................ 3-79 
36 3.13.1  Definition of the Resource ........................................................................... 3-79 
37 3.13.2  Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3-80 
38 3.13.3  Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-83 
39 3.14  UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ...................................................................... 3-85 
40 3.14.1  Definition of the Resource ........................................................................... 3-85 
41 3.14.2  Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3-85 
42 3.14.3  Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-86 
43 3.15  ROADWAYS AND TRAFFIC.................................................................................... 3-87 
44 3.15.1  Definition of the Resource ........................................................................... 3-87 
45 3.15.2  Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3-87 
46 3.15.3  Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-88 
47 Preliminary Final EA March 2008
ii
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)


2 4.  CUMULATIVE AND OTHER IMPACTS .............................................................................. 4-1 
3 4.1  AIR QUALITY............................................................................................................. 4-3 
4 4.2  NOISE ........................................................................................................................ 4-9 
5 4.3  LAND USE ................................................................................................................. 4-9 
6 4.4  GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................. 4-9 
7 4.5  HYDROLOGY AND GROUNDWATER ...................................................................... 4-9 
8 4.6  SURFACE WATERS AND WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES............................ 4-10 
9 4.7  FLOODPLAINS ........................................................................................................ 4-10 
10 4.8  VEGETATIVE RESOURCES ................................................................................... 4-11 
11 4.9  WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ............................................................... 4-11 
12 4.10  THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES...................................................... 4-11 
13 4.11  CULTURAL, HISTORIC, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................ 4-12 
14 4.12  AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES ............................................................. 4-12 
15 4.13  SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND
16 PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ................................................................................ 4-13 
17 4.14  UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ...................................................................... 4-14 
18 4.15  ROADWAYS AND TRAFFIC ................................................................................... 4-14 
19 4.16  IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ........ 4-14 
20 4.17  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SHORT-TERM USE OF THE
21 ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ............................................ 4-15 
22 5.  MITIGATION AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .................................................... 5-1 
23 6.  REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 6-1 
24 7.  LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................................ 7-1 
25
26 APPENDICES
27
28 A. Standard Design for Tactical Infrastructure
29 B. Applicable Laws and Executive Orders
30 C. Agency Coordination
31 D. Public Comments on the Draft EA
32 E. Air Quality Information
33 F. Detailed Maps of the Proposed Fence Sections
34 G. Detailed Maps of the Proposed Fence Sections Showing Soils
35 H. Draft Biological Survey Report
36 I. Draft Cultural Resources Findings
37
38

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


iii
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 FIGURES
2 ES-1. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure................................................................ 5 
3 ES-2. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure................................................................ 6 
4 1-1. General Location of Proposed Tactical Infrastructure ....................................................... 1-2 
5 1-2. General Location of Proposed Tactical Infrastructure ....................................................... 1-3 
6 2-1. Location of Section L-1 Tactical Infrastructure .................................................................. 2-3 
7 2-2. Location of Sections L-1A and L-1B Tactical Infrastructure .............................................. 2-4 
8 2-3. Fence schematic for L-1 ................................................................................................... 2-7 
9 2-4. Fence schematic for L-1A and L-1B ................................................................................. 2-8 
10 2-5. Schematic of Proposed Project Corridor – Alternative 2 ................................................... 2-9 
11 2-6. Schematic of Proposed Project Corridor – Alternative 3 ................................................. 2-11 
12 3.2-1. Common Noise Levels.................................................................................................... 3-12 
13 3.12-1. Photograph View of Typical Rural Land Unit (Section L-1) ............................................. 3-67 
14 3.12-2. Photograph View of Presidio (Section L-1B)................................................................... 3-68 
15 3.12-3. Schematic Showing Visibility of Fencing at Various Distances ....................................... 3-69 
16 3.12-4. Typical Views Towards Proposed Construction Corridor, Section L-1 ............................ 3-75 
17 3.12-5. Typical Views Towards Proposed Project Corridor, Sections L-1A and L-1B ................. 3-76 
18
19
20 TABLES
21 ES-1. Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts by Alternative ..................................... ES-7 
22 1-1. Major Permits, Approvals, and Interagency Coordination ................................................. 1-7 
23 2-1. Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Sections for USBP Marfa Sector ................................... 2-5 
24 2-2. Comparison of Action Alternatives .................................................................................. 2-13 
25 3.1-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards............................................................................ 3-3 
26 3.1-2. Estimates of Total Proposed Construction Emissions from Alternative 2 in Tons Per
27 Year .................................................................................................................................. 3-6 
28 3.1-3. Estimates of Total Proposed Construction Emissions from Alternative 3 in Tons Per
29 Year .................................................................................................................................. 3-9 
30 3.2-1. Noise Levels for Construction Equipment ....................................................................... 3-11 
31 3.3-1. Communities Potentially Affected by Alternative 2.......................................................... 3-18 
32 3.6-1: Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States and Acreages within the Project
33 Assessment Areas in Marfa Sections L-1, L-1A, and L-1B ............................................. 3-33 
34 3.8-1. Plant Species Observed in Sections L-1, L-1A, and L-1B............................................... 3-41 
35 3.9-1. Light Source Intensity ..................................................................................................... 3-49 
36 3.10-1. Federal- and State-Listed Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed Project
37 Corridor........................................................................................................................... 3-53 
38 3.11-1. National Register of Historic Places Listed Properties in the Vicinity of the Proposed
39 Project Corridor .............................................................................................................. 3-60 
40 3.12-1. Character of Visual Resources within Typical Marfa Sector Land Units (Current
41 Conditions) ..................................................................................................................... 3-68 
42 3.12-2. Quality of Visual Resources within Typical Marfa Sector Land Units (Current
43 Conditions) ..................................................................................................................... 3-68 
44 3.12-3. Impact on the Character of Visual Resources within Typical Marfa Sector Land Units... 3-74 
45
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
iv
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 TABLES (CONTINUED)
2 3.12-4. Quality of Visual Resources within Typical Marfa Sector Land Units After Proposed
3 Construction ................................................................................................................... 3-75 
4 3.13-1. Employment Type of Residents in Census Tracts, Hudspeth and Presidio Counties,
5 and the State of Texas (Percent) .................................................................................... 3-81 
6 3.13-2. Demographic and Economic Characteristics of the Census Tracts, Hudspeth and
7 Presidio Counties, and the State of Texas...................................................................... 3-82 
8 4.0-1. Summary of Potential Cumulative Effects......................................................................... 4-4 
9
10

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


v
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


vi
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 1. INTRODUCTION

2 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border
3 Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) proposes to construct, operate, and
4 maintain approximately 11 miles of tactical infrastructure, including three discrete
5 sections of primary pedestrian fence and associated access roads, patrol roads,
6 and lights along the U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP Marfa Sector,
7 Texas.

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


9 discrete fence sections (designated as Sections L-1, L-1A, and L-1B) along the
10 U.S./Mexico international border in the vicinity of the town of Sierra Blanca
11 (Hudspeth County) and the city of Presidio (Presidio County), Texas (see
12 Figures 1-1 and 1-2).

13 The locations of the individual tactical infrastructure sections were proposed


14 based on the situational and operational requirements of the USBP Marfa Sector.
15 Although some of the fence sections would be contiguous, each fence section
16 would represent an individual project and could proceed independent of the other
17 sections. The three tactical infrastructure sections would be approximately 2.9,
18 3.3, and 4.6 miles in length. Detailed descriptions of the fence sections are
19 presented in Section 2.2.2. For much of its length, the proposed tactical
20 infrastructure would follow the United States Section, International Boundary and
21 Water Commission (USIBWC) levee. The USIBWC enforces and oversees the
22 boundary and water treaties of the United States and Mexico and settles
23 differences that arise in their application (IBWC 2007). Some portions of the
24 tactical infrastructure would also encroach upon multiple privately owned land
25 parcels and would cross predominantly rural and agricultural land. A detailed
26 description of the Proposed Action and the alternatives considered is presented
27 in Section 2.

28 This Preliminary Final Environmental Assessment (EA) is divided into six


29 sections and appendices. Section 1 provides background information on USBP
30 missions, identifies the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, describes
31 the area in which the Proposed Action would occur, and explains the public
32 involvement process. Section 2 provides a detailed description of the Proposed
33 Action, alternatives considered, and the No Action Alternative. Section 3
34 describes existing environmental conditions in the areas where the Proposed
35 Action would occur, and identifies potential environmental impacts that could
36 occur from each alternative evaluated in detail. Section 4 discusses potential
37 cumulative impacts and other impacts that might result from implementation of
38 the Proposed Action, combined with foreseeable future actions. Section 5
39 provides a summary of necessary mitigation measures and best management
40 practices (BMPs). Sections 6 and 7 provide references and a list of preparers,
41 respectively.

42
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
1-1
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

Rd
Lasc a

Ne w Me xico
Rd Pacific
Diablo
Ocean
Pe
Hudspeth

c
County o s
Ri v

e
Texas r

10
Presidio
Fort Sierra County
10 de
Proposed Tactical an
Hancock Blanca

Gr
Infrastructure
U n i t e d

io
Locations

R
Ra
nc
S t a t e s Mex ico
h
R

ad
o

19
2 Rd
an
Cow

Rd
as s
P
an
u i tm

Q
Texas

L-1

R
i
o
G
r
a
n
d
e

M e x i c o

Proposed Action Route


L-1 Fence Section Label
Miles

0 1.5 3 6
Scale
Projection: Albers
USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic
North American Datum of 1983

WARNING: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO).


It contains information that may be exempt from public release under
the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled,
stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance
with DHS policy relating to FOUO information and is not be released
to the public or other personnel who do not have a valid “need-to-know”
without prior approval of an authorized DHS official.

1 Source: ESRI StreetMap USA 2005

2 Figure 1-1. General Location of Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

3
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
1-2
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

Ne w Me xico
Pacific
Ocean
P
Hudspeth e

c
County os
Riv

e
Texas r

U n i t e d Presidio
County
de
Proposed Tactical an

Gr
Infrastructure

io
Locations
S t a t e s

R
F ar
m 67

To
Mex ico
Ma r k

et
R
oa
d
1 70

Texas

dra
Presidio P ie
sa
Ca
L-1B
Big Bend
Ranch
State Park
L-1A
R i o G r
a
M e x i c o n
d

Proposed Action Route

Parks

L-1B Fence Section Label


Miles

0 1.5 3 6
Scale
Projection: Albers
USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic
North American Datum of 1983

WARNING: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO).


It contains information that may be exempt from public release under
the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled,
stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance
with DHS policy relating to FOUO information and is not be released
to the public or other personnel who do not have a valid “need-to-know”
without prior approval of an authorized DHS official.

1 Source: ESRI StreetMap USA 2005

2 Figure 1-2. General Location of Proposed Tactical Infrastructure


3 Preliminary Final EA March 2008
1-3
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Appendix A provides potential fence designs and a description of the proposed


2 tactical infrastructure. Appendix B contains a listing of those laws, regulations,
3 and executive orders potentially applicable to the Proposed Action. Appendix C
4 presents agency coordination letters. Appendix D presents the newspaper ads
5 from local papers, materials related to the Draft EA comment process, and public
6 involvement along with the NOA. Appendix E presents air quality information.
7 Appendix F contains detailed maps of each of the three proposed tactical
8 infrastructure sections. Appendix G contains detailed soil maps of each of the
9 three proposed tactical infrastructure sections. Appendix H contains the Draft
10 Biological Survey Report. Appendix I contains the Cultural Resources Findings

11 1.1 USBP BACKGROUND


12 The mission of CBP is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering
13 the United States, while also facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel. In
14 supporting CBP’s mission, USBP is charged with establishing and maintaining
15 effective control of the border of the United States. USBP’s mission strategy
16 consists of the following five main objectives:

17 • Establish substantial probability of apprehending terrorists and their


18 weapons as they attempt to enter illegally between the Ports of Entry
19 (POEs)
20 • Deter illegal entries through improved enforcement
21 • Detect, apprehend, and deter smugglers of humans, drugs, and other
22 contraband
23 • Leverage “smart border” technology to multiply the effect of enforcement
24 personnel
25 • Reduce crime in border communities and consequently improve quality of
26 life and economic vitality of targeted areas.

27 USBP has nine administrative sectors along the U.S./Mexico international border.
28 Each sector is responsible for implementing an optimal combination of personnel,
29 technology, and infrastructure appropriate to its operational requirements. The
30 Marfa Sector is responsible for more than 135,000 square miles encompassing
31 118 counties in Texas and Oklahoma, and 420 miles of the Rio Grande border
32 (CBP 2006). Within the USBP Marfa Sector, areas for tactical infrastructure
33 improvements have been identified that would help the Sector gain more
34 effective control of the border and significantly contribute to USBP’s priority
35 mission of homeland security.

36 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED


37 The Proposed Action is needed because of high levels of illegal cross-border
38 activity in the USBP Marfa Sector. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to
39 increase border security within the USBP Marfa Sector and respond to
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
1-4
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Congressional direction in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 DHS Appropriations Act
2 (Public Law [P.L.] 109-295), Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and
3 Technology appropriation to install fencing, infrastructure, and technology along
4 the border. The USBP Marfa Sector has identified 3 discrete areas along the
5 border that experience high levels of illegal cross-border activity. Illegal cross-
6 border activity typically occurs in areas that are remote and not easily accessed
7 by USBP agents, near POEs where concentrated populations might live on either
8 side of the border, or in places that have quick access to U.S. transportation
9 routes.

10 The Proposed Action would provide USBP agents with the tools necessary to
11 strengthen their control of the U.S. borders between POEs in the USBP Marfa
12 Sector. The Proposed Action would help to deter illegal cross-border activities
13 within the USBP Marfa Sector by improving enforcement, preventing terrorists
14 and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, reducing the flow of illegal
15 drugs and other contraband, and enhancing response time, while providing a
16 safer work environment for USBP agents.

17 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION


18 CBP proposes to construct, operate, and maintain tactical infrastructure
19 consisting of three discrete sections of primary pedestrian fence and associated
20 patrol roads, access roads, and lights along three discrete areas of the
21 U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP Marfa Sector, Texas (examples of
22 primary pedestrian fence are included in Appendix A). Proposed tactical
23 infrastructure includes installation of fence sections in some areas of the border
24 that are not currently fenced. The proposed locations of tactical infrastructure
25 are based on a USBP Marfa Sector assessment of local operational
26 requirements where such infrastructure would assist USBP agents in reducing
27 illegal cross-border activities. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 DHS Appropriations Act
28 (Public Law [P.L.] 109-295) provided $1,187,565,000 under the Border Security
29 Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology appropriation for the installation of
30 fencing, infrastructure, and technology along the border (CRS 2006). Figures 1-
31 1 and 1-2 illustrate the location of the proposed tactical infrastructure within the
32 Marfa Sector. Details of the Proposed Action are included in Section 2.2.2.
33 CBP has identified the Proposed Action as its Preferred Alternative.
34 Implementation of the Proposed Action would meet USBP’s purpose and need.

35 1.4 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS


36 The process for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is
37 codified in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 40 Parts 1500–1508, Regulations
38 for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy
39 Act, and DHS’s related Management Directive (MD) 5100.1, Environmental
40 Planning Program. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was
41 established under NEPA to implement and oversee Federal policy in this
42 process. CEQ regulations specify the following when preparing an EA:
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
1-5
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 • Briefly provide evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare


2 an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant
3 Impact (FONSI)
4 • Aid in an agency’s compliance with NEPA when an EIS is unnecessary
5 • Facilitate preparation of an EIS when one is necessary.

6 To comply with NEPA, the planning and decisionmaking process for actions
7 proposed by Federal agencies involves a study of other relevant environmental
8 statutes and regulations. The NEPA process, however, does not replace
9 procedural or substantive requirements of other environmental statutes and
10 regulations. It addresses them collectively in the form of an EA or EIS, which
11 enables the decisionmaker to have a comprehensive view of major
12 environmental issues and requirements associated with the Proposed Action.
13 According to CEQ regulations, the requirements of NEPA must be integrated
14 “with other planning and environmental review procedures required by law or by
15 agency so that all such procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively.”

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


17 authorities that may be applicable include the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water
18 Act (CWA) (including a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
19 [NPDES] storm water discharge permit and Section 404 permit), Section 10 of
20 the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Noise Control Act, Endangered Species Act
21 (ESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), National Historic Preservation Act
22 (NHPA), Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Resource Conservation and
23 Recovery Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, and various Executive Orders
24 (EOs). A summary of laws, regulations, and EOs that might be applicable to the
25 Proposed Action are shown in Appendix B. Table 1-1 lists major Federal and
26 state permits, approvals, and interagency coordination required to construct,
27 operate, and maintain the proposed tactical infrastructure.

28 1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT


29 Agency and public involvement in the NEPA process promotes open
30 communication between the public and the government and enhances the
31 decisionmaking process. All persons or organizations having a potential interest
32 in the Proposed Action are encouraged to participate in the decisionmaking
33 process.
34 NEPA and implementing regulations from the CEQ and DHS direct agencies to
35 make EAs available to the public during the document development process and
36 prior to any decisionmaking on what actions are to be taken. The premise of
37 NEPA is that the quality of Federal decisions will be enhanced if proponents
38 provide information to the public and involve the public in the planning process.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


1-6
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Table 1-1. Major Permits, Approvals, and Interagency Coordination

Agency Permit/Approval/Coordination
- Section 7 (ESA) consultation
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. - MBTA coordination
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) - Special Use Permits for access to National
Wildlife Refuge areas
U.S. Environmental Protection
- CWA NPDES permit
Agency (USEPA)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
- CWA Section 404 permit
(USACE)
- CWA Section 401 State Water Quality
Texas Commission on Environmental Certification
Quality (TCEQ) - CAA permit consultation
- Construction Storm water permit
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
- Texas Endangered Species Act coordination
(TPWD)
Texas Historical Commission (THC) - NHPA Section 106 consultation
Federally recognized American Indian - Consultation regarding potential effects on
Tribes cultural resources
Advisory Council on Historic
- NHPA Section 106 consultation
Preservation
2

3 Through the public involvement process, CBP notified relevant Federal, state,
4 and local agencies of the Proposed Action and requested input regarding
5 environmental concerns they might have regarding the Proposed Action. The
6 public involvement process provides CBP with the opportunity to cooperate with
7 and consider state and local views in its decision regarding implementing this
8 Federal proposal. As part of the EA process, CBP has coordinated with the U.S.
9 Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
10 (USFWS); Texas Historical Commission (THC); and other Federal, state, and
11 local agencies (see Appendix C). Input from agency responses has been
12 incorporated into the analysis of potential environmental impacts.

13 Notices of Availability (NOAs) for this EA and Draft FONSI were published in the
14 Big Bend Sentinel, the International, the Van Horn Advocate, the Hudspeth
15 Herald, the Alpine Avalanche and El Diario on January 8, 2008.

16 The NOA solicits comments on the Proposed Action and involves the local
17 community in the decisionmaking process. Comments from the public and other
18 Federal, state, and local agencies are addressed and included in Appendix D.

19 This EA also serves as a public notice regarding impacts on floodplains. EO


20 11988 directs Federal agencies to avoid floodplains unless the agency

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


1-7
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 determines that there is no practicable alternative. Where the only practicable


2 alternative is to site in a floodplain, a specific process must be followed to comply
3 with EO 11988. This eight-step process is detailed in the Federal Emergency
4 Management Agency (FEMA) document “Further Advice on EO 11988
5 Floodplain Management.” The eight steps are as follows:
6 1. Determine whether the action will occur in, or stimulate development in, a
7 floodplain.
8 2. Receive public review/input of the Proposed Action.
9 3. Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating in the floodplain.
10 4. Identify the impacts of the Proposed Action (when it occurs in a
11 floodplain).
12 5. Minimize threats to life, property, and natural and beneficial floodplain
13 values, and restore and preserve natural and beneficial floodplain values.
14 6. Reevaluate alternatives in light of any new information that might have
15 become available.
16 7. Issue findings and a public explanation.
17 8. Implement the action.

18 Steps 1, 3, and 4 have been undertaken as part of this EA and are further
19 discussed in Section 3.7. Steps 2 and 6 through 8 are being conducted
20 simultaneously with the EA development process, including public review of the
21 Draft EA. Step 5 relates to mitigation and is currently undergoing development.
22 a. Electronically through the web site at: www.BorderFenceNEPA.com
23 b. By email to: MScomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
24 c. By mail to: Marfa Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o e²M, 2751
25 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031
26 d. By fax to: (757) 299-8444.

27 Throughout the NEPA process, the public may obtain information concerning the
28 status and progress of the EA via the project Web site at
29 www.BorderFenceNEPA.com; by emailing information@BorderFenceNEPA.com;
30 or by written request to Mr. Charles McGregor, Environmental Manager, U.S.
31 Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District, Engineering and
32 Construction Support Office, 814 Taylor Street, Room 3B10, Fort Worth, TX
33 76102, and Fax: (757) 299-8444.

34 1.6 COOPERATING AGENCIES


35 The USIBWC, the USACE-Albuquerque District, and the USFWS as coordinating
36 agencies have decisionmaking authority for components of the Proposed Action
37 and intend for this EA to fulfill their requirements for compliance with NEPA. The

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


1-8
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 CEQ regulations implementing NEPA instruct agencies to combine


2 environmental documents in compliance with NEPA to reduce duplication and
3 paperwork (40 CFR 1506.4).

4 The USACE-Albuquerque District Engineer has the authority to authorize actions


5 under Section 404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
6 1899 (33 United States Code [U.S.C.] 403). Applications for work involving the
7 discharge of fill material into waters of the United States and work in, or affecting,
8 a navigable water of the United States will be submitted to the USACE-
9 Albuquerque District Regulatory Program Branch for review and a decision on
10 issuance of a permit will be reached.

11 Section 7 of the ESA (P.L. 93-205, December 28, 1973) states that any project
12 authorized, funded, or conducted by any Federal agency should not
13 “…jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened
14 species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such
15 species which is determined … to be critical.” The USFWS is a cooperating
16 agency regarding this Proposed Action to determine whether any federally listed,
17 proposed endangered, or proposed threatened species or their designated
18 critical habitats would be adversely impacted by the Proposed Action. As a
19 cooperating agency, the USFWS has assisted in completing the Section 7
20 consultation process, identifying the nature and extent of potential effects, and
21 developing measures that would avoid or reduce potential effects on any species
22 of concern.

23 For much of the proposed fence sections, the tactical infrastructure would follow
24 the Rio Grande levee rights-of-way (ROWs) administered by the USIBWC. The
25 International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) is an international body
26 composed of the U.S. Section and the Mexican Section, each headed by an
27 Engineer-Commissioner appointed by their respective president. Each Section is
28 administered independently of the other. The USIBWC is a Federal government
29 agency headquartered in El Paso, Texas, and operates under the foreign policy
30 guidance of the Department of State (USIBWC 2007). The USIBWC would
31 provide access and ROWs to construct proposed tactical infrastructure along its
32 levee system within the Marfa Sector. It will also ensure that design and
33 placement of the proposed tactical infrastructure does not impact flood control
34 and does not violate treaty obligations between the United States and Mexico.
35 For purposes of the analysis in this EA, the phrase “north of the proposed fence
36 sections” refers to the area on the U.S. side of the proposed tactical
37 infrastructure.

38

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


1-9
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


1-10
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2 This section provides detailed information on CBP’s proposal to construct,


3 operate, and maintain tactical infrastructure along the U.S./Mexico international
4 border in the Marfa Sector, Texas. The range of reasonable alternatives
5 considered in this EA is constrained to those that would meet the purpose and
6 need described in Section 1 to provide USBP agents with the tools necessary to
7 achieve effective control of the border in the Marfa Sector. Such alternatives
8 must also meet essential technical, engineering, and economic threshold
9 requirements to ensure that each is environmentally sound, economically viable,
10 and complies with governing standards and regulations.

11 2.1 SCREENING CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES


12 The following screening criteria were used to develop the Proposed Action and
13 evaluate potential alternatives. The USBP Marfa Sector is working to develop
14 the right combination of personnel, technology, and infrastructure to meet its
15 objective to gain effective control of the border in the Marfa Sector.

16 • USBP Operational Requirements. The alternative must support USBP


17 mission needs to hinder or delay individuals crossing the border illegally.
18 Once individuals have entered an urban area or suburban neighborhood,
19 it is much more difficult for USBP agents to identify and apprehend
20 suspects engaged in unlawful border entry. In addition, around populated
21 areas it is relatively easy for cross-border violators to find transportation
22 into the interior of the United States.
23 • Threatened or Endangered Species and Critical Habitat. The alternative
24 would be designed to minimize adverse impacts on threatened or
25 endangered species and their critical habitat to the maximum extent
26 practical. CBP is working with the USFWS to identify potential
27 conservation and mitigation measures.
28 • Wetlands and Floodplains. The alternative would be designed to avoid
29 and minimize impacts on wetlands, surface waters, and floodplain
30 resources to the maximum extent practicable. CBP is working with the
31 USACE-Albuquerque District and USIBWC to avoid, minimize, and
32 mitigate potential impacts on wetlands, surface waters, and floodplains.
33 • Cultural and Historic Resources. The alternative would be designed to
34 minimize impacts on cultural and historic resources to the maximum
35 extent practical. CBP is working with the THC to identify potential
36 conservation and mitigation measures.
37 • Suitable Landscape. Some areas of the border have steep topography,
38 highly erodible soils, are in a floodway, or have other characteristics that
39 could compromise the integrity of fence or other tactical infrastructure. For
40 example, in areas susceptible to flash flooding, fence and other tactical

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


2-1
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 infrastructure might be prone to erosion that could undermine the fence’s


2 integrity. Areas with suitable landscape conditions would be prioritized.

3 CBP evaluated a range of possible alternatives to be considered for the


4 Proposed Action, including route alternatives and alternative fence designs. The
5 following sections describe the alternative analysis for this Proposed Action.
6 Section 2.2.1 presents the No Action Alternative, Section 2.2.2 provides specific
7 details of the Proposed Action, and Section 2.2.3 discusses the Secure Fence
8 Act Alternative. Section 2.3 discusses alternatives considered but not analyzed
9 in detail, Section 2.4 is a summary comparison of the alternatives, and Section
10 2.5 identifies the preferred alternative.

11 2.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS


12 2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
13 Under the No Action Alternative, proposed tactical infrastructure would not be
14 built and there would be no change in fencing, or other facilities along the
15 U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations within the
16 Marfa Sector. The USBP Marfa Sector would continue to use agents and
17 technology to identify illegal cross-border activity, and deploy agents to make
18 apprehensions. Although USBP agents would continue to patrol the U.S./Mexico
19 international border within the USBP Marfa Sector and make apprehensions,
20 their response time and success rate in apprehensions would continue to be
21 impeded and would not meet future USBP mission needs for gaining effective
22 control of our borders. However, inclusion of the No Action Alternative is
23 prescribed by the CEQ regulations and will be carried forward for analysis in the
24 EA. The No Action Alternative also serves as a baseline against which to
25 evaluate the impacts of the Proposed Action.

26 2.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action


27 CBP proposes to construct, operate, and maintain tactical infrastructure
28 consisting of primary pedestrian fence, patrol roads, access roads, and lights
29 along the U.S./Mexico international border in the Marfa Sector, Texas. Congress
30 has appropriated funds for the construction of the proposed tactical
31 infrastructure. Construction of additional tactical infrastructure might be required
32 in the future as mission and operational requirements are continually reassessed.
33 The proposed tactical infrastructure would be constructed in three discrete
34 sections along the border within the Marfa Sector in Hudspeth and Presidio
35 counties, Texas. These sections of tactical infrastructure are designated as
36 Sections L-1, L-1A, and L-1B on Figures 2-1 and 2-2. Table 2-1 presents
37 general information for each of the three proposed sections. The two sections in
38 Presidio County would be approximately 3.3 miles in length to the east (Section
39 L-1A) and approximately 2.9 miles in length to the west (Section L-1B) of the
40
41 Preliminary Final EA March 2008
2-2
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

Ranch R
U n i t e d S t a t e s
oa
d
1 92

Texas

sR
M e x i c o
as
P
an
tm
Qui

Proposed Action Route

Proposed Staging Areas

Proposed Access Roads

L-1 Fence Section Label


Miles
L-1
0 0.5 1 2
Scale
Projection: Albers
USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic
North American Datum of 1983

WARNING: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO).


It contains information that may be exempt from public release under
the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled,
stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance
with DHS policy relating to FOUO information and is not be released
to the public or other personnel who do not have a valid “need-to-know”
without prior approval of an authorized DHS official.

1 Source: ESRI StreetMap USA 2005

2 Figure 2-1. Location of Section L-1 Tactical Infrastructure


3 Preliminary Final EA March 2008
2-3
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

U n i t e d

S t a t e s 67

Texas
Fa
rm rke
Ma t Roa
To d 1
70

L-1B

Presidio

M e x i c o

L-1A

Proposed Action Route

Proposed Staging Areas

Proposed Access Roads

L-1B Fence Section Label


Miles

0 0.5 1 2
Scale
Projection: Albers
USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic
North American Datum of 1983

WARNING: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO).


It contains information that may be exempt from public release under
the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled,
stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance
with DHS policy relating to FOUO information and is not be released
to the public or other personnel who do not have a valid “need-to-know”
without prior approval of an authorized DHS official.

1 Source: ESRI StreetMap USA 2005

2 Figure 2-2. Location of Sections L-1A and L-1B Tactical Infrastructure

3 Preliminary Final EA March 2008


2-4
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Table 2-1. Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Sections


2 for USBP Marfa Sector

Associated Length of
Section
USBP General Location Land Ownership Section
Number
Station (miles)
Sierra
L-1 Neely’s Crossing Public (USIBWC) 4.6
Blanca
Rio Grande East of Public (USIBWC)
L-1A Presidio 3.3
POE and private
Rio Grande West of Public (USIBWC)
L-1B Presidio 2.9
POE and private
Total 10.8
3

4 Presidio POE and the third section (Section L-1) would be approximately 4.6
5 miles in length in Hudspeth County.

6 Design criteria that have been established based on USBP operational needs
7 specify that, at a minimum, any fencing must meet the following requirements:

8 • Built 15 to 18 feet high and extend below ground


9 • Capable of withstanding a crash of a 10,000-pound (gross weight) vehicle
10 traveling at 40 miles per hour
11 • Capable of withstanding vandalism, cutting, or various types of 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 • Engineered not to impede the natural flow of surface water
16 • Aesthetically pleasing to the extent possible.

17 In addition, the USIBWC has design criteria for tactical infrastructure to avoid
18 adverse impact on floodplains, levees, and flood control operations (see
19 Appendix C) (USIBWC 2007). Typical primary pedestrian fence designs that
20 could be used are included in Appendix A. The preliminary estimate to
21 construct the proposed tactical infrastructure sections is approximately $33
22 million.
23 The alignment of the proposed tactical infrastructure under Alternative 2 was
24 identified by the USBP Marfa Sector as meeting its operational requirements and
25 developed through coordination with Federal and state agencies. The proposed
26 tactical infrastructure would follow the USIBWC levee system for the majority of
27 its length. Section L-1, in Hudspeth County, would be constructed as a “bollard
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
2-5
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 floating fence” and placed atop the levee (see Figure 2-3) This configuration
2 would allow the majority of the proposed infrastructure to be placed on property
3 owned by the USIBWC without major disturbance to current USIBWC operations
4 or USBP patrol roads. In Sections L-1A and L-1B, in Presidio County, the
5 proposed alignments along the USIBWC levee would be constructed as new
6 levee retaining walls on the side of the levee facing the Rio Grande (see Figure
7 2-4). Design and construction of the new retaining wall would allow for the wall to
8 be heightened at some future date, by an additional 4 feet, to accommodate the
9 USIBWC proposal to increase the height of the levee. There would be a break in
10 Section L-1B where the fence would encounter Cibolo Creek. A patrol road
11 would be constructed around the perimeter of the creek crossing at a suitable
12 point upstream.

13 There are several sections along the levee that the USIBWC does not own but
14 has ROWs which would require new agreements or the acquisition of land. In
15 addition, ROWs or land acquisition would be required for access roads and
16 construction staging areas. The proposed tactical infrastructure in the three
17 fence sections would also encroach on privately owned land parcels.

18 The proposed tactical infrastructure would impact an approximate 60-foot-wide


19 corridor for fences and patrol roads. Vegetation within the corridor would be
20 cleared and grading would occur where needed. The area that would be
21 permanently impacted by the construction of tactical infrastructure would total
22 approximately 78.1 acres. Unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional waters of the
23 United States, including wetlands, would be mitigated. Wherever possible,
24 existing roads and previously disturbed areas would be used for construction
25 access and staging areas. Figure 2-5 shows a schematic of typical impact areas
26 for tactical infrastructure.

27 There would be no change in overall USBP Marfa Sector operations. The USBP
28 Marfa Sector activities routinely adapt to operational requirements, and would
29 continue to do so under this alternative. The Marfa Sector operations would
30 retain the same flexibility to most effectively provide a law enforcement resolution
31 to illegal cross-border activity. Fence maintenance would initially be performed
32 by USBP Sector personnel, but would eventually become a contractor performed
33 activity.

34 CBP is also proposing to construct and operate permanent lighting in both


35 Presidio sections (L-1A and L-1B). Each light pole would be constructed
36 approximately every 50 yards. Standard design for permanent lights is further
37 discussed in Appendix A.

38 CBP is working closely with local landowners and others potentially affected by
39 the proposed tactical infrastructure. Gates and ramps would be constructed to
40 allow USBP, USIBWC, and other land owners access to land, the Rio Grande,
41 water resources, and infrastructure. In agricultural areas, gates would be wide
42

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


2-6
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

Figure 2-3. Fence schematic for L-1

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


2-7
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

Figure 2-4. Fence schematic for L-1A and L-1B

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


2-8
1

Preliminary Final EA
NOT TO SCALE

2-9
PATROL ROAD

60' PERMANENT IMPACT AREA


PRIMARY PEDESTRIAN FENCE
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

March 2008
Figure 2-5. Schematic of Proposed Project Corridor – Alternative 2
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 enough to allow access for necessary farming equipment. In other cases, gates
2 would be situated to provide access to existing recreational amenities; water
3 resources, including pumphouses and related infrastructure; grazing areas;
4 existing parks; and other areas. On a case-by-case basis, USACE might
5 purchase the land between the fence and the Rio Grande on behalf of USBP, if
6 operationally necessary.

7 If approved, construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure would begin in


8 Spring 2008 and continue through December 31, 2008.

9 To the extent that additional actions in the study area are known, they are
10 discussed in this EA in Section 4, Cumulative and Other Impacts.

11 2.2.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative


12 Alternative 3 consists of constructing, operating, and maintaining two layers of
13 fence, known as primary and secondary pedestrian fence, along the same
14 alignment as Alternative 2. Under this alternative, the two layers of fence would
15 be constructed approximately 130 feet apart and would be most closely aligned
16 with the fence description in the Secure Fence Act of 2006, P.L. 109-367, 120
17 Stat. 2638, 8 U.S.C. 1701 (note) and 8 U.S.C. 1103 (note). This alternative
18 would also include construction and maintenance of access and patrol roads.
19 The lighting and patrol roads would be between the primary and secondary
20 pedestrian fences.

21 Figure 2-6 shows a schematic of typical proposed project corridor areas for this
22 alternative. The design of the tactical infrastructure for this alternative would be
23 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 sections. This
26 construction corridor would accommodate access roads and construction staging
27 areas. Vegetation would be cleared and grading would occur where needed.
28 Unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional waters of the United States, including
29 wetlands, would be mitigated. Wherever possible, existing roads would be used
30 for construction access. This is a viable alternative and is carried forward for
31 detailed analysis in this EA.

32 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER


33 DETAILED ANALYSIS
34 CBP evaluated possible alternatives to be considered for the Proposed Action.
35 This section addresses options that were reviewed but not carried forward for
36 detailed analysis.

37

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


2-10
2
1

SECONDARY FENCE

Preliminary Final EA
NOT TO SCALE

2-11
PATROL ROAD

150’ PERMANENT IMPACT AREA


PRIMARY FENCE
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

March 2008
Figure 2-6. Schematic of Proposed Project Corridor – Alternative 3
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 2.3.1 Additional USBP Agents in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure


2 CBP considered the alternative of increasing the number of USBP agents
3 assigned to the U.S./Mexico international border as a means of gaining effective
4 control of the U.S./Mexico international border. Under this alternative, USBP
5 would hire and deploy a significantly larger number of agents than are currently
6 deployed along the U.S./Mexico international border and increase patrols to
7 apprehend cross-border violators. USBP would deploy additional agents as
8 determined by operational needs, but patrols might include 4-wheel drive
9 vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, helicopters, or fixed-wing aircraft. Currently, USBP
10 maintains an aggressive hiring program and a cadre of well-trained disciplined
11 agents.

12 This alternative was determined not to meet the screening criteria of USBP
13 operational requirements. The physical presence of an increased number of
14 agents could provide an enhanced level of deterrence against illegal entry into
15 the United States, but the use of additional agents alone, in lieu of the proposed
16 tactical infrastructure, would not provide a practical solution to achieving effective
17 control of the border in the Marfa Sector. The use of physical barriers has been
18 demonstrated to slow cross-border violators and provide USBP agents with
19 additional time to make apprehensions (USACE 2000). Additionally, as tactical
20 infrastructure is built, agents could be more effectively redeployed to secure
21 other areas. A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (CRS 2006)
22 concluded that USBP border security initiatives such as the 1994 “Operation
23 Gatekeeper” required a 150 percent increase in USBP manpower, lighting, and
24 other equipment. The report states that “It soon became apparent to immigration
25 officials and lawmakers that the USBP needed, among other things, a ‘rigid’
26 enforcement system that could integrate infrastructure (i.e., multi-tiered fence
27 and roads), manpower, and new technologies to further control the border
28 region” (CRS 2006).

29 Increased patrol agents would aid in interdiction activities, but not to the extent
30 anticipated by the construction of primary pedestrian fence and other tactical
31 infrastructure along Sections M-1 and M-2A. As such, this alternative is not
32 practical in the USBP Marfa Sector and will not be carried forward for further
33 detailed analysis.

34 2.3.2 Technology in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure


35 CBP does and would continue to use various forms of technology to identify
36 cross-border violators. The use of technology in certain sparsely populated
37 areas is a critical component of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) and an
38 effective force multiplier that allows USBP to monitor large areas and deploy
39 agents to where they will be most effective. However, the apprehension of cross-
40 border violators is still performed by USBP agents and other law enforcement
41 agents. In the more densely populated areas within the Marfa Sector, physical
42 barriers represent the most effective means to control illegal entry into the United
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
2-12
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 States, as noted above. The use of technology alone would not provide a
2 practical solution to achieving effective control of the border in the Marfa Sector.
3 Therefore, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need as described in
4 Section 1.2 and will not be carried forward for further detailed analysis.

5 2.4 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ACTION ALTERNATIVES


6 Table 2-2 presents a summary comparison of the action alternatives carried
7 forward for analysis in the EA.

8 Table 2-2. Comparison of Action Alternatives

Alternative 2: Proposed Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act


Action Alignment Alternative
Description Three individual tactical Three individual tactical
infrastructure sections infrastructure sections composed
composed of primary of primary and secondary
pedestrian fence, patrol pedestrian fence constructed 130
roads, access roads, and feet apart, patrol roads between
lights fences, access roads, and lights
Proposed Total
10.8 miles 10.8 miles
Route Length
Proposed Project
60 feet 150 feet
Corridor
Acreage of
Proposed Project 78 acres 195 acres
Corridor
9

10 2.5 IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED


11 ALTERNATIVE
12 CEQ’s implementing regulations for NEPA under 40 CFR 1502.14(c) instructs
13 preparers to “Identify the agency’s preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or
14 more exists, in the draft statement and identify such alternative in the final
15 statement unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference.”
16 CBP has identified the Proposed Action as the environmentally preferred, least-
17 damaging practicable alternative considered.

18 Implementation of the Proposed Action would meet CBP’s purpose and need
19 described in Section 1.2. The No Action Alternative would not meet CBP’s
20 purpose and need. Alternative 3 would meet CBP’s purpose and need described
21 in Section 1.2 but would have greater environmental impacts compared to the
22 Preferred Alternative. CBP might need to implement this alternative at some
23 point in the future depending on future USBP operational requirements. While

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


2-13
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 CBP believes that this level of tactical infrastructure is not required at this time it
2 is a viable alternative and will be carried forward for detailed analysis.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


2-14
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND


2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3 All potentially relevant resource areas were initially considered in this EA. In
4 accordance with NEPA, the CEQ regulations, and DHS MD 5100.1, the following
5 evaluation of environmental impacts focuses on those resources and conditions
6 potentially subject to impacts, on potentially significant environmental issues
7 deserving of study, and deemphasizes insignificant issues. Some environmental
8 resources and issues that are often analyzed in an EA have been omitted from
9 detailed analysis. The following provides the basis for such exclusions.

10 Climate. Temperatures in El Paso (Sierra Blanca) occur in an average annual


11 minimum and maximum of 52 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and 77 °F, respectively
12 (NOAA 2007). The lowest and highest temperatures recorded for El Paso are -8
13 °F and 114 °F. Temperatures in Presidio occur in an average annual minimum
14 and maximum of 59.7 °F and 87 °F, respectively (NOAA 2007). The lowest and
15 highest temperatures recorded for Presidio are 4 °F and 117 °F. The Proposed
16 Action would neither affect nor be affected by the climate. Emissions (including
17 greenhouse gases) and their effect on air quality are discussed in Section 3.1
18 and Section 4.1.

19 Sustainability and Greening. EO 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental,


20 Energy, and Transportation Management (January 24, 2007), promotes
21 environmental practices, including acquisition of biobased, environmentally
22 preferable, energy-efficient, water-efficient, and recycled-content products, and
23 the maintenance of cost-effective waste prevention and recycling programs in
24 their facilities. The Proposed Action would use minimal amounts of resources
25 during construction and maintenance and there would be minimal changes in
26 USBP operations. Therefore, the Proposed Action would have negligible effects
27 on sustainability and greening issues.

28 Construction Site Safety. Construction site safety is largely a matter of


29 adherence to regulatory requirements imposed for the benefit of employees and
30 implementation of operational practices that reduce risks of illness, injury, death,
31 and property damage. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
32 (OSHA) and USEPA issue standards that specify the amount and type of training
33 required for industrial workers, the use of protective equipment and clothing,
34 engineering controls, and maximum exposure limits with respect to workplace
35 stressors.

36 Construction workers are exposed to safety risks from the inherent dangers at
37 any construction site. Contractors would be required to establish and maintain
38 safety programs at the construction site. The proposed construction would not
39 expose members of the general public to increased safety risks. Therefore,
40 because the proposed construction would not introduce new or unusual safety

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-1
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 risks, and assuming carefully followed construction protocols, detailed


2 examination of safety is not included in this EA.

3 Hazardous Materials. Generally, hazardous materials, hazardous substances,


4 and hazardous wastes include elements, compounds, mixtures, solutions, and
5 substances which, when released into the environment or otherwise improperly
6 managed, could present substantial danger to the public health, welfare, or the
7 environment.

8 Long-term, minor, adverse effects would be expected as a result of the Proposed


9 Action. Products containing hazardous materials (such as fuels, oils, lubricants,
10 pesticides, and herbicides) would be procured and used during the proposed
11 construction. Commercially available products whose mode of action is through
12 translocation in plant tissue and that are neutralized on contact with soil will be
13 utilized. Such products are effective without residual impact. There are no known
14 hazardous waste clean-up sites within the proposed project corridor (USEPA
15 2007a). It is anticipated that the quantity of products containing hazardous
16 materials used during construction would be minimal and their use would be of
17 short duration. Minimal quantities of herbicide would be used for vegetative
18 growth in the immediate vicinity of the fence. Additionally, it is anticipated that
19 the quantity of hazardous and petroleum wastes generated from proposed
20 construction would be negligible. Construction contractors would be responsible
21 for the management of hazardous materials and wastes. The management of
22 hazardous materials and wastes would include the use of BMPs, a pollution
23 prevention plan, and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). All
24 hazardous materials and wastes would be handled in accordance with applicable
25 Federal, state, and local regulations.

26 3.1 AIR QUALITY


27 3.1.1 Definition of the Resource
28 In accordance with Federal CAA requirements, the air quality in a given region or
29 area is measured by the concentrations of various pollutants in the atmosphere.

30 The CAA directed USEPA to develop National Ambient Air Quality Standards
31 (NAAQS), for pollutants that have been determined to impact human health and
32 the environment. USEPA established both primary and secondary NAAQS
33 under the provisions of the CAA. NAAQS are currently established for six criteria
34 air pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur
35 dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate matter (including particulate matter equal to
36 or less than 10 microns in diameter [PM10] and particulate matter equal to or less
37 than 2.5 microns in diameter [PM2.5]), and lead (Pb). The primary NAAQS
38 represent maximum levels of background air pollution that are considered safe,
39 with an adequate margin of safety to protect public health. Secondary NAAQS
40 represent the maximum pollutant concentration necessary to protect vegetation,
41 crops, and other public resources along with maintaining visibility standards.
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
3-2
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 The Federal CAA and USEPA delegated responsibility for ensuring compliance
2 with NAAQS to the states and local agencies. The State of Texas has adopted
3 the NAAQS as the Texas Ambient Air Quality Standards (TAAQS) for the entire
4 state of Texas. Table 3.1-1 presents the primary and secondary USEPA NAAQS
5 that apply to the air quality in the State of Texas.

6 Table 3.1-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Standard Value Standard Type


CO
8-hour Average a 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) Primary and Secondary
1-hour Average a 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) Primary
NO2
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Primary and Secondary
O3
8-hour Average b 0.08 ppm (157 µg/m3) Primary and Secondary
1-hour Average c 0.12 ppm (240 µg/m3) Primary and Secondary
Pb
Quarterly Average 1.5 µg/m3 Primary and Secondary
PM10
Annual Arithmetic Mean d 50 µg/m3 Primary and Secondary
24-hour Average a 150 µg/m3 Primary and Secondary
PM2.5
Annual Arithmetic Mean e 15 µg/m3 Primary and Secondary
24-hour Average f 35 µg/m3 Primary and Secondary
SO2
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.03 ppm (80 µg/m3) Primary
24-hour Average a 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3) Primary
3-hour Average a 0.5 ppm (1,300 µg/m3) Secondary
Source: USEPA 2007a
Notes: Parenthetical values are approximate equivalent concentrations.
a. Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
b. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not
exceed 0.08 ppm.
c. The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum
hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is ≤ 1. As of June 15, 2005, USEPA revoked
the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas except the 14 8-hour ozone nonattainment Early Action
Compact Areas.
d. To attain this standard, the expected annual arithmetic mean PM10 concentration at each
monitor within an area must not exceed 50 μg/m3.
e. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the annual arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentrations
from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 µg/m3.
f. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at
each population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 µg/m3.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-3
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 USEPA classifies the air quality in an air quality control region (AQCR), or in
2 subareas of an AQCR according to whether the concentrations of criteria
3 pollutants in ambient air exceed the primary or secondary NAAQS. All areas
4 within each AQCR are therefore designated as either “attainment,”
5 “nonattainment,” “maintenance,” or “unclassified” for each of the six criteria
6 pollutants. Attainment means that the air quality within an AQCR is better than
7 the NAAQS, nonattainment indicates that criteria pollutant levels exceed NAAQS,
8 maintenance indicates that an area was previously designated nonattainment but
9 is now attainment, and unclassified means that there is not enough information to
10 appropriately classify an AQCR, so the area is considered in attainment.

11 Many chemical compounds found in the Earth’s atmosphere act as “greenhouse


12 gases.” These gases allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When
13 sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as
14 infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and
15 trap the heat in the atmosphere. Over time the trapped heat results in the
16 phenomenon of global warming.

17 In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that carbon dioxide (CO2) and
18 other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the CAA. The Court declared
19 that the USEPA has the authority to regulate emissions from new cars and trucks
20 under the landmark environment law.

21 Many gases exhibit these “greenhouse” properties. The sources of the majority
22 of greenhouse gases come mostly from natural sources but are also contributed
23 to by human activity. Additional information on sources of greenhouse gases is
24 included in Appendix E.

25 3.1.2 Affected Environment


26 The Proposed Action is within Hudspeth County and Presidio County, Texas,
27 within the El Paso-Las Cruces-Alamogordo Interstate Air Quality Control Region
28 (EPLCAI AQCR). The EPLCAI AQCR is composed of six counties in western
29 Texas and four counties in New Mexico. The EPLCAI AQCR is classified as
30 being in attainment/unclassified for all criteria pollutants.

31 3.1.3 Environmental Consequences


32 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
33 Under the No Action Alternative, CBP would not construct or maintain new
34 tactical infrastructure along the three sections in the USBP Marfa Sector and
35 operational activities would remain unchanged. Therefore, the No Action
36 Alternative would not create any additional impacts on air quality beyond those
37 that are already occurring, as described in Section 3.1.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-4
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Alternative 2: Proposed Action


2 Regulated pollutant emissions associated with Alternative 2 would not contribute
3 to or affect local or regional attainment status with the NAAQS. Alternative 2
4 activities would generate air pollutant emissions from the proposed construction
5 projects, maintenance activities, and the operation of generators to supply power
6 to construction equipment and portable lights. BMPs would include a Dust
7 Control Plan.

8 Proposed Construction Projects. The Proposed Action would result in minor,


9 short-term, adverse impacts on air quality during construction activities, primarily
10 from site-disturbing activities and operation of construction equipment.

11 The construction projects would generate total suspended particulate and PM10
12 emissions as fugitive dust from ground-disturbing activities (e.g., grading,
13 trenching, soil piles) and from combustion of fuels in construction equipment.
14 Fugitive dust emissions would be greatest during the initial site preparation
15 activities and would vary from day to day depending on the construction phase,
16 level of activity, and prevailing weather conditions. The quantity of uncontrolled
17 fugitive dust emissions from a construction site is proportional to the area of land
18 being worked and the level of construction activity.

19 Construction operations would also result in emissions of criteria pollutants as


20 combustion products from construction equipment. These emissions would be of
21 a temporary nature. The NAAQS emissions factors and estimates were
22 generated based on guidance provided in USEPA AP-42, Volume II, Mobile
23 Sources. Fugitive dust emissions for various construction activities were
24 calculated using emissions factors and assumptions published in USEPA’s
25 AP−42 Section 11.9. The emissions for CO2 were calculated using emission
26 coefficients reported by the Energy Information Administration (EIA 2007).

27 For purposes of this analysis, the project duration and affected project site area
28 that would be disturbed (presented in Section 2) were used to estimate fugitive
29 dust and all other pollutant emissions. The construction emissions presented in
30 Table 3.1-2 include the estimated annual construction PM10 emissions
31 associated with Alternative 2. These emissions would produce slightly elevated
32 short-term PM10 ambient air concentrations. However, the impacts would be
33 temporary, and would fall off rapidly with distance from the proposed construction
34 sites. As seen in Table 3.1-2, the emissions of NAAQS pollutant is not high,
35 would not contribute to the deterioration of the air quality in the region, and does
36 not exceed 10 percent of the regional values.

37 The construction emissions presented in Table 3.1-2 include the estimated


38 annual emissions from construction equipment exhaust associated with
39 Alternative 2 in Calendar Year (CY) 2008 and operation of agricultural mowers
40 and diesel-powered generators. Early phases of construction projects involve
41

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-5
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Table 3.1-2. Estimates of Total Proposed Construction Emissions


2 from Alternative 2 in Tons Per Year

Description NOx VOC CO CO2 SOx PM10


Construction
11.333 1.689 12.239 23.40 0.227 0.380
Emissions
Construction Fugitive
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 96.098
Emissions
Maintenance
0.042 0.005 0.021 0.20 0.010 0.005
Emissions
Generator Emissions 22.78 1.859 4.907 368.9 1.498 1.601
Total Alternative 2
34.153 3.554 18.167 392.50 1.735 98.084
Emissions
Federal de minimis
NA NA NA NA NA NA
Threshold
EPLCAI AQCR
54,477 43,267 347,384 995,000 4,569 149,894
Regional Emissions
Project Percent of
EPLCAI AQCR 0.63 % 0.008% 0.005% 0.037% 0.038% 0.065%
Regional Emissions
3 Source: USEPA 2007b

4 heavier diesel equipment and earthmoving, resulting in higher nitrogen oxides


5 (NOx) and PM10 emissions. Later phases of construction projects involve more
6 light gasoline equipment and surface coating, resulting in more CO and volatile
7 organic compounds (VOC) emissions. However, the impacts would be
8 temporary, fall off rapidly with distance from the proposed construction site, and
9 would not result in any long-term impacts.

10 Proposed Operations and Maintenance Activities. The primary pedestrian


11 fence and patrol road would require mowing approximately two times per year to
12 maintain vegetation height and allow enhanced visibility and security. It was
13 assumed that two 40-horsepower (hp) agricultural mowers would mow the
14 vegetation in the project area approximately 14 days per year. No adverse
15 impacts on local or regional air quality are anticipated from these future
16 maintenance activities.

17 It is anticipated that future maintenance of tactical infrastructure would be


18 conducted by contractors, and would primarily consist of welding and fence
19 section replacements, as needed. Maintenance activities would result in criteria
20 pollutant air emissions well below the de minimis thresholds and would have a
21 negligible contribution to the overall air quality. Negligible long-term adverse
22 impacts on air quality would be expected.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-6
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 After construction is completed, USBP Del Rio Sector would begin patrols along
2 Sections L-1, L-1A, and L-1B. The vehicles used for surveillance of the existing
3 border area are currently generating criteria pollutants and would not introduce
4 new pollutant sources. Therefore, no net increase of criteria pollutant emissions
5 would be expected from these border-patrol operations.

6 Generators. Alternative 2 activities would require six diesel-powered generators


7 to power construction equipment. It is assumed that these generators would be
8 approximately 75 hp and operate approximately 8 hours per day for 120 working
9 days. The emissions factors and estimates were generated based on guidance
10 provided in USEPA AP-42, Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources.
11 According to TAC Title 30, internal combustion engines greater than 500 brake
12 horsepower require an operating permit (TAC 2007). Therefore, the generators
13 that would be associated with Alternative 2 activities are exempt from requiring
14 an operating permit from the TCEQ.

15 Greenhouse Gases. USEPA has estimated that the total greenhouse emissions
16 for Texas was 189 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) in 1999. Of
17 this, an estimated 995 tons of CO2 are associated with the EPLCAI AQCR
18 regions. Therefore construction emissions of CO2 represent less than 10 percent
19 of the regional emissions (USEPA 2007c).

20 After construction is completed, normal border patrol schedules would continue.


21 The vehicles used for surveillance of the existing border area are generating CO2
22 that is accounted for in the Texas greenhouse gas inventory. No new sources of
23 CO2 would result from Alternative 2. Therefore, no net increase of greenhouse
24 emissions would be expected. Emissions factors, calculations, and estimates of
25 emissions are shown in detail in Appendix E.

26 Summary. Table 3.1-2 illustrates that the emissions from Alternative 2 would be
27 minor adverse and much less than 10 percent of the emissions inventory for
28 EPLCAI AQCR (USEPA 2007b). Within the EPLCAI AQCR, the estimated
29 annual CO2 emissions of power plants is 775,000 tons, while vehicles add
30 another estimated 220,000 tons. Therefore, no adverse impacts on regional or
31 local air quality are anticipated from implementation of Alternative 2.

32 According to 40 CFR Part 81, there are no Class I areas in the vicinity of
33 Alternative 2. Therefore, Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
34 regulations would not apply.

35 In summary, no significant adverse impacts on regional or local air quality are


36 anticipated from implementation of Alternative 2. A conformity determination in
37 accordance with 40 CFR 93-153(1) is not required, as the total of direct and
38 indirect emissions from Alternative 2 would not be regionally significant (e.g., the
39 emissions are not greater than 10 percent of the EPLCAI AQCR emissions
40 inventory). Emissions factors, calculations, and estimates of emissions for
41 Alternative 2 are shown in detail in Appendix E.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-7
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative


2 Alternative 3 would generate air pollutant emissions from the proposed
3 construction projects, maintenance activities, and the operation of generators to
4 supply power to construction equipment and portable lights.

5 Proposed Construction Projects. Major short-term adverse impacts would be


6 expected from construction emissions and land disturbance as a result of
7 implementing Alternative 3. The proposed project would result in impacts on
8 regional air quality during construction activities, primarily from site-disturbing
9 activities and operation of construction equipment.

10 The construction projects would generate total suspended particulate and PM10
11 emissions as fugitive dust from ground-disturbing activities (e.g., grading,
12 trenching, soil piles) and from combustion of fuels in construction equipment.
13 Fugitive dust emissions would be greatest during the initial site preparation
14 activities and would vary from day to day depending on the construction phase,
15 level of activity, and prevailing weather conditions. The quantity of uncontrolled
16 fugitive dust emissions from a construction site is proportional to the area of land
17 being worked and the level of construction activity.

18 Construction operations would also result in emissions of criteria pollutants as


19 combustion products from construction equipment. These emissions would be of
20 a temporary nature. The emissions factors and estimates were generated based
21 on guidance provided in USEPA AP-42, Volume II, Mobile Sources. Fugitive
22 dust emissions for various construction activities were calculated using emissions
23 factors and assumptions published in USEPA’s AP-42 Section 11.9.

24 For purposes of this analysis, the project duration and affected project site area
25 that would be disturbed (presented in Section 2) was used to estimate fugitive
26 dust and all other criteria pollutant emissions. The construction emissions
27 presented in Table 3.1-3 include the estimated annual construction PM10
28 emissions associated with Alternative 3. These emissions would produce slightly
29 elevated short-term PM10 ambient air concentrations. However, the impacts
30 would be temporary, and would fall off rapidly with distance from the proposed
31 construction sites.

32 Specific information describing the types of construction equipment required for a


33 specific task, the hours the equipment is operated, and the operating conditions
34 vary widely from project to project. For the purposes of this analysis, these
35 parameters were estimated using established methodologies for construction and
36 experience with similar types of construction projects. Combustion by-product
37 emissions from construction equipment exhausts were estimated using USEPA’s
38 AP-42 emissions factors for heavy-duty, diesel-powered construction equipment.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-8
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Table 3.1-3. Estimates of Total Proposed Construction Emissions


2 from Alternative 3 in Tons Per Year

Description NOx VOC CO CO2 SOx PM10


Construction Emissions 70.83 10.588 82.746 46.8 1.417 2.376
Construction Fugitive
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 240.245
Emissions
Maintenance Emissions 0.127 0.015 0.064 0.20 0.030 0.015
Generator Emissions 22.777 1.859 4.907 368.9 1.498 1.601
Total Alternative 3
93.735 12.433 87.716 415.9 2.945 244.237
Emissions
Federal de minimis
NA NA NA NA NA NA
Threshold
EPLCAI AQCR Regional
54,477 43,267 347,384 995,000 4,569 149,894
Emissions
Percent of EPLCAI
AQCR Regional 0.172% 0.029% 0.025% 0.042 0.064% 0.163%
Emissions
3 Source: USEPA 2007b

4 The construction emissions presented in Table 3.1-3 include the estimated


5 annual emissions from construction equipment exhaust associated with
6 Alternative 3 in CY 2008 and operation of agricultural mowers and diesel-
7 powered generators. As with fugitive dust emissions, combustion emissions
8 would produce slightly elevated air pollutant concentrations. Early phases of
9 construction projects involve heavier diesel equipment and earthmoving,
10 resulting in higher NOx and PM10 emissions. Later phases of construction
11 projects involve more light gasoline equipment and surface coating, resulting in
12 more CO and VOC emissions. However, the impacts would be temporary, fall off
13 rapidly with distance from the proposed construction site, and would not result in
14 any long-term impacts.

15 Proposed Operations and Maintenance Activities. The primary pedestrian


16 fence and patrol road would require mowing approximately two times per year to
17 maintain vegetation height and allow enhanced visibility and security. It was
18 assumed that six 40-hp agricultural mowers would mow the vegetation in the
19 project area approximately 14 days per year. Emissions from these agricultural
20 mowers would be minimal. No adverse impacts on local or regional air quality
21 are anticipated from these future maintenance activities. The air quality effects of
22 proposed operations and maintenance activities would be essentially the same
23 as those described for Alternative 2. Criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas
24 emissions would be comparable to but slightly greater that the Proposed Action
25 because there would be more infrastructure to maintain. However, the air
26 emissions associated with maintenance would be a negligible contribution to
27 overall air quality in the region.
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
3-9
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Generators. Alternative 3 would require six diesel-powered generators to power


2 construction equipment. It is assumed that these generators would be
3 approximately 75 hp and operate approximately 8 hours per day for 120 working
4 days. Emissions from these diesel generators would be minimal. Operational
5 emissions associated with Alternative 3 would not result in an adverse impact on
6 air quality. The emissions factors and estimates were generated based on
7 guidance provided in USEPA AP-42, Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion
8 Sources. According to TAC Title 30, internal combustion engines greater than
9 500 brake horsepower require an operating permit (TAC 2007). Therefore, the
10 generators under Alternative 3 are exempt from requiring an operating permit
11 from the TCEQ.

12 Summary. Since the EPLCAI AQCR is within an area classified as being in


13 attainment for all NAAQS criteria pollutants, General Conformity Rule
14 requirements are not applicable to Alternative 3. Table 3.1-3 illustrates that the
15 emissions from Alternative 3 would be minor adverse but less than 10 percent of
16 the EPLCAI AQCR inventory (USEPA 2002b).

17 According to 40 CFR Part 81, there are no Class I areas in the vicinity of
18 Alternative 3. Therefore, Federal PSD regulations would not apply.

19 Greenhouse Gases. USEPA has estimated that the total greenhouse emissions
20 for Texas was 189 MMTCE in 1999. Of this, of this an estimated 995,000 tons of
21 CO2 are associated with the EPLCAI AQCR regions. Therefore construction
22 emissions of CO2 represent less than 10 percent of the regional emissions
23 (USEPA 2007c).

24 After construction is completed, normal border patrol schedules would continue.


25 The vehicles used for surveillance of the existing border area are generating CO2
26 that is accounted for in the Texas greenhouse gas inventory. No new sources of
27 CO2 would result from Alternatives 3. Therefore, no net increase of greenhouse
28 emissions would be expected. Emissions factors, calculations, and estimates of
29 emissions are shown in detail in Appendix E.

30 3.2 NOISE
31 3.2.1 Definition of the Resource
32 Noise and sound share the same physical aspects, but noise is considered a
33 disturbance while sound is defined as an auditory effect. Sound is defined as a
34 particular auditory effect produced by a given source, for example the sound
35 resulting from rain hitting a metal roof. Noise is defined as any sound that is
36 undesirable because it interferes with communication, is intense enough to
37 damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. Sound or noise (depending on one’s
38 perception) can be intermittent or continuous, steady or impulsive, and can
39 involve any number of sources and frequencies. It can be readily identifiable or
40 generally nondescript. Human response to increased sound levels varies

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-10
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 according to the source type, characteristics of the sound source, distance


2 between source and receptor, receptor sensitivity, and time of day. How an
3 individual responds to the sound source will determine if the sound is viewed as
4 music to one’s ears or an annoying noise. Affected receptors are specific (e.g.,
5 schools, churches, or hospitals) or broad (e.g., nature preserves or designated
6 districts) in which occasional or persistent sensitivity to noise above ambient
7 levels exists.

8 Sound is measured with instruments that record instantaneous sound levels in


9 decibels. A-weighted decibels (dBA) are sound level measurements used to
10 characterize sound levels that can be sensed by the human ear. “A-weighted”
11 denotes the adjustment of the frequency content of a sound-producing event to
12 represent the way in which the average human ear responds to the audible
13 event. Noise levels associated with construction equipment, vehicle operations,
14 and aircraft operations are analyzed using dBA.

15 Noise levels in residential areas vary depending on the housing density, location,
16 and surrounding use. As shown in Figure 3.2-1, a quiet urban area in the
17 daytime is about 50 dBA, however, noise increases to 65 dBA for a commercial
18 area, and 80 dBA for a noisy urban daytime area.

19 Construction activities can cause an increase in sound that is well above the
20 ambient level. A variety of sounds come from graders, pavers, trucks, welders,
21 and other work processes. Table 3.2-1 lists noise levels associated with
22 common types of construction equipment that are likely to be used under the
23 Proposed Action. Construction equipment usually exceeds the ambient sound
24 levels by 20 to 25 dBA in an urban environment and up to 30 to 35 dBA in a quiet
25 suburban area.

26 Table 3.2-1. Noise Levels for Construction Equipment

Predicted Noise Level at


Equipment
50 feet (dBA)
Bulldozer 80
Grader 80–93
Truck 83–94
Roller 73–75
Backhoe 72–93
Jackhammer 81–98
Concrete mixer 74–88
Welding generator 71–82
Pile driver 91–105
Crane 75–87
Paver 86–88
Source: USEPA 1971

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-11
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

2
3 Figure 3.2-1. Common Noise Levels

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-12
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 3.2.2 Affected Environment


2 The proposed border fence for the vicinity of Sierra Blanca and Presidio, Texas,
3 passes through areas with different acoustical environments. Sierra Blanca is in
4 a remote section of the U.S./Mexico international border. Due to the distance
5 from Sierra Blanca, the ambient acoustical environment in the vicinity of Section
6 L is not impacted by urban activities in that town. Presidio, Texas, is a larger
7 community, and directly abuts the U.S./Mexico international border. The ambient
8 acoustical environment near Presidio is primarily impacted by vehicular traffic,
9 industrial noise sources, railroad, and agricultural equipment.

10 Major transportation routes in the vicinity of Presidio include State Route (SR) 67
11 and Ranch Road 170. SR 67 passes through the northern side of Presidio and
12 abuts several residential communities. Ranch Road 170 passes by several
13 residential areas on the southeastern, eastern, and northern sections of the city.
14 It is anticipated that there is a high volume of traffic on border crossing roads.
15 Traffic along these roads contributes to the ambient acoustical environment in
16 the vicinity of Presidio.

17 Industrial and commercial noise sources in the vicinity of Presidio originate from
18 both sides of the border. Industrial noise sources in Presidio are mainly
19 relegated to the central areas of the city. Several industrial facilities exist directly
20 south of Presidio on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande. Noise from these
21 sources contributes to the ambient acoustical environment in the vicinity of
22 Presidio.

23 Texas-Pacifico Transportation, LTD owns and operates a rail line passing south
24 of the town of Presidio. Transportation of goods and services along this line by
25 rail car would impact the ambient acoustical environment in the vicinity of
26 Presidio. However, no details on the amount of traffic along this rail line were
27 found, and frequency of rail traffic on the line is anticipated to be low. Noise from
28 traffic along the rail line contributes little to the ambient acoustical environment to
29 the areas west of Presidio.

30 Agricultural activities are prominent south of Presidio along the U.S./Mexico


31 international border. The noise levels from agricultural equipment can reach up
32 to 100 dBA for the operator (OSU 2007). While farms are generally spread out,
33 noise from agricultural activities is likely to extend past the farm boundaries.
34 Irrigation activities occurring at these farm sites would contribute slightly to the
35 ambient acoustical environment at times when they are in operation.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-13
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 3.2.3 Environmental Consequences


2 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
3 Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change to the current noise
4 environment; and consequently no impacts would occur under the No Action
5 Alternative.

6 Alternative 2: Proposed Action


7 Short-term, moderate, adverse effects would be expected due to construction of
8 the primary pedestrian fence and other tactical infrastructure. Temporary
9 sources of noise would include operation of construction equipment and noise
10 from construction vehicles. Noise effects on wildlife are described in Section
11 3.9.2.

12 The construction of the fence sections and related tactical infrastructure would
13 result in noise effects on populations in the vicinity of the proposed sites.
14 Populations that could be affected by construction noise include adjacent
15 residents, people visiting the adjacent recreation areas, or patrons and
16 employees in nearby office, retail, or commercial buildings.

17 Noise from construction activities varies depending on the type of construction


18 equipment being used, the area that the project would occur in, and the distance
19 from the source. To predict how these activities would impact adjacent
20 populations, noise from the probable construction was estimated. For example,
21 as shown on Table 3.2-1, construction usually involves several pieces of
22 equipment (e.g., a backhoe and haul truck) that can be used simultaneously.
23 Under the Proposed Action, the cumulative noise from the construction
24 equipment during the busiest day was estimated to determine the total impact of
25 noise from building activities at a given distance. Since noise attenuates over
26 distance, a gradual decrease in noise level occurs the farther a receptor is away
27 from the source of noise. Examples of expected construction noise are as
28 follows.
29 • The closest residence to the fence section in Sierra Blanca would be
30 approximately 18 miles from proposed fence Section L-1. At this distance,
31 noise from construction of the border fence would be approximately 26
32 dBA.
33 • The closest residence in Presidio would be approximately 350 feet from
34 proposed fence Section L-1A. At this distance, noise from construction of
35 the border fence would be approximately 75 dBA.
36 • The closest residence in Presidio would be approximately 2,600 feet from
37 proposed fence Section L-1B. At this distance, noise from construction of
38 the border fence would be approximately 57 dBA.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-14
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Implementation of the Proposed Action would have temporary adverse effects on


2 the noise environment from the use of heavy equipment during construction
3 activities. However, noise generation would last only for the duration of
4 construction activities and would be isolated to normal working hours (i.e.,
5 between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.).

6 Increased noise levels from construction activities would affect residences as


7 well as populations using recreational facilities and park areas. In general, users
8 of recreational and park areas anticipate a quiet environment. Noise from
9 construction would affect the ambient acoustical environment around these sites
10 but would be temporary.

11 Noise impacts from increased construction traffic would also be temporary in


12 nature and would last only as long as the construction activities were ongoing.
13 Most of the major roadways in the vicinity of the Proposed Action pass by
14 residential areas. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Proposed Action would
15 have short-term minor adverse noise impacts as a result of the increase in traffic,
16 most notably in the areas around SR 67 and Ranch Road 170.

17 Long-term, negligible, adverse effects on the acoustical environment would result


18 from vehicle traffic patrols. Patrols would consist of a single vehicle driving on
19 the patrol road. While adjustments to USBP operations due to fence construction
20 are anticipated to be minor, shifts in operation pattern, location, or frequency
21 would affect the noise environment in the vicinity of the fence sections. Noise
22 from patrol activities would have a greater impact on populations near proposed
23 Section L-1A than Section L-1.

24 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative


25 Short-term moderate adverse effects would be expected under Alternative 3.
26 Under Alternative 3, primary and secondary fences would be constructed 130
27 feet apart on the same route as Alternative 2. Noise effects from Alternative 3
28 would be similar to those discussed under Alternative 2. However, residences
29 would be closer to the secondary fence; therefore, noise effects from
30 construction equipment would be slightly higher than under Alternative 2.

31 3.3 LAND USE


32 3.3.1 Definition of the Resource
33 The term “land use” refers to real property classifications that indicate either
34 natural conditions or the types of human activity occurring on a parcel. In many
35 cases, land use descriptions are codified in local zoning laws. There is, however,
36 no nationally recognized convention or uniform terminology for describing land
37 use categories. As a result, the meanings of various land use descriptions,
38 “labels,” and definitions vary among jurisdictions.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-15
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Two main objectives of land use planning are to ensure orderly growth and
2 compatible uses among adjacent property parcels or areas. Compatibility among
3 land uses fosters the societal interest of obtaining the highest and best uses of
4 real property. Tools supporting land use planning include written master
5 plans/management plans and zoning regulations. In appropriate cases, the
6 location and extent of a proposed action needs to be evaluated for its potential
7 effects on a project site and adjacent land uses. The foremost factor affecting a
8 proposed action in terms of land use is its compliance with any applicable land
9 use or zoning regulations. Other relevant factors include matters such as
10 existing land use at the proposed project corridor, the types of land uses on
11 adjacent properties and their proximity to a proposed action, the duration of a
12 proposed activity, and its “permanence.”

13 Recreational resources are both natural and improved lands designated by


14 Federal, state, and local planning entities to offer visitors and residents diverse
15 opportunities to enjoy leisure activities. Natural recreational resources are those
16 places or amenities set aside as parklands, trails (e.g., hiking, bicycling,
17 equestrian), open spaces, aesthetically pleasing landscapes, and a variety of
18 other locales. Man-made recreational resources can include parks, man-made
19 lakes, recreational fields, or sport or recreational venues. National, state, and
20 local jurisdictions typically have designated land areas with defined boundaries
21 for recreation. Other less-structured activities like hunting are performed in
22 broad, less-defined locales. A recreational setting might consist of natural or
23 man-made landscapes and can vary in size from a roadside monument to a
24 multimillion-acre wilderness area.

25 3.3.2 Affected Environment


26 Major land uses within the proposed project corridor include agriculture,
27 rangeland, and urban. Specific land uses in each classification are described
28 below (USACE 1994).
29 • Agriculture – Specific land uses within this classification include highly
30 developed croplands, pasture, small grains, forage crops, hay production,
31 and orchards. The land can be irrigated or nonirrigated.
32 • Rangeland – Specific land use includes the grazing of cattle, horses,
33 sheep, goats, and other domestic animals. This is based on the presence
34 of naturally occurring grasses, grasslike plants and forbs, or shrubs
35 suitable for grazing and browsing. This classification would include
36 natural grasslands, savannas, some wetlands, and other areas with the
37 potential to support certain forb and shrub communities under prudent and
38 normally accepted land management practices.
39 • Urban – Specific land uses within this classification include residential,
40 industrial, transportation, commercial, educational, medical, recreational,
41 open space for environmental protection (i.e., floodway, utility easements,

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-16
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 and right-of-way), and underdeveloped land within political boundaries


2 (i.e., cities, towns, and villages).

3 The existing land use in the Marfa Sector for the proposed project corridor
4 ranges from well-developed urban centers of commerce (e.g., Presidio) to areas
5 of intensive agricultural activities to extensive areas designated for recreation
6 and wildlife management activities. The following is a brief description of the
7 existing land use in Hudspeth and Presidio counties (USACE 1994):
8 • Hudspeth County – The major land use is rangeland (96 percent).
9 Rangeland is used for production of beef cattle. Agricultural land use
10 (2 percent) is used for the production of cotton, alfalfa, and vegetables.
11 Approximately 40,000 acres (56 percent) of agricultural land is irrigated.
12 There is a limited amount of mining (e.g., primarily talc, stone, and
13 gypsum). The major recreational area is Guadalupe Mountains National
14 Park. The park contains unique plant life, scenic canyons, scenic drives,
15 hot springs, salt basins, white sands, and other geological formations.
16 The leasing of rangeland for hunting is an important secondary and
17 seasonal land use. Urban land use (less than 1 percent) is in Sierra
18 Blanca (population 700 est.), the county seat and principal center of trade
19 and commerce.
20 • Presidio County – Rangeland (99 percent) is the major land use.
21 Rangeland is used to raise cattle and goats. Agricultural land use
22 (1 percent) is limited to the production of cantaloupes, lettuce,
23 watermelons, onions, and alfalfa. Limited irrigation of agricultural land
24 occurs, mostly along the Rio Grande. Major secondary land uses involve
25 hunting and tourism. Most tourism occurs within the Big Bend Ranch
26 State Natural Area and on adjacent land. Marfa (population 2,689) is the
27 county seat; it and Presidio make up the two urban areas in Presidio
28 County.

29 Appendix F presents detailed maps of the areas surrounding the proposed


30 fence sections. Section 3.12 describes the aesthetics and visual resources of
31 the proposed project corridor.

32 3.3.3 Environmental Consequences


33 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
34 In some locations, land use and land values are currently adversely affected by
35 cross-border violators. Under the No Action Alternative, current land uses and
36 values could continue to be adversely affected and degradation could increase.

37 Alternative 2: Proposed Action


38 Constructing the proposed tactical infrastructure would result in long-term minor
39 adverse impacts on land use. The severity of the impact would vary depending

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-17
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 on the need for rezoning to accommodate the fence sections, patrol roads, and
2 lighting. CBP might be required to obtain a permit or zoning variance based on
3 local restrictions and ordinances. Short-term minor adverse impacts would occur
4 from construction. Impacts on land use would vary depending on potential
5 changes in land use and the land use of adjacent properties.

6 For the purposes of this EA, a land use analysis was conducted using the
7 National Land Cover Dataset. The National Land Cover Dataset is the first land
8 cover mapping project with a national (conterminous) scope. It is likely the most
9 widely used land cover data set in the United States and no other national land
10 cover mapping program has ever been undertaken. The National Land Cover
11 Dataset provides 21 land cover classes for the lower 48 states. The 21 land
12 cover classes were generalized into the following 4 categories: agricultural,
13 urban, rangeland, and water. The proposed project corridor is classified by
14 approximately 4.6 percent agricultural, 8.9 percent urban, and 86.5 rangeland.

15 Table 3.3-1 outlines by proposed tactical infrastructure section the existing


16 communities within or adjacent to Alternative 2 that would potentially be affected
17 by the proposed tactical infrastructure.

18 Table 3.3-1. Communities Potentially Affected by Alternative 2

Proposed Tactical
Infrastructure Community Affected
Section Number
L-1 Sierra Blanca
L-1A Presidio
L-1B Presidio

19 Construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure sections would require the


20 government to acquire various interests in land. Under current law, the Secretary
21 of Homeland Security has the authority to contract for or buy an interest in land
22 that is adjacent to or in the vicinity of the international land border when the
23 Secretary deems the land essential to control and guard the borders of the
24 United States (8 U.S.C. 1103(b)).

25 Because the proposed tactical infrastructure sections would traverse both public
26 and private lands, various methods could be used to acquire the necessary
27 interests in land. These methods include, among other things, acquiring
28 easements, ROWs, or outright purchase.

29 For those proposed tactical infrastructure sections that are on Federal lands, the
30 most likely means of acquisition would be a ROW obtained from the relevant
31 Federal land manager. On private land, the government would likely purchase
32 the land or some interest in land from the relevant landowner. Acquisition from

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-18
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 private landowners is a negotiable process that is carried out between the


2 government and the landowner on a case-by-case basis. The government also
3 has the statutory authority to acquire such interests through eminent domain.

4 Agricultural lands within the 60-foot proposed project corridor would not be
5 available for future crop production. In addition, residential, industrial,
6 commercial, and undeveloped lands within the proposed impact corridor would
7 not be available for future development.

8 As necessary, gates would be installed to allow landowners to access other


9 portions of their property to reduce potential inconvenience.

10 No indirect adverse impacts on recreation would be expected during the


11 construction activities associated with Alternative 2.

12 Land use in the areas between the three proposed fence sections would be
13 expected to be adversely impacted by the deterrent effects the fence sections
14 would experience from the funneling of illegal cross-border activities into those
15 areas. Since the locations of the proposed tactical infrastructure sections are
16 based on USBP operational requirements including the ability to make
17 apprehensions, the adverse effects would be expected to be minor.

18 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative


19 Alternative 3 would have similar impacts as Alternative 2. The figures in
20 Appendix F show the location of the proposed tactical infrastructure sections
21 and the proximity of adjacent and intersecting land. For the purposes of this EA,
22 a land use analysis was conducted using the National Land Cover Dataset. The
23 proposed project corridor is classified by approximately 9.1 percent agricultural,
24 7.8 percent developed, 83.1 percent range land, and 0.1 percent water.

25 3.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS


26 3.4.1 Definition of the Resource
27 Geology and soils resources include the surface and subsurface materials of the
28 earth. Within a given physiographic province, these resources typically are
29 described in terms of topography, soils, geology, minerals, and paleontology,
30 where applicable.

31 Topography is defined as the relative positions and elevations of the natural or


32 human-made features of an area that describe the configuration of its surface.
33 Regional topography is influenced by many factors, including human activity,
34 seismic activity of the underlying geologic material, climatic conditions, and
35 erosion. Information describing topography typically encompasses surface
36 elevations, slope, and physiographic features (i.e., mountains, ravines, hills,
37 plains, deltas, or depressions).

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-19
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Site-specific geological resources typically consist of surface and subsurface


2 materials and their inherent properties. Principal factors influencing the ability of
3 geologic resources to support structural development are seismic properties (i.e.,
4 potential for subsurface shifting, faulting, or crustal disturbance), topography, and
5 soil stability.

6 Soils are the unconsolidated materials overlying bedrock or other parent material.
7 They develop from the weathering processes of mineral and organic materials
8 and are typically described in terms of landscape position, slope, and physical
9 and chemical characteristics. Soil types differ in structure, elasticity, strength,
10 shrink-swell potential, drainage characteristics, and erosion potential, which can
11 affect their ability to support certain applications or uses. In appropriate cases,
12 soil properties must be examined for compatibility with particular construction
13 activities or types of land use.

14 Prime and unique farmland is protected under the Farmland Protection Policy Act
15 (FPPA) of 1981. Prime farmland is defined as land that has the best combination
16 of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber,
17 and oilseed crops, and is also available for these uses. Unique farmland is
18 defined as land other than prime farmland that is used for the production of
19 specific high-value food and fiber crops. It has the special combination of soil
20 quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically
21 produce sustained high quality or high yields of a specific crop when treated and
22 managed according to acceptable farming methods. Soil qualities, growing
23 season, and moisture supply are needed for a well-managed soil to produce a
24 sustained high yield of crops in an economic manner. The land could be
25 cropland, pasture, rangeland, or other land, but not urban built-up land or water.
26 The intent of the FPPA is to minimize the extent that Federal programs contribute
27 to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The act also
28 ensures that Federal programs are administered in a manner that, to the extent
29 practicable, will be compatible with private, state, and local government programs
30 and policies to protect farmland.

31 The implementing procedures of the FPPA and Natural Resources Conservation


32 Service (NRCS) require Federal agencies to evaluate the adverse effects (direct
33 and indirect) of their activities on prime and unique farmland, as well as farmland
34 of statewide and local importance, and to consider alternative actions that could
35 avoid adverse effects. Determination of whether an area is considered prime or
36 unique farmland and potential impacts associated with a proposed action is
37 based on preparation of the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form AD-1006
38 for areas where prime farmland soils occur and by applying criteria established at
39 Section 658.5 of the FPPA (7 CFR 658). The NRCS is responsible for
40 overseeing compliance with the FPPA and has developed the rules and
41 regulations for implementation of the act (see 7 CFR Part 658, 5 July 1984).

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-20
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 3.4.2 Affected Environment


2 Physiography and Topography. The Marfa Sector occurs in the Trans-Pecos
3 Region of the Basin and Range Physiographic Province in Texas, which is
4 bordered on the west by the Rio Grande and on the east by northwest-to-
5 southeast-trending mountain ranges that rise above open rocky plains. This
6 region is characterized by the highest peaks in Texas, with eight mountain peaks
7 higher than 8,000 feet, and relatively narrow river valleys that have formed on the
8 plains by eroding basin fill deposits or the older underlying rock. Plateaus of
9 nearly horizontal and less-deformed rocks commonly flank the mountains. The
10 interiors of mountain ranges are composed of strongly folded and faulted
11 sedimentary, volcanic, or granitic rocks. Most peaks are ancient, formerly active
12 volcanoes that have accumulated thick deposits of volcanic ash and debris on
13 their flanks. These volcanoes were explosive in nature but successive lava flows
14 were uncommon. Calderas, where the cores of volcanoes collapsed and
15 subsided, are abundant. The topographic profile of the Marfa Sector project
16 impact corridor range is relatively level as it follows the USIBWC levee system for
17 the majority of its length with elevations ranging from approximately 3,500 mean
18 sea level (MSL) along the L-1 fence section to approximately 2,500 feet above
19 MSL along the L-1A and l-1B fence sections (TopoZone.com 2007).

20 Geology. The Marfa Sector occurs within the Trans-Pecos Region of the Basin
21 and Range geomorphic province. The surface geology of the Trans-Pecos
22 Region consists of Lower Paleozoic rocks to Quaternary unconsolidated
23 materials, formed during a diverse and complex structural history spanning
24 approximately 400 million years. At least two major series of tectonic episodes
25 have shaped this region. The first series of episodes resulted in contorted
26 Permian sedimentary rocks that were then eroded to a flat plain. Cretaceous
27 seas then deposited carbonate sediments on this unconformity and formed what
28 is now known as the limestones of the Comanche Series. In a second series of
29 tectonic episodes, this unconformity was then deformed by a combination of
30 overthrusting and extensive intrusive and extrusive igneous activity. This area
31 then ceased to be volcanically active and much of the surface topography began
32 to be transformed through erosion and alluvial deposition during the Quaternary
33 as in the case of the Upper Rio Grande Basin. Currently, most of the Cretaceous
34 deposits have been removed by erosion (USACE 1994).

35 Soils. Generally the soils of the Marfa Sector are typical of the Trans-Pecos
36 Region of the Basin and Range province and consist of desertic soils with some
37 undulating to hilly calcareous soils over limestone and limy earths of the Grande
38 Prairie and Edwards Plateau (USACE 1994). The majority of the soils in the L-1
39 fence section of Hudspeth County were unmapped by the NRCS as shown in
40 Appendix G, Map 1. However, a portion of the eastern L-1 fence section
41 occurred in the Nickel-Delnorte-Canutio-Badland and Tigua-Harkey-Glendale-
42 Gila soil associations as shown in Appendix G, Map 2. The Nickel-Delnorte-
43 Canutio-Badland soil association consists of well-drained, moderately to
44 moderately rapid permeable, very gravelly and fine sandy loams that occur on
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
3-21
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 alluvial fans, fan piedmonts, hilly uplands, and on valley floors of wide arroyos in
2 mountainous areas (0 to 35 percent slopes). The Tigua-Harkey-Glendale-Gila
3 soil association consists of moderately well-drained to well-drained, moderately
4 to moderately slowly to very slowly permeable, fine sandy to silty clay loams and
5 silty clays that occur on alluvial fans, floodplains, bajadas, stream terraces, and
6 piedmont slopes (0 to 5 percent slopes). Neither of these soil associations are
7 designated as farmland of importance in Hudspeth County (NRCS 2007).

8 The majority of the soils in the L-1B fence section of Presidio County were
9 mapped as occurring within the Nickel-Delnorte-Canutio-Badland soil association
10 by the NRCS as shown in Appendix G, Map 3. A small portion of fence Section
11 L-1B at its western extent was unmapped. The Nickel-Delnorte-Canutio-Badland
12 soil association consists of well-drained, moderately to moderately rapid
13 permeable, very gravelly and fine sandy loams that occur on alluvial fans, fan
14 piedmonts, hilly uplands, and on valley floors of wide arroyos in mountainous
15 areas (0 to 35 percent slopes). The majority of the soils in the L-1A fence section
16 of Presidio County were unmapped by the NRCS as shown in Appendix G,
17 Map 4. However, a small portion of the western L-1A fence section occurred in
18 the Nickel-Delnorte-Canutio-Badland soil association. This soil association is not
19 designated as farmland of importance in Presidio County (NRCS 2007).

20 In Hudspeth County, soils of the Tigua, Harkey, Glendale, and Gila series occur
21 within the eastern portion of proposed project corridor for fence Section L-1 and
22 are classified as partially hydric (the mapping units have inclusions of hydric soils
23 that are too small to map as individual units). The mapped soil associations that
24 occur within the proposed project corridor of fence Sections L-1B and L-1A are
25 not classified as partially or fully hydric in Presidio County. Hydric soils are soils
26 that are saturated, flooded, or have ponding sufficiently long during the growing
27 season to develop anaerobic (oxygen-deficient) conditions in upper horizons.
28 The presence of hydric soil is one of the three criteria (hydric soils, hydrophytic
29 vegetation, and wetland hydrology) used to determine that an area is a wetland
30 based on the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1
31 (USACE 1987).

32 3.4.3 Environmental Consequences


33 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
34 The No Action Alternative would result in continuation of the existing condition of
35 geologic resources, as discussed in Section 3.4.1. No effects on physiography,
36 topography, and geologic resources would occur. However, cumulative short-
37 and long-term adverse impacts related to the compaction of soils and increased
38 erosion due to the use of the area by cross-border violators would be expected.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-22
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Alternative 2: Proposed Action


2 Physiography and Topography. Short- and long-term minor adverse impacts
3 on the natural topography would be expected. Grading, contouring, and
4 trenching associated with the installation of the proposed tactical infrastructure
5 sections would impact approximately 78 acres, which could result in minor
6 alterations of the existing microtopography. However, the existing topography of
7 much of the proposed project corridor was previously altered to construct the
8 levees, provide access roads, and to level agricultural fields for irrigation. Any
9 additional topographic alterations associated with the installation of the proposed
10 tactical infrastructure would be expected to be minor. The project site would be
11 regraded and contoured following tactical infrastructure installation. This would
12 minimize modifications to existing flood-flow characteristics.

13 Because proposed construction within most proposed tactical infrastructure


14 sections would result in a soil disturbance of greater than 5 acres, authorization
15 under TCEQ Construction General Permits (TXR150000) would be required.
16 Construction activities subject to these permits include clearing, grading, and
17 disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling or excavation, but do not include
18 regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or
19 capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permits require the
20 development and implementation of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans
21 (SWPPPs).

22 The SWPPPs should contain one or more site maps that show the construction
23 site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water
24 collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after
25 construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPPs must list
26 BMPs the discharger will use to protect storm water runoff, along with the
27 locations of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPPs must contain a visual
28 monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for nonvisible pollutants to
29 be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs, and a sediment monitoring plan if
30 the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment.
31 Part III.F of the Construction General Permit describes the elements that must be
32 contained in an SWPPP.

33 Minor adverse impacts due to potential increased sheet flow as a result of


34 grading, contouring, and trenching would be expected to be temporary and
35 mitigated by the implementation of the BMPs developed during preparation of the
36 SWPPP required under the TCEQ Construction General Permit (TXR150000).

37 Geology. Short- and long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts on geologic


38 resources could occur at locations if bedrock is at the surface and blasting would
39 be necessary to grade for fence placement or patrol road development. Geologic
40 resources could affect the placement of the fence or patrol roads due to the
41 occurrence of bedrock at the surface, or as a result of structural instability. Site-
42 specific geotechnical surveys would be conducted prior to construction to

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-23
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 determine depth to bedrock due to the lack of available information on soils in the
2 fence sections. In most cases, it is expected that project design and engineering
3 practices could be implemented to mitigate geologic limitations to site
4 development.

5 Soils. Short-term minor direct adverse impacts on soils would be expected as a


6 result of implementing the Proposed Action. Soil surveys would need to be
7 conducted to determine the soil associations and engineering limitations in the
8 unmapped areas of the project impact corridor. Soil disturbance and compaction
9 due to grading, contouring, and trenching associated with the installation of the
10 fence, patrol roads, and other tactical infrastructure for all three fence sections,
11 and building of the new levee retaining walls in Section L-1B and L-1A would
12 impact approximately 78.1 acres. Short- and long-term minor to moderate
13 adverse impacts would be expected on the approximately 13 acres of the
14 permanent soil disturbance as a result of grading, contouring, trenching, and
15 compaction associated with the installation of the fence. However, the majority
16 of soils within the proposed project corridor have been previously disturbed by
17 levee development, agricultural activities, and other land uses prior to this
18 Proposed Action. The volume of soil disturbance cannot be determined due to
19 the operational sensitivity of disclosing the exact depth of soil disturbance.
20 However, displaced soil will be properly stockpiled to prevent erosion and
21 sedimentation, and excess soils will be disposed of properly if not utilized during
22 regrading and recontouring activities following installation of the fence. In areas
23 where soils have not been previously disturbed by levee development,
24 agricultural activities, and other land uses prior to this Proposed Action, minor
25 adverse effects to natural soil structure and soil organisms would be expected.

26 Increased soil erosion due to the proposed construction activities would be


27 minimized by implementing BMPs as established during the development of the
28 SWPPP. Implementing these BMPs would minimize soil erosion impacts in
29 areas of steep slopes, especially in Section L-1. Soil disturbance on steep
30 slopes has the potential to result in excessive erosion due to instability of the
31 disturbed soils and high runoff energy and velocity. Adverse effects associated
32 with sediments that could potentially be transported from construction sites and
33 deposited in the Rio Grande would be minimized as a result of implementation of
34 the BMPs as established in the SWPPP. Construction activities expected to
35 directly impact the existing soils as a result of grading, excavating, placement of
36 fill, compaction, and mixing or augmentation necessary to prepare the sites for
37 development of the fence sections and patrol roads and associated utility lines
38 would also be avoided by the proper implementation of the BMPs. Due to the
39 semi-arid climate of the region, wind erosion could potentially impact disturbed
40 soils in areas where vegetation has been removed. However, following
41 construction activities, the areas disturbed would be revegetated with native
42 species to the maximum extent practicable to reestablish native plant
43 communities and help stabilize soils.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-24
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 The proposed construction activities would be expected to result in an increase in


2 soil erosion in areas of steep slopes, especially in Section L-1. Soil disturbance
3 on steep slopes has the potential to result in excessive erosion due to instability
4 of the disturbed soils and high runoff energy and velocity. Sediments washed
5 from construction sites would be carried to and deposited in the Rio Grande. In
6 addition, wind erosion has the potential to impact disturbed soils where
7 vegetation has been removed due to the semiarid climate of the region.
8 Construction activities would be expected to directly impact the existing soils as a
9 result of grading, excavating, placement of fill, compaction, and mixing or
10 augmentation necessary to prepare the site for development of the fence, patrol
11 and access roads, and associated utility lines. Following construction activities,
12 the areas disturbed would be revegetated with native species to the maximum
13 extent practicable to reestablish native plant communities and help stabilize soils.

14 Because proposed construction would result in a soil disturbance of greater than


15 5 acres, authorization under TCEQ Construction General Permit (TXR150000)
16 would be required. Construction activities subject to this permit include clearing,
17 grading and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation, but do
18 not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line,
19 grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the
20 development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
21 (SWPPP).

22 The SWPPP should contain one or more site maps, which show the construction
23 site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water
24 collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after
25 construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must list
26 BMPs that the discharger will use to address storm water runoff along with the
27 locations of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual
28 monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for nonvisible pollutants to
29 be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs, and a sediment monitoring plan if
30 the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment.
31 Part III.F of the Construction General Permit describes the elements that must be
32 contained in an SWPPP.

33 Additional soil disturbance could occur during and following construction as a


34 result of scheduled patrols. Compaction and erosion of soil would be expected
35 as a result of patrol operations and possible off-road vehicle use that could
36 decrease vegetation cover and soil permeability.

37 None of the mapped soil associations were listed as prime farmland soils or
38 appear to be associated with farmland of local, unique, or statewide importance
39 in Hudspeth and Presidio counties. No significant adverse impacts on prime
40 farmland soils would be expected.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-25
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative


2 The Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative would result in similar
3 environmental impacts on physiographic, topographic, geologic, and soils
4 resources as described for the Proposed Action. However, the magnitude of the
5 impacts would affect a larger area, due to the additional fence and overall wider
6 corridor. Approximately 195 acres would be impacted.

7 3.5 HYDROLOGY AND GROUNDWATER


8 3.5.1 Definition of the Resource
9 Hydrology consists of the redistribution of water through the processes of
10 evapotranspiration, surface runoff, and subsurface flow. Hydrology results
11 primarily from temperature and total precipitation that determine
12 evapotranspiration rates, topography which determines rate and direction of
13 surface flow, and soil properties that determine rate of subsurface flow and
14 recharge to the groundwater reservoir. Groundwater consists of subsurface
15 hydrologic resources. It is an essential resource that functions to recharge
16 surface water and is used for drinking, irrigation, and industrial processes.
17 Groundwater typically can be described in terms of depth from the surface,
18 aquifer or well capacity, water quality, recharge rate, and surrounding geologic
19 formations.

20 3.5.2 Affected Environment


21 Hydrology. The proposed project corridor is in the Upper Rio Grande drainage
22 basin, which is part of the much larger Rio Grande drainage basin, which
23 includes an area of approximately 355,500 square miles. This area is
24 characterized by a semi-arid climate due to low annual precipitation (8 inches in
25 Hudspeth County and 15 inches in Presidio County). Due to the semi-arid
26 climate, vegetation is sparse. Reduced groundcover along with steep slopes due
27 to local topography can lead to heavy runoff and high erosion potential during
28 precipitation events. In the proposed project corridor, surface runoff generally
29 flows from higher elevations to the north to the Rio Grande which flows west to
30 east to the south of the fence sections. Much of the Upper Rio Grande drainage
31 basin is composed of rural, undeveloped land used primarily for ranching. Water
32 development projects in the Upper Rio Grande Valley have disrupted natural flow
33 regimes, including structures such as Riverside Diversion Dam and International
34 Dam to the west of the proposed project corridor and the Amistad Reservoir, to
35 the east. Substantial quantities of surface water are diverted from the Rio
36 Grande to meet municipal, industrial, and agricultural demands in Texas and
37 Mexico. A significant portion of the Rio Grande flow is used in the Upper Rio
38 Grande Valley for municipal (public and domestic), manufacturing (industrial),
39 steam-electric power, mining (e.g., recovery of crude petroleum), irrigation, and
40 livestock. Most of the water diverted in the Upper Rio Grande Valley is returned

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-26
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 as treated, partially treated, or untreated municipal and industrial wastewater that


2 eventually flows back into the Rio Grande (USACE 1994).

3 The major aquifer underlying the proposed project corridor occurs in the Alluvium
4 and Bolson deposits, which are found in several isolated areas. This aquifer is
5 an important source for irrigation and public water supply. It is an unconfined
6 system consisting of sand, gravel, silt, and clay that ranges in depth from 100 to
7 1,000 feet, but can extend to depths of more than 3,000 feet. Large capacity
8 wells yield from 500 to 900 gallons per minute with maximum yields exceeding
9 2,500 gallons per minute. Groundwater is the primary source of drinking water in
10 the project study corridor. Groundwater assessments of the Alluvium and Bolson
11 deposits aquifer in the project study corridor indicate that the most common
12 sources for potential contamination include the following: (1) increased
13 chloride/sulfate concentrations along the Rio Grande that exceed Secondary
14 Drinking Water Standards, (2) higher levels of total dissolved solids with levels
15 exceeding 3,000 to 10,000 milligrams per liter (mg/l), (3) natural/man-made
16 levels of nitrate (41–60 percent) in the counties of Presidio and Hudspeth, and
17 (4) fluoride (0–3 percent) that continually exceed the Federal drinking water
18 standards. In general, Hudspeth and Presidio counties have been determined by
19 the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) to have low to
20 moderately high potential for groundwater contamination. Sources of potential
21 groundwater contaminants include areas of radioactive anomalies or occurrences
22 of radioactive minerals (radium) in Hudspeth and Presidio Counties and feedlots
23 and animal wastes (nitrogen, phosphates, salts, and infectious agents) in
24 Presidio County. Other potential pollution sources result from inadequate
25 treatment facilities for wastewater and industrial/hazardous wastes which might
26 pose a risk in some regions of the U.S./Mexico international border. Discharges
27 from these facilities could impact waters which cross the border or flow into rivers
28 that form the international boundary. Within the project study corridor, the sister
29 cities of Ojinaga and Presidio are considered major contributors of waste
30 discharges into the Rio Grande (USACE 1994).

31 3.5.3 Environmental Consequences


32 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
33 Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented.
34 As a result, there would be no change from baseline conditions, as described in
35 Section 3.5.1. Potential adverse effects associated with water contamination
36 due to cross-border violators would continue.

37 Alternative 2: Proposed Action


38 Short- and long-term negligible adverse impacts on the hydrology of the Rio
39 Grande would be expected to occur as a result of grading and contouring in the
40 proposed project corridor. Grading and contouring would be expected to alter
41 the topography and remove vegetation on approximately 78 acres within the

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-27
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 floodplain of the Rio Grande, which could in turn increase erosion potential and
2 increase runoff during heavy precipitation events. Revegetating the area with
3 native vegetation following construction along with other BMPs to abate runoff
4 and wind erosion could reduce the impacts of erosion and runoff. Additionally,
5 the small increase in impervious surface within the floodplain would result in
6 negligible increases in the quantity and velocity of storm water flows to the Rio
7 Grande. As required by the Texas Construction General Permit (TXR150000),
8 BMPs would be developed as part of the required SWPPPs to manage storm
9 water both during and after construction. Therefore, effects would be expected
10 to be negligible.

11 Short-term, minor, direct, adverse construction-related impacts on groundwater


12 resources in Hudspeth and Presidio counties would also be expected. During
13 construction, water would be required for pouring concrete, watering of road and
14 ground surfaces for dust suppression during construction, and for washing
15 construction vehicles. Water use for construction would be temporary, and the
16 volume of water used for construction would be minor when compared to the
17 amount used annually in the area for municipal, agricultural, and industrial
18 purposes.

19 The potential for short-term negligible adverse effects on groundwater related to


20 an increase in storm water runoff would also occur. Implementation of storm
21 water and spill prevention BMPs developed consistent with the SWPPPs and
22 other applicable plans and regulations would minimize potential runoff or spill-
23 related impacts on groundwater quality during construction.

24 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative


25 Impacts on hydrology under Alternative 3 would be similar, but slightly greater
26 than the impacts described under Alternative 2. The primary and secondary
27 fence sections proposed under Alternative 3 would result in a larger increase in
28 impervious surface.

29 Impacts on groundwater under Alternative 3 would be slightly greater than the


30 impacts under Alternative 2 because the area of surface disturbance would be
31 greater under this alternative. Disturbance at the ground surface would not affect
32 groundwater aquifers directly, and post-construction runoff patterns could result
33 in minor groundwater recharge.

34 3.6 SURFACE WATERS AND WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES


35 Surface water resources generally consist of wetlands, lakes, rivers, and
36 streams. Surface water is important for its contributions to the economic,
37 ecological, recreational, and human health of a community or locale.

38 The CWA (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) established the Federal authority for
39 regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States. Section 404

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-28
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344) establishes a Federal program to regulate the
2 discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States. The
3 USACE administers the permitting program for authorization of actions under
4 Section 404 of the CWA. Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires that
5 proposed dredge and fill activities permitted under Section 404 be reviewed and
6 certified by the designated state agency that the proposed project will meet state
7 water quality standards. The Federal permit under Section 404 is not valid until it
8 has received Section 401 water quality certification. Section 402 of the CWA
9 establishes the NPDES permit program to regulate point source discharges of
10 pollutants into waters of the United States. An NPDES permit sets specific
11 discharge limits for point sources discharging pollutants into waters of the United
12 States and establishes monitoring and reporting requirements, as well as special
13 conditions. Pursuant to Texas Water Code 26.040 and CWA Section 402 all
14 construction that would result in a soil disturbance of greater than 5 acres
15 requires authorization under the TCEQ Construction General Permit
16 (TXR150000). Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states and USEPA to identify
17 waters not meeting state water-quality standards and to develop Total Maximum
18 Daily Loads (TMDLs) and an implementation plan to reduce contributing sources
19 of pollution.

20 Waters of the United States are defined within the CWA of 1972, as amended.
21 USEPA and the USACE assert jurisdiction over (1) traditional navigable waters,
22 (2) wetlands adjacent to navigable waters, (3) nonnavigable tributaries of
23 traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries
24 typically flow year-around or have continuous flow at least seasonally, and
25 (4) wetlands that directly abut such tributaries. In addition, the Supreme Court
26 issued a decision on June 19, 2006, that addresses the scope of the CWA
27 jurisdiction over certain waters of the United States, including wetlands. On June
28 5, 2007, USEPA and the USACE issued joint guidance clarifying CWA
29 jurisdiction in light of the court decision.

30 The CWA (as amended in 1977) established the basic structure for regulating
31 discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The objective of the
32 CWA is restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological
33 integrity of U.S. waters. To achieve this objective, several goals were enacted
34 including (1) eliminate discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985;
35 (2) achieve water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of
36 fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water by
37 1983; (3) prohibit discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts; (4) provide
38 Federal financial assistance to construct publicly owned waste treatment works;
39 (5) develop and implement the national policy that areawide waste treatment
40 management planning processes ensure adequate control of sources of
41 pollutants in each state; (6) establish the national policy that a major research
42 and demonstration effort be made to develop technology necessary to eliminate
43 the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters, waters of the contiguous zone,
44 and the oceans; and (7) establish the national policy that programs be developed
45 and implemented in an expeditious manner so as to enable the goals to be met
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
3-29
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 through the control of both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. The USACE
2 regulates the discharge of dredge and fill material (e.g., concrete, riprap, soil,
3 cement block, gravel, sand) into waters of the United States including wetlands
4 under Section 404 of the CWA. The USACE regulates work on, or structures in
5 or affecting navigable waters of the United States under Section 10 of the Rivers
6 and Harbors Act of 1899.

7 Wetlands include important natural systems and habitats that perform diverse
8 biologic and hydrologic functions. These functions include water quality
9 improvement, groundwater recharge and discharge, pollution mitigation, nutrient
10 cycling, wildlife habitat provision, unique flora and fauna niche provision, storm
11 water attenuation and storage, sediment detention, and erosion protection.
12 Wetlands are considered as a subset of the waters of the United States under
13 Section 404 of the CWA. The term “waters of the United States” has a broad
14 meaning under the CWA and incorporates deepwater aquatic habitats and
15 special aquatic habitats (including wetlands). The USACE defines wetlands as
16 “those areas that are inundated or saturated with ground or surface water at a
17 frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
18 circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in
19 saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs,
20 and similar areas” (33 CFR Part 328).

21 3.6.1 Affected Environment


22 Surface Waters. The predominant surface water feature in the project impact
23 corridor is the Rio Grande (called the Rio Bravo in Mexico). The Rio Grande
24 drainage is one of the longest rivers in North America, and its basin is important
25 to both the United States and Mexico. The allocation of Rio Grande water
26 between the two countries is governed by a treaty that was signed in 1944.

27 The proposed fence sections follow the IBWC levee system of the Rio Grande for
28 the majority of their lengths. There are no permanent surface water features
29 occurring within the proposed project corridors. Surface water features occurring
30 adjacent to the project corridors include the Rio Grande River and open water
31 components of resacas (bancos) that occur to the north of fence sections L-1 and
32 L-1A. The fence alignments cross several ephemeral washes within the project
33 corridors and numerous washes cross under the proposed access road to the
34 north of fence Section L-1.

35 The 2004 USEPA CWA §303[d] list indicates the waters of the Rio Grande-Fort
36 Quitman, within the project impact corridor of the L-1 fence section, are impaired
37 as a result of arachlor, bacteria, chlorides, and total dissolved solids. No
38 approved TMDLs have been reported to the USEPA by the state of Texas at this
39 time (USEPA 2008).

40 The waters upstream of Amistad Dam, within the project impact corridor of the L-
41 1B and L-1A fence sections, were identified on the 2000 State of Texas CWA

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-30
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 §303(d) list as “partially supporting” aquatic life uses due to ambient toxicity of
2 water downstream of Del Rio and due to insufficient data available in 2002 to
3 assess water quality was identified on the 2002 list. The recorded flow rate for
4 waters upstream of Amistad Dam (Segment 2306 of the Rio Grande) was during
5 2001 and 2002 sampling events was below the levels required for water quality
6 standards to be applicable. Sample testing revealed several occurrences of total
7 suspended solids (TSS) and chlorine and one instance of mercury detected
8 above acceptable levels. Testing revealed no lethal toxicity to fathead minnow
9 (Pimephales promelas) and water flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) in lab tests. Some
10 sublethal effects were observed in the study but were determined inconclusive
11 since aquatic life uses would not be applicable during extremely low flows.
12 Toxicity Identification Evaluations (TIEs) were not conducted due to the
13 ambiguous results from the toxicity tests. Although it was recommended that
14 Segment 2306 remain on the 303(d) list, additional testing was determined to be
15 necessary to fully assess the presence and causes of toxicity prior to the
16 establishment of TMDLs (TCEQ 2003). The 2004 USEPA CWA §303(d) list
17 indicates the waters upstream of Amistad Dam are impaired as a result of
18 bacteria and chronic toxicity. No approved TMDLs have been reported to the
19 USEPA by the state of Texas at this time (USEPA 2008).

20 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States within the
21 Proposed Project Areas. Field surveys were conducted in Sections L-1, L-1A,
22 and L-1B on January 28 and January 29, 2008, to delineate jurisdictional
23 wetlands and other waters of the United States (WoUS) within the proposed
24 project areas. Delineations were also conducted along proposed access roads
25 and staging areas associated with the proposed fence alignments. Formal
26 delineations were conducted within a 150-foot corridor associated with the
27 proposed fence alignments, 60 feet to either side of proposed access roads, and
28 within proposed staging areas.

29 Determination of the occurrence and extent of jurisdictional wetlands and other


30 waters of the United States was based on the application of procedures
31 established in the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-
32 1 (USACE 1987), and the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of
33 Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Technical Report
34 ERDC/EL TR-06-16 (USACE 2006). Determination of the occurrence of
35 jurisdictional wetlands was based on the presence or absence of hydrophytic
36 (wetland) vegetation, hydric (wetland) soils, and wetland hydrology. The
37 presence of all three of the criteria is necessary for an area to be designated as a
38 jurisdictional wetland under normal conditions.

39 Determination of the extent of jurisdictional washes (arroyos) and other WoUS in


40 the project areas was based on characterization of the landward extent of the
41 ordinary high water mark (OHM). Indicators used to determine the occurrence
42 and extent of jurisdictional washes included: the presence of developed
43 channels, typically 2 feet or greater in width; the occurrence of an OHM; the
44 absence of fine sediments along flow paths; distinct changes in the vegetative
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
3-31
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 assemblage or larger or more dense vegetation than surrounding areas; the


2 presence of cut banks; the presence of litter, debris, or rack lines; occurrence of
3 desiccation cracks or other indicators of hydrology; and other indicators of the
4 occurrence of intermittent water flow regimes.

5 All wetlands and other WoUS within the proposed projects areas were
6 delineated, and field data has been submitted as an Application for Jurisdictional
7 Determination to the USACE Albuquerque District.
(b) (5)
8
9

10 Table 3.6-1 provides the section locations, wetland or other WoUS types, and
11 the acreage of each identified wetland or other WoUS within a 60-foot-wide
12 assessment corridor. The 60-foot corridor is considered the maximum width of
13 potential impact associated with implementing the preferred alternative. Maps
14 showing the locations and boundaries of delineated wetlands and other WoUS in
15 the project assessment areas are provided in Attachment D of the Biological
16 Survey Report.

17 Based on the field surveys, 14 wetlands or other WoUS (WL1 through WL14)
18 occur within the assessment area. Wetlands WL1 through WL9 occur in Section
19 L-1; WL11 and WL12 occur in Section L-1B; and WL13 and WL14 occur in
20 Section L-1A. The following text provides brief descriptions of the delineated
21 wetlands.

22 WL1/L-1. Wetland 1 is palustrine forested wetland associated with a resaca


23 (banco). Vegetation in the wetland is characterized by a near monotypic cover of
24 Tamarisk ramosissima.

25 WL2/L-1. Wetland 2 is the eastern component of WL1. It is separated from WL1


26 by a road. Vegetation in WL2 is characterized by Tamarisk ramosissima.

27 WL3/L-1. Wetland 3 is a palustrine emergent and scrub shrub habitat


28 characterized by Distichlis spicata and cut Tamarisk ramosissima. An
29 approximately 3-foot-high berm separates the emergent and scrub shrub
30 component of WL3 from adjacent open water habitat to the north.

31 WL4/L-1. Wetland 4 is a palustrine scrub shrub and emergent habitat bordering


32 open water habitat. Vegetation in the wetland is characterized by Distichlis
33 spicata and Tamarisk ramosissima. WL4 is connected to the open water
34 component adjacent to WL3.

35 WL5/L-1. Wetland 5 is a palustrine emergent wetland bordering palustrine


36 forested and emergent habitat. Vegetation in the wetland is characterized by
37 Distichlis spicata and Tamarisk ramosissima.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-32
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Table 3.6-1: Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States and Acreages
2 within the Project Assessment Areas in Marfa Sections L-1, L-1A, and L-1B

Wetland or Acreage Within 60


Other WoUS Section Wetland or Other WoUS Type Foot Potential
Identification Impact Corridor
Palustrine forested wetland
WL1 L-1 0.17 acre
associated with a resaca
Palustrine forested wetland
WL2 L-1 0.25 acre
associated with a resaca
Palustrine emergent/scrub
WL3 L-1 0.0 acre
shrub
Palustrine scrub
WL4 L-1 shrub/emergent with open water 0.47 acre
components
Palustrine emergent bordering a
WL5 L-1 0.0 acre
palustrine forested/scrub shrub
WL6 L-1 Wash 0.02 acre
WL7 L-1 Wash 0.02 acre
WL8 L-1 Wash 0.04 acre
Palustrine forested associated
WL9 L-1 0.08 acre
with a playa
WL10 L-1B Wash tributary to Cibolo Wash 0.08 acre
WL11 L-1B Cibolo Wash – north channel 0.47 acre
WL12 L-1B Cibolo Wash – south channel 0.08 acre
Palustrine emergent associated
WL13 L-1A 0.0 acre
with a resaca
Palustrine emergent associated
WL14 L-1A 0.0 acre
with a resaca
3

4 WL6/L-1. Wetland 6 is an ephemeral drainage channel that drains directly to the


5 Rio Grande. The channel narrows down and then ends approximately 250 feet
6 upstream of the access road. The channel is approximately 8 to 10 feet wide at
7 the road crossing.

8 WL7/L-1. Wetland 7 is an ephemeral wash that drains directly to the Rio


9 Grande. The channel narrows down and then ends approximately 75 feet
10 upstream of the access road. The channel is approximately 2 to 8 feet wide
11 upstream of the access road, and 4 to 5 feet wide downstream of the road.

12 WL8/L-1. Wetland 8 is a wide shallow ephemeral wash that drains directly into
13 the Rio Grande. The wash channel ranges from approximately 10 to 20 feet in

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-33
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 width in proximity to the road crossing. It narrows down to 8 feet approximately


2 150 feet downstream of the road crossing.

3 WL9/L-1. Wetland 9 is characterized by a palustrine forested habitat bordering


4 open water. Vegetation in the wetland is characterized by a near monotypic
5 cover of Tamarisk ramosissima. Much of the open water component of WL9 had
6 dried down at the time of the delineation.

7 WL10/L-1B. Wetland 10 is an ephemeral tributary channel to the Cibolo Wash.

8 WL11/L-1B. Wetland 11 is a wide ephemeral wash channel on the west side of


9 Cibolo Wash.

10 WL12/L-1B. Wetland 12 is a wide ephemeral wash channel on the east side of


11 Cibolo Wash.

12 WL13/L-1A. Wetland 13 is a palustrine emergent wetland associated with a


13 resaca (banco). The wetland is characterized by a near monotypic stand of
14 Phragmites australis.

15 WL14/L-1A. Wetland 14 is a palustrine emergent wetland associated with a


16 resaca (banco). The wetland is characterized by a near monotypic stand of
17 Phragmites australis bordered on the upland edge by a dense coverage of
18 Salsola tragus.

19 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences


20 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
21 No impacts to wetlands or other WoUS would be expected under the No Action
22 Alternative. Construction and operation of the proposed tactical infrastructure
23 would not occur under the No Action Alternative. As a result, there would be no
24 change from baseline conditions, as described in Section 3.6.1.

25 Alternative 2: Proposed Action


26 Minor short- and long-term impacts to wetlands and washes in Section L-1 would
27 be expected. The proposed tactical infrastructure for Section L-1 would consist
28 of a primary pedestrian fence, patrol road, access road, and staging areas. The
29 access road that connects to the north end of Section L-1 crosses numerous
30 washes. The access road is currently a hard-top county road with established
31 wash crossing. No impacts to washes crossing under the proposed access road
32 would be expected. Wetlands WL1, WL2, WL3, and WL9 extend within the 60-
33 foot impact assessment corridor (see Table 3.6-1) in Section L1. In addition,
34 three ephemeral washes (WL6, WL7, and WL8) cross the proposed tactical
35 infrastructure alignment. Placing tactical infrastructure adjacent to wetlands and
36 across wash channels would result in potential short-term impacts to the
37 wetlands and washes as a result of land disturbance and associated erosion and
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
3-34
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 sedimentation. Erosion and sediment controls and storm water management


2 practices (discussed below) would be implemented during construction to
3 minimize the potential for adverse effects to wetlands adjacent to the tactical
4 infrastructure alignment and to the washes crossed by the alignment. Long-term
5 effects would occur as a result of the placement of fill associated with
6 construction of the fence, new patrol roads, or upgrades to existing patrol roads.
7 Impacts to the wetlands and washes would be avoided to the maximum extent
8 practicable, and all necessary permitting (as discussed below) would be obtained
9 prior to implementation of the proposed action in Section L-1.

10 No impacts to wetlands or other WoUS would be expected in Section L-1A. Two


11 palustrine emergent wetlands (WL13 and WL14) associated with resacas were
12 identified within the 150-foot assessment corridor associated with the proposed
13 tactical infrastructure alignment in section L-1A. Neither wetland extends into the
14 60-foot impact assessment corridor (see Table 3.6-1) in Section L-1A. Erosion
15 and sediment controls and storm water management practices (discussed below)
16 would be implemented during construction to minimize the potential for adverse
17 effects to these wetlands.

18 Minor short- and long-term impacts to Cibolo Wash would be expected in


19 association with access road maintenance. Three wash channels associated
20 with Cibolo Wash occur in Section L-1B. A proposed access road follows an
21 existing unimproved road that crosses a tributary channel to Cibolo Wash
22 (WL10), the south channel of Cibolo Wash (WL12), and follows along the north
23 bank of the north channel of Cibolo Wash (WL11). Short-term impacts could
24 occur as a result of potential grading necessary to maintain the existing
25 unimproved road. Long-term impacts could occur if placement of fill were
26 necessary to maintain the road. Any impacts would be expected to be minor
27 because the proposed access road alignment follows an existing unimproved
28 road, and Cibolo Wash along the eastern access road alignment has been
29 disturbed as a result of ongoing sand and gravel quarrying activities. Any
30 impacts to the wash would be avoided to the maximum extent practicable, and all
31 necessary permitting (as discussed below) would be obtained prior to
32 implementation of the proposed action in Section L-1B. No wetlands or other
33 WoUS were identified within the assessment corridors of the proposed fence
34 alignment or within the proposed staging areas in Section L-1B.

35 Implementation of the Proposed Action would be expected to have minor short-


36 term, adverse effects on surface water quality as a result of potential erosion and
37 associated transport of sediments into adjacent surface waters. Construction
38 activities associated with proposed tactical infrastructure development in
39 Sections L-1, L-1A, and L-1B would disturb more than 5 acres of soil, and
40 therefore would require authorization under the Texas Construction General
41 Permits (TXR1500000). The Construction General Permits would require
42 development and implementation of SWPPPs. The SWPPP requires design of
43 BMPs, including erosion and sediment controls that the discharger will use to
44 protect storm water runoff, along with the locations of those BMPs. Proper
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
3-35
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 engineering practices, erosion and sediment controls, and storm water BMPs
2 would be implemented during and after construction and would be consistent
3 with the Construction General Permit, reducing the potential for adverse impacts
4 on water quality associated with erosion and sedimentation during and following
5 implementation of the Proposed Action.

6 Pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, adverse effects on jurisdictional wetlands,


7 washes, and other WoUS would be avoided and minimized to the maximum
8 extent practicable. CWA Section 404 permits and Section 401(a) water quality
9 certifications would be obtained, as required, for unavoidable impacts on
10 jurisdictional WoUS. A wetlands mitigation and restoration plan to compensate
11 for unavoidable impacts would be developed by the applicant and submitted to
12 the USACE Albuquerque District Regulatory Branch for approval prior to project
13 implementation. Appropriate mitigation would be developed to compensate for
14 unavoidable impacts. As a result, impacts to wetlands and other WoUS
15 associated with implementation of the Proposed Action would be expected to be
16 minor.

17 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative


18 Alternative 3 would result in impacts on surface waters and waters of the United
19 States similar to those described for Alternative 2. However, the magnitude of
20 the impacts would affect a larger area due to the additional fence and wider
21 corridor. Approximately 195 acres of soils would be disturbed due to grading,
22 contouring, and trenching. Under Alternative 2, approximately 78 acres of
23 disturbance would occur. As described under Alternative 2, Texas Construction
24 General Permits would be required and would address the development and
25 implementation of SWPPPs with BMPs to reduce the effects of storm water
26 runoff. A larger area of wetlands could also be impacted under this alternative.
27 CWA Section 404 and CWA Section 401(a) permits would be obtained, as
28 required, for unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional waters of the United States. A
29 wetlands mitigation and restoration plan to compensate for unavoidable impacts
30 would be developed and submitted to the USACE-Albuquerque District
31 Regulatory Branch for approval prior to project implementation. Appropriate
32 mitigation would be developed to compensate for unavoidable impacts.

33 3.7 FLOODPLAINS
34 Floodplains are areas of low-level ground and alluvium adjacent to rivers, stream
35 channels, or coastal waters. The living and nonliving parts of natural floodplains
36 interact with each other to create dynamic systems in which each component
37 helps to maintain the characteristics of the environment that supports it.
38 Floodplain ecosystem functions include natural moderation of floods, flood
39 storage and conveyance, groundwater recharge, nutrient cycling, water quality
40 maintenance, and a diversity of plants and animals. Floodplains provide a broad
41 area to spread out and temporarily store floodwaters. This reduces flood peaks
42 and velocities and the potential for erosion. In their natural vegetated state,
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
3-36
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 floodplains slow the rate at which the incoming overland flow reaches the main
2 water body (FEMA 1986).

3 Floodplains are subject to periodic or infrequent inundation due to runoff of rain


4 or melting snow. Risk of flooding typically hinges on local topography, the
5 frequency of precipitation events, and the size of the watershed upstream from
6 the floodplain. Flood potential is evaluated by FEMA, which defines the 100-year
7 floodplain. The 100-year floodplain is the area that has a 1 percent chance of
8 inundation by a flood event in a given year. Certain facilities inherently pose too
9 great a risk to be constructed in either the 100- or 500-year floodplain, including
10 hospitals, schools, or storage buildings for irreplaceable records. Federal, state,
11 and local regulations often limit floodplain development to passive uses, such as
12 recreational and preservation activities, to reduce the risks to human health and
13 safety.

14 EO 11988, Floodplain Management, requires Federal agencies to determine


15 whether a proposed action would occur within a floodplain. This determination
16 typically involves consultation of appropriate FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps
17 (FIRMs), which contain enough general information to determine the relationship
18 of the proposed project corridor to nearby floodplains. EO 11988 directs Federal
19 agencies to avoid floodplains unless the agency determines that there is no
20 practicable alternative. Where the only practicable alternative is to site in a
21 floodplain, a specific step-by-step process must be followed to comply with EO
22 11988. This process is outlined in the FEMA document Further Advice on EO
23 11988 Floodplain Management. As a planning tool, the NEPA process
24 incorporates floodplain management through analysis and public coordination of
25 the EA (see Section 1.5 Public Involvement).

26 3.7.1 Affected Environment


27 Section L-1 is depicted as occurring in the 100-year floodplain of the Rio Grande,
28 as identified on the November 1, 1985, FEMA FIRM Panel No. 4803611050B for
29 Hudspeth County, Texas. This area is designated as Zone A, an area within the
30 100-year floodplain where base flood elevations and flood hazard factors were
31 not determined (FEMA 1985a). Low USIBWC levees of undetermined
32 effectiveness run the length of the project corridor and it remains uncertain as to
33 their designation as a floodplain edge.

34 Sections L-1B and L-1A are depicted as occurring in the 100-year floodplain of
35 the Rio Grande, as identified on the July 3, 1985, FEMA FIRM Panel No.
36 4805300700B for Presidio County, Texas. This area is also designated as Zone
37 A. Well-defined levees exist and are considered the floodplain edge throughout.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-37
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences


2 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
3 Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented.
4 As a result, there would be no change from baseline conditions, as described in
5 Section 3.7.1.

6 Alternative 2: Proposed Action


7 Short- and long-term minor adverse effects on floodplain resources would occur
8 as a result of constructing and operating the proposed tactical infrastructure.
9 Approximately 78 acres of floodplains would be affected. Impacts associated
10 with floodplains would be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. The
11 proposed concrete retention wall in Sections L-1B and L-1A would not increase
12 the volume of fill on the river side of the current levees. Therefore it is not
13 anticipated that the construction would impact levels of flow within the floodplain,
14 adversely affect flood storage and conveyance, or otherwise impact USIBWC
15 operations. Hydraulic studies and modeling would be conducted to confirm this
16 assessment. Increased impervious areas and loss of vegetation associated with
17 the tactical infrastructure would have minor adverse impacts on groundwater
18 recharge, nutrient cycling, and water quality.

19 The soil disturbance associated with the Proposed Action would disturb more
20 than 5 acres of soil; therefore, authorization under the TCEQ Construction
21 Stormwater Permit (TXR150000) would be required. Erosion and sediment
22 control and storm water management practices during and after construction
23 would be implemented consistent with the SWPPP developed under the
24 Construction General Permit. Based on these requirements, adverse effects on
25 floodplain resources would be minimized.

26 In accordance with the FEMA Document, Further Advice on EO 11988,


27 Floodplain Management, CBP has determined that Sections L-1, L-1B, and L-1A
28 cannot be practicably located outside the floodplain since the floodplain extends
29 northward several miles. To minimize adverse effects on the floodplain, as
30 proposed, Section L-1 would be a “bollard floating fence” and placed atop the
31 levee to minimize the disturbance to current USIBWC operations. The increase
32 in impervious surface associated with Sections L-1, L-1B, and L-1A would have
33 no effect on the USIBWC international drainage. CBP would mitigate
34 unavoidable impacts associated with floodplains using planning guidance
35 developed by the USACE.

36 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative


37 Impacts on floodplains in Sections L-1, L-1B, and L-1A under Alternative 3 would
38 be slightly greater than those described under Alternative 2. The primary and
39 secondary sections proposed under Alternative 3 would result in an increase in

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-38
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 impervious surface, contributing slightly more surface runoff to the Rio Grande
2 and its associated floodplain. Section L-1 would affect approximately 4.6 miles of
3 floodplain, Section L-1B would affect approximately 2.9 miles of floodplain, and
4 Section L-1A would affect approximately 3.3 miles of floodplain. The permanent
5 width of the impact area would be 150 feet (see Figure 2-5) and would affect
6 approximately 195 acres of floodplains along Sections L-1, L-1B, and L-1A.

7 3.8 VEGETATIVE RESOURCES


8 3.8.1 Affected Environment
9 The proposed project corridor climate is Subtropical Arid within the Modified
10 Marine climatic type, e.g., summers are long and hot and winters are short, dry,
11 and mild (Larkin and Bomar 1983, Bailey 1995). The average annual
12 precipitation of the Trans-Pecos region recorded in Presidio is 9.6 inches. The
13 distribution of rainfall is irregular but occurs predominantly during the summer
14 months. A long growing season is experienced for the proposed project region,
15 more than 300 days. The evaporation rate during the summer season is high,
16 about twice the amount of precipitation.

17 The vegetation of the west-Texas deserts has generally been classified under the
18 Dry Domain, Tropical/Subtropical Desert Division of Bailey (1995). The proposed
19 project corridor is more finely classified as the Chihuahuan Desert Province. The
20 TPWD (2007) provides discussion and describes vegetation geography to biotic
21 provinces and natural regions using topographic features, climate, vegetation
22 types, and terrestrial vertebrates. This system places the proposed project
23 corridor in the Chihuahuan Biotic Province; Trans Pecos Natural Region; and the
24 Level III Ecoregion of the Chihuahuan Desert. The vegetative resources section
25 describes and illustrates the existing condition and distribution of vegetation as it
26 occurred in 2007 within the international border fence corridor, as proposed.

27 In higher elevations, vegetative communities are characterized by trees such as


28 gray oak (Quercus grisea), Texas pinyon (Pinus remota), and alligator juniper
29 (Juniperus deppiana). Intermediate elevations and plateaus support sparse
30 shrub communities of creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) and lechuguilla (Agave
31 angustifolia). The low-lying plains are characterized by tobosa-black grama
32 grassland communities of blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), sideoats grama
33 (Bouteloua curtipendula), hairy grama (Bouteloua hirsuta), burrograss
34 (Schleropogon brevifolius), bush muhly (Muhlenbergia porteri), Arizona cottontop
35 (Digitaria californica), Warnock’s javelina bush (Condalia warnockii), creosote
36 bush, butterflybush (Buddleja sp.), palmella (Yucca elata), whitethorn acacia
37 (Acacia constricta), cholla (Cylindropuntia sp.), broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia
38 sarothrae), and rough menodora (Menodora scabra) (Wermund 2007).

39 The existing vegetation types of Sections L-1, L-1A, and L-1B (see Appendix H)
40 were examined in October 2007. Plant species recorded for the Sections L-1

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-39
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 (Sierra Blanca), L-1A (Presidio), and L-1B (Presidio) and their wetland indicator
2 status (NRCS 2007), when appropriate, are included in Table 3.8-1.

3 Vegetation in the proposed project corridors for Sections L-1, L-1A, and L-1B
4 consists of native creosotebush and honey mesquite shrublands; native and
5 nonnative forblands, grasslands, shrublands, and woodlands; and agricultural
6 crops and weedy fallow fields. Emergent and shrub-scrub wetland communities
7 occur rarely within the corridor. Project-related impacts on wetlands are
8 presented under Section 3.6.2.

9 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences


10 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
11 Under the No Action Alternative, native creosotebush and honey mesquite
12 shrublands of desert ridges and uplands in Section L-1 would continue to be
13 managed by private landowners and would likely remain unchanged. Honey
14 mesquite woodlands that have become reestablished in abandoned agricultural
15 fields would be managed by private landowners and could be cleared and the
16 lands returned to crop production at some future date. Nonnative salt-cedar
17 woodlands and shrublands with Bermuda grass understory occur in the Rio
18 Grande floodplain and would be managed by the USIBWC where appropriate for
19 flood control and floodwater storage volume needs using mowing, clearing, and
20 grubbing techniques. The Athel tamarisk stand in Section L-1A occurs on private
21 land and would likely be unaffected. Small native shrublands of rabbitbrush,
22 arrow weed, and seepweed are subject to future mowing maintenance under
23 USIBWC management for flood control. Bermuda grass stands occur
24 extensively in the floodplain and are typically managed by the USIBWC by
25 mowing. Where Bermuda grass stands occur on private lands, they are
26 interseeded with bristlegrass and used for grazing livestock forage or they are
27 irrigated, mowed, and baled for cured livestock forage. Forblands dominated by
28 Russian-thistle are mown where they occur on USIBWC-managed lands and are
29 subject to plowing and planting on private lands where fallow agricultural fields
30 are brought into production as crop rotation dictates. Agricultural crops would
31 continue to be grown on private lands and field crops rotated on a regular
32 schedule to maintain soil health.

33 USIBWC floodplain maintenance activities, including mowing, clearing, and


34 grubbing, and access road maintenance, would result in long-term, negligible to
35 minor adverse effects because native vegetation is unlikely to become
36 reestablished within the extensive non-native stands. Continued private
37 agricultural practices of land cultivation and irrigation for crop production would
38 result in long-term, negligible to moderate, adverse effects on native vegetation
39 establishment due to hosting nonnative, possibly invasive plant species and the
40 potential ignition of wildfires because of concentrations of tumbleweeds as fuel.
41 Fires would result in short- and long-term, low to high, mostly adverse impacts on
42

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-40
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Table 3.8-1. Plant Species Observed in Sections L-1, L-1A, and L-1B

Section Wetland
Scientific Name/
Indictor
Common Name
L-1 L-1A L-1B Status

Allionia incarnata/Hierba de la Hormiga, X X ---


Umbrellawort
Amaranthus retroflexus/Rough Pigweed X X FACU-
Aster sp./Aster X X ---
Atriplex canescens/Fourwing Saltbush X X X UPL
Baccharis glutinosa/Mule’s Fat, Seepwillow X X X FACW
Bothriochloa laguroides/Silver Bluestem X X ---
Bouteloua adscencionis/Six-weeks Grama X ---
Bouteloua hirsute/Hairy Grama X ---
Cercidium texanum/Paloverde X ---
Chloris cucullata/Hooded Windmillgrass X X ---
Clematis drummondii/Barbas de Chivato, Old X X X ---
Man’s Beard
Condalia sp./Condalia X X ---
Cynodon dactylon/Pato de Gallo, Bermuda X X X FACU+
Grass
Cyperus sp./Flat Sedge X ---
Dyssodia sp./Dogweed X ---
Echinocereus triglochidiatus/Hedgehog X ---
Cactus
Ephedra sp./Jointfir X ---
Ericameria triantha/Rabbitbrush X ---
Fouquieria splendens/Ocotillo X ---
Gaura parviflora/Butterfly-weed X NI
Gutierrezia (Xanthocephalum) X ---
microcephala/Snakeweed
Helianthus annuus/Annual Sunflower X X X FAC
Heliotropium curassivicum/Heliotrope X FACW
Heterotheca villosa/Hairy Golden-aster X X ---
Larrea tridentata/Creosotebush X X ---
Leucelene ericoides/White Aster X X ---

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-41
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

Section Wetland
Scientific Name/
Indictor
Common Name
L-1 L-1A L-1B Status

Lygodesmia sp./Skeletonweed X X ---


Medicago sativa/Alfalfa X X ---
Mentzelia sp./Stick-leaf X ---
Nicotiana glauca/Tree Tobacco X X FAC
Nicotiana longiflora/Annual Tobacco X ---
Opuntia imbricata/Cane Cholla X ---
Opuntia leptocaulis/Tasajillo, Christmas X ---
Cactus
Opuntia phaeacantha/Prickly-pear X X ---
Opuntia violaceae/Prickly-pear X ---
Panicum virgatum/Switchgrass X ---
Parkinsonia aculeata/Retama X X X FACW-
Parkinsonia texana/Paloverde, Texas X ---
Paloverde
Paspalum dissectum/Mudbank Crowngrass X OBL
Pennisetum ciliare (Cenchrus ciliaris)/ X X X ---
Buffelgrass
Phoradendron tomentosum/Mistletoe X X X ---
Phragmites australis/Common Reed X X X FACW
Phyla nodiflora/Frog Fruit X FACW
Pluchea (Tessaria) sericea/Arrowweed X NI
Polygonum pensylvanicum/Smartweed X FACW-
Populus deltoides/Eastern Cottonwood X FAC
Portulaca oleracea/Common Purslane X ---
Prosopis glandulosa/Mesquite, Honey X X X ---
Mesquite
Salsola australis/Russian-thistle X X X FACU
Setaria geniculata/Bristlegrass X ---
Solanum elaeagnifolium/Trompillo, Silverleaf X ---
Nightshade
Sorghum halepense/Johnsongrass X X FACU

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-42
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

Section Wetland
Scientific Name/
Indictor
Common Name
L-1 L-1A L-1B Status

Sphaeralcea angustifolia/Narrow-leaved X X ---


Globe-mallow
Sporobolus airoides/Alkali Sacaton X FAC
Sporobolus cryptandrus/Whorled Dropseed X FACU-
Sporobolus flexuosus/Mesa Dropseed X FAC-
Suaeda depressa/Seepweed X X FACW
Suaeda suffrutescens/Desert Seepweed X FACW
Tamarix aphylla/Athel Tamarisk X FACW
Tamarix chinensis/Salt Cedar X X X FACW
Tridens pulchellus/Fluffgrass X ---
Typha domingensis/Tule, Narrow-leaf Cattail X X OBL
Verbesina encelioides/Cowpen Daisy X X FAC
Xanthium strumarium/Cocklebur X FAC-
Total number of species in each Segment 53 24 29
Total number of FACW- to OBL species per
21 14 14
Segment
Source: NRCS 2007
Notes:
Facultative Upland (FACU) – usually occurs in non-wetlands, but occasionally found in wetlands.
Facultative (FAC) – equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands.
Facultative Wetland (FACW) – usually occurs in wetlands but occasionally found in non-wetlands.
Obligate Wetland (OBL) – occurs almost always under natural conditions in wetlands.
Obligate Upland (UPL) – occurs almost always under natural conditions, in non-wetlands.
No Indicator (NI) – insufficient information was available to determine an indicator status.
(*) = tentative assignments based on limited information.
(-) = less frequently found in wetlands.

1 regional native vegetation. Managed fires designed and controlled to reduce fuel
2 loading and to reduce nonnative or invasive plant species populations would
3 have short- and long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial impacts on native
4 vegetation reintroduction. Dust generated from the existing access roads
5 traveled by a variety of agency, farm, recreation, and illegal vehicles would result
6 in insignificant to minor, short- and long-term, adverse impacts on downwind
7 vegetation due to interference with pollination and photosynthesis.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-43
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Alternative 2: Proposed Action


2 Under the Proposed Action, approximately 78.1 acres of vegetation would be
3 cleared to accommodate the construction of the tactical infrastructure (including
4 fences, access and patrol roads, lights, and construction staging areas). The
5 proposed project corridor would be maintained following construction to support
6 long-term maintenance, sight distance, and USBP and USIBWC activities.
7 During construction, lay-down areas for materials and equipment would be
8 identified within the proposed project corridor.

9 Within Section L-1, construction grading would occur atop the short levee
10 resulting in approximately 34 acres of vegetation clearing and removal.
11 Vegetation clearing and removal within this segment would result in minor to
12 moderate, short- and long-term, adverse impacts on mostly nonnative shrub,
13 grass, and forb communities dominated by salt-cedar, rabbitbrush, seepweed,
14 arrowweed, Bermuda grass, and Russian-thistle. Within Sections L-1A and
15 L-1B, construction clearing would occur south of and adjacent to the tall levee
16 resulting in approximately 44 acres of vegetation clearing and removal.
17 Vegetation clearing and removal within this section would result in minor to
18 moderate, short- and long-term, adverse impacts on mostly nonnative tree,
19 shrub, grass, and forb communities dominated by salt-cedar, honey mesquite,
20 Bermuda grass, and Russian-thistle. The removal of certain of the non-native
21 species, such as salt-cedar and noxious weed species would be considered a
22 short and long term beneficial impact. Within Sections L-1A and L-1B, in
23 particular, the completed fence would capture Russian-thistle tumbleweeds
24 common in the area and that represent a fire hazard, resulting in low, short- and
25 long-term, adverse impacts on areawide vegetation from wildfire should captured
26 tumbleweeds become ignited and the fires spread. Dust generated from the
27 existing access roads traveled by a variety of agency, farm, recreation, and
28 illegal vehicles would result in negligible to minor short- and long-term, adverse
29 impacts on downwind vegetation due to interference with pollination and
30 photosynthesis.

31 In accordance with the Noxious Weed Act, CBP would reduce the potential to
32 spread noxious weeds and soil pests by implementing such measures as
33 prohibiting the disposal of soil and plant materials from non-native areas to native
34 areas, washing all construction equipment before beginning work on the project,
35 use of gravel or fill material from weed-free sources for relatively weed-free areas
36 and implementation of post-construction monitoring and treatment of invasive
37 weeds.

38 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative


39 Under Alternative 3, approximately 195 acres of vegetation border would be
40 cleared to accommodate the construction of the tactical infrastructure (including
41 fences, access and patrol roads, lights, and construction staging areas). A
42 portion of this proposed project corridor would be maintained following

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-44
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 construction to support long-term maintenance, sight distance, and USBP


2 activities. During construction, lay-down areas for materials and equipment
3 would be identified within the proposed project corridor.

4 Within Section L-1A, construction grading would occur atop the short levee
5 resulting in approximately 84 acres of vegetation clearing and removal.
6 Vegetation clearing and removal within this segment would result in minor to
7 moderate, short- and long-term, adverse impacts on mostly nonnative shrub,
8 grass, and forb communities dominated by salt-cedar, rabbitbrush, seepweed,
9 arrowweed, Bermuda grass, and Russian-thistle. Within Sections L-1A and
10 L-1B, construction clearing would occur south of and adjacent to the tall levee
11 resulting in approximately 111 acres of vegetation clearing and removal.
12 Vegetation clearing and removal within this section would result in minor to
13 moderate, short- and long-term, adverse impacts on mostly nonnative tree,
14 shrub, grass, and forb communities dominated by salt-cedar, honey mesquite,
15 Bermuda grass, and Russian-thistle. Within Sections L-1A and L-1B, in
16 particular, the completed fences would capture Russian-thistle tumbleweeds
17 common in the area and that represent a fire hazard, resulting in minor, short-
18 and long-term, adverse impacts on area-wide vegetation from wildfire should
19 captured tumbleweeds become ignited and the fires spread. Dust generated
20 from the existing access roads traveled by a variety of agency, farm, recreation,
21 and illegal vehicles would result in negligible to minor, short- and long-term
22 adverse impacts on downwind vegetation due to interference with pollination and
23 photosynthesis.

24 3.9 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES


25 3.9.1 Definition of the Resource
26 Wildlife and aquatic resources include native or naturalized animals and the
27 habitats in which they exist. Identification of the species potentially occurring in
28 the project area was accomplished through literature reviews, coordination with
29 appropriate Federal and state resource managers, other knowledgeable experts,
30 and field surveys.

31 The MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703–712) as amended, implements various treaties for the
32 protection of migratory birds. Under the Act, taking, killing, or possessing
33 migratory birds is unlawful without a valid permit. Under EO 13186,
34 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, the USFWS has
35 the responsibility to administer, oversee, and enforce the conservation provisions
36 of the MBTA, which include responsibility for population management (e.g.,
37 monitoring), habitat protection (e.g., acquisition, enhancement, and modification),
38 international coordination, and regulations development and enforcement. The
39 MBTA defines a migratory bird as any bird listed in 50 CFR 10.13, which includes
40 nearly every native bird in North America.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-45
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 The MBTA and EO 13186 require Federal agencies to minimize or avoid impacts
2 on migratory birds listed in 50 CFR 10.13. If design and implementation of a
3 Federal action cannot avoid measurable negative impact on migratory birds, EO
4 13186 requires the responsible agency to consult with the USFWS and obtain a
5 Migratory Bird Depredation Permit.

6 3.9.2 Affected Environment


7 Wildlife. Hudspeth and Presidio counties are located in far west Texas in the
8 Trans-Pecos Ecoregion of the Chihuahuan Desert (USIBWC 2005). During an
9 October 2007 survey, the following habitats were observed: desert scrub, riparian
10 forest and woodland communities, and nonnative grasslands and forblands (see
11 Appendix H). Most of the proposed corridor has been heavily disturbed by
12 agriculture and grazing with high cover of nonnative tree, shrub, grass, and forb
13 species; however, some high-quality habitat was identified. Unique habitat
14 includes wetlands, riparian woodlands, and desert shrublands.

15 Common reptiles of Hudspeth and Presidio counties are Texas-banded gecko


16 (Coleonyx brevis), reticulated gecko (Coleonyx switaki), greater earless lizard
17 (Cophosaurus texanus), several species of spiny lizard (Sceloporus spp.), fringe-
18 footed lizard (Uma inornata), little striped (Cnemidophorus inornatus) and
19 marbled whiptails (Aspidoscelis tigris), Trans-Pecos ratsnake (Bogertophis
20 subocularis), western hooknose snake (Gyalopion canum), Texas black-headed
21 snake (Tantilla cucullata), whipsnake (Masticophis spp.), western diamondback
22 rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox), and Bolson tortoise (Gopherus flavomarginatus)
23 (USIBWC 2005).

24 Typical mammals found along the Marfa Sector include desert pocket gopher
25 (Geomys arenarius), yellow-faced pocket gopher (Cratogeomys castanops),
26 Nelson’s kangaroo rat, Nelson’s pocket mouse, southern grasshopper mouse
27 (Onychomys torridus), Goldman’s woodrat (Neotoma goldmani), Texas antelope
28 squirrel (Ammospermophilus interpres), desert pocket mouse (Perognathus
29 longimembris), desert shrew (Notiosorex crawfordi), desert mule deer
30 (Odocoileus hemionus crooki), pronghorn (Antilocapra Americana), desert
31 bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis spp.), merriam’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys
32 merriami), and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) (USIBWC 2005).

33 Bird species that inhabit the riparian areas and shrublands along the levee
34 include scaled quail (Callipepla squamata) and white-necked raven (Corvus
35 cryptoleucus). Other birds include mourning dove (Zenaida macroura),
36 roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus), lesser nighthawk (Chordeiles
37 acutipennis), Scott’s oriole (Icterus parisorum), cactus wren (Campylorhynchus
38 brunneicapillus), curve-billed thrasher (Toxostoma curvirostre), and black-
39 throated sparrow (Amphispiza bilineata) (USIBWC 2005).

40 Wildlife species observed during the field surveys are listed in Appendix H. An
41 October 2007 survey recorded 37 species of vertebrates, including 32 bird

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-46
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 species, 4 mammal species, and 1 reptile species. The monarch butterfly


2 (Danaus plexippus) was the only insect recorded during the wildlife survey.

3 Aquatic Resources. The Rio Grande from El Paso to Presidio contains 22


4 native fish species and 4 introduced fish species. Common fish include gars,
5 herrings, carps, minnows, suckers, characins, bullhead catfishes, pupfishes,
6 livebearers, and silversides (USIBWC 2005).

7 A survey of the Rio Grande done by the USIBWC in 1977 for Hudspeth and
8 Presidio counties found the following fish species: red shiner (Notropis lutrensis),
9 common carp, gizzard shad, mosquitofish, and green sunfish. The most
10 common fish was the red shiner. Catfish, sunfish, and white bass were also
11 observed. The section of the Rio Grande near Presidio, Texas, had low diversity
12 and density of fish species likely due to the high salinity of the Rio Grande and
13 periodic drought conditions that influenced river flows (USIBWC 2005).

14 A 1978 invertebrate study of Hudspeth and Presidio counties found 10 species of


15 aquatic snails, 4 species of mollusks, and 1 species of terrestrial crustacean.
16 Along the Rio Grande floodplains, 9 species of xeric land snails were observed.
17 The study observed that the Rio Grande in Hudspeth and Presidio counties has
18 low diversity of aquatic invertebrates possibly for the same reasons that fish
19 diversity is low (USIBWC 2005).

20 3.9.3 Environmental Consequences


21 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
22 Under the No Action Alternative, new tactical infrastructure would not be built and
23 there would be no change in fencing, access roads, or other facilities along the
24 U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations within the
25 Marfa Sector. The No Action Alternative would not directly impact wildlife.
26 However, wildlife species and their habitat would continue to be indirectly
27 impacted through habitat alteration and loss due to illegal trails and erosion.

28 Alternative 2: Proposed Action


29 Wildlife. Potential adverse impacts on wildlife along the Marfa Sector include
30 barrier to movement, interruption of corridors, increased human activity, impacts
31 of lights on nocturnal species, and loss of habitat. Some wildlife deaths,
32 particularly reptiles and amphibians could increase due to the improved
33 accessibility of the area and increased vehicle traffic. Although some loss of
34 wildlife could occur, wildlife populations within the proposed project corridor
35 would not be significantly impacted by implementation of the Proposed Action.

36 Noise created during construction would be anticipated to result in short-term,


37 moderate, adverse impacts on wildlife. Noise levels after construction are
38 anticipated to return to close to current ambient levels. Elevated noise levels

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-47
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 during construction could result in reduced communication ranges, interference


2 with predator/prey detection, or habitat avoidance. More intense impacts,
3 potentially resulting with intense pulses of noise associated with blasting during
4 construction, could include behavioral change, disorientation, or hearing loss.
5 Predictors of wildlife response to noise include noise type (i.e., continuous or
6 intermittent), prior experience with noise, proximity to a noise source, stage in the
7 breeding cycle, activity, and age. Prior experience with noise is the most
8 important factor in the response of wildlife to noise, because wildlife can become
9 accustomed (or habituate) to the noise. The rate of habituation to short-term
10 construction is not known, but it is anticipated that wildlife would be permanently
11 displaced from the areas where the habitat is cleared and the fence and
12 associated tactical infrastructure constructed, and temporarily dispersed from
13 areas adjacent to the proposed project corridors during construction periods.
14 See Section 3.2.2 for additional details on expected noise levels associated with
15 the Proposed Action.

16 CBP has included plans to use lighting, cameras, etc., to support its efforts.
17 Lighting an area will have an effect on the behaviors of diurnal and nocturnal
18 species, and likely a direct or indirect effect on crepuscular species in the area.
19 The height of the lights, direction of lighting, power source, and wattage will be
20 assessed by USFWS prior to installation and use. Lights would operate from
21 dusk to dawn. Light poles adjacent to USIBWC levees would be coordinated
22 with and approved by the USIBWC. The final placement and direction of lighting
23 has been and would continue to be coordinated with the USFWS, with the
24 USFWS having final review over both placement and direction along each fence
25 segment. USBP has used lighting and other means for several years in many
26 sectors. Additional lighting specifications can be found in Appendix A of the
27 Preliminary Final EA. In general, lighting an area so that it has the least effect on
28 wildlife includes:

29 • Producing a certain type of light (e.g., using low pressure sodium lighting)
30 • Establishing the height of the lamp based on the height of surrounding
31 vegetation
32 • Providing high-intensity light shields on the top and sides of the light
33 • Using the least intensive lighting necessary for an area.

34 Artificial lighting will influence the behavior of most species, including mammals,
35 birds, and amphibians. These behavior changes have been observed as
36 changes in foraging patterns, the location of nesting sites, territorial singing, and
37 migration routes. Other influences that may occur include disorientation, an
38 attraction to artificial lighting, increased predation or prey, and an overall change
39 to the ecological structure of an area. A comparison of lighting sources provides
40 a better understanding (see Table 3.9-1).

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-48
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Table 3.9-1. Light Source Intensity

Source Illumination (lux)


Full sunlight 103,000
Cloudy day 1,000-10,000
Most homes 100-300
Lighted parking lot 10
Full moon under clear conditions 0.1-0.3
Clear starry night 0.001
Source: Rich and Longcore 2006

2 Many factors contribute to the analysis of lighting effects, including ambient


3 conditions, the intensity of surrounding urban lighting, lighting intensity, and
4 weather conditions, to name a few. The following are effects of artificial lighting
5 on wildlife found in various studies conducted by researchers:

6 • Many usually diurnal birds and reptiles have been found to forage under
7 (and become dependent upon) artificial lighting.
8 • The northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) male typically sings at night
9 before mating, yet under the effect of artificial lighting was found to sing
10 only at night after mating had occurred. Other behavior changes were
11 unknown.
12 • Nocturnally migrating birds have been disoriented by artificial lighting.
13 • Nest sites were observed to be selected so that they were farther away
14 from artificial lighting.
15 • Many believe an increase in predation risk on open habitats occurs under
16 bright moonlight, and would therefore occur under artificial lighting as well.
17 Although no field study conclusively confirms or refutes this explanation,
18 circumstantial evidence supports this idea (Longcore and Rich 2004).
19 • Bat foraging studies conducted at streetlights found a decrease in the
20 attraction of moths to streetlights when lamps were changed from mercury
21 vapor to high-pressure sodium vapor lamps (Rich and Longcore 2006).

22 Other studies, however, reflect different long-term findings. For example, studies
23 have shown that within several weeks under constant lighting, migratory birds
24 and mammals will quickly stabilize and reset their circadian rhythms back to their
25 original schedules (when returned to normal lighting conditions).

26 The greatest impacts to wildlife from lighting would probably be to birds and
27 insects that would be affected by the lights while migrating, causing them to alter
28 their course or schedule. The tendency for nocturnal birds and other wildlife
29 species (e.g. bats) to congregate around the lights to feed on insects attracted by

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-49
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 the lights may also increase. This change in behavior may make these species
2 more vulnerable to predation or injury (USACE 2003).

3 As such, lights would have minor to moderate, adverse and beneficial impacts on
4 nocturnal wildlife depending on the species examined.

5 The 34 acres of vegetation removed for Section L-1 is dominated by nonnative


6 shrub, grass, and forb communities dominated by salt-cedar, rabbitbrush,
7 seepweed, arrow weed, Bermuda grass, and Russian-thistle. This vegetation
8 removal would result in short- and long-term, minor adverse impacts on wildlife
9 due to loss of habitat.

10 The 44 acres of vegetation removed for Sections L-1A and L-1B are dominated
11 by salt-cedar, honey mesquite, Bermuda grass, and Russian-thistle. This
12 vegetation removal would result in short- and long-term, minor adverse impacts
13 on wildlife due to loss of habitat.

14 Impacts on migratory birds could be substantial and is highly dependent upon the
15 timing of fence construction. Implementing a series of BMPs to avoid or
16 minimize adverse impacts could markedly reduce their intensity. The following is
17 a list of BMPs recommended for reduction or avoidance of impacts on migratory
18 birds:

19 • Any groundbreaking construction activities should be performed before


20 migratory birds return to the area (approximately 1 March) or after all
21 young have fledged (approximately 31 July) to avoid incidental take.
22 • If construction is scheduled to start during the period in which migratory
23 bird species are present, steps should be taken to prevent migratory birds
24 from establishing nests in the potential impact area. These steps could
25 include covering equipment and structures, and use of various excluders
26 (e.g., noise). Birds can be harassed to prevent them from nesting on the
27 site. Once a nest is established, they cannot be harassed until all young
28 have fledged and left the nest site.
29 • If construction is scheduled to start during the period when migratory birds
30 are present, a supplemental site-specific survey for nesting migratory birds
31 should be performed immediately prior to site clearing.
32 • If nesting birds are found during the supplemental survey, construction
33 should be deferred until the birds have left the nest. Confirmation that all
34 young have fledged should be made by a qualified biologist.

35 Because not all of the above BMPs can be fully implemented due to time
36 constraints of fence construction, a Special Purpose Relocation Permit would be
37 obtained from USFWS.

38 Assuming implementation of the above BMPs to the fullest extent feasible,


39 adverse impacts of the Proposed Action on migratory birds is anticipated to be
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
3-50
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 short- and long-term, and minor due to construction disturbance and associated
2 loss of habitat. Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts would occur due to
3 reduction of foot traffic through migratory bird habitat north of the impact corridor.

4 Aquatic Resources. Removal of vegetation and grading during construction


5 could temporarily increase siltation in the river and therefore have short-term
6 minor adverse impacts on fish within the Rio Grande. The impacts would be
7 considered minor due to the implementation of BMPs identified in the project’s
8 SWPPP. Furthermore, most construction would occur more than 200 feet from
9 the river’s bank, further reducing the likelihood of high levels of siltation.

10 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative


11 Wildlife. Impacts of Alternative 3 would be similar to those of Alternative 2;
12 however, the area impacted would be greater. Increased threats to wildlife in
13 these areas include barrier to movement, interruption of corridors, increased
14 human activity, loss of habitat, and increased traffic mortality, all of which would
15 result in short-term, moderate, adverse impacts on wildlife.

16 Aquatic Resources. Removal of vegetation and grading during construction


17 could temporarily increase siltation in the river and therefore have short-term
18 minor adverse impacts on fish within the Rio Grande.

19 3.10 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES


20 3.10.1 Definition of the Resource
21 Impacts on Federal and state threatened and endangered species are addressed
22 in this EA. Each group has its own definitions and legislative and regulatory
23 drivers for consideration during the NEPA process; these are briefly described
24 below.

25 The ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 et seq.) provides broad protection
26 for species of fish, wildlife, and plants that are listed as threatened or endangered
27 in the United States or elsewhere. Provisions are made for listing species, as
28 well as for recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat for listed species.
29 Section 7 of the ESA outlines procedures for Federal agencies to follow when
30 taking actions that might jeopardize listed species, and contains exceptions and
31 exemptions. Criminal and civil penalties are provided for violations of the ESA.

32 Section 7 of the ESA directs all Federal agencies to use their existing authorities
33 to conserve threatened and endangered species and, in consultation with the
34 USFWS, to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize listed species or destroy
35 or adversely modify critical habitat. Section 7 applies to management of Federal
36 lands as well as other Federal actions that might affect listed species, such as
37 approval of private activities through the issuance of Federal permits, licenses, or
38 other actions.

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-51
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Under the ESA a Federal endangered species is defined as any species which is
2 in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The
3 ESA defines a Federal threatened species as any species which is likely to
4 become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
5 significant portion of its range.

6 In 1973, the Texas legislature authorized the TPWD to establish a list of


7 endangered animals in the state. State endangered species are those species
8 which the Executive Director of the TPWD has named as being “threatened with
9 statewide extinction.” Threatened species are those species which the TPWD
10 has determined are likely to become endangered in the future (TPWD 2007).

11 In 1988 the Texas legislature authorized TPWD to establish a list of threatened


12 and endangered plant species for the state. An endangered plant is one that is
13 “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A
14 threatened plant is one that is likely to become endangered within the
15 foreseeable future (TPWD 2007).

16 TPWD regulations prohibit the taking, possession, transportation, or sale of any


17 of the animal species designated by state law as endangered or threatened
18 without the issuance of a permit. State laws and regulations prohibit commerce
19 in threatened and endangered plants and the collection of listed plant species
20 from public land without a permit issued by TPWD. Listing and recovery of
21 endangered species in Texas is coordinated by the TPWD. The TPWD Wildlife
22 Permitting Section is responsible for the issuance of permits for the handling of
23 listed species (TPWD 2007).

24 3.10.2 Affected Environment


25 Six species listed as federally threatened or endangered have the potential to
26 occur within the proposed project corridor (see Table 3.10-1). An additional eight
27 species that are listed by the State of Texas as threatened or endangered have
28 the potential to be present (see Table 3.10-1). Brief habitat descriptions for each
29 species are provided in Table 3.10-1. Further information on the natural history
30 of the federally listed species is presented in (see Appendix H).

31 Primary pedestrian surveys to document biological resources within the potential


32 impact corridors were conducted in November 2007. No state- or Federal-listed
33 species were observed during these surveys. Additionally, potential habitat for
34 state- and Federal-listed species was determined to be absent from the survey
35 corridors.

36 3.10.3 Environmental Consequences


37 Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies to consult with the USFWS when
38 actions could affect federally listed species or designated critical habitat.
39

Preliminary Final EA March 2008


3-52
Preliminary Final EA

Table 3.10-1. Federal- and State-Listed Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed Project Corridor

Federal State
Common Name Scientific Name County Habitat
Status Status
PLANTS
Quercus Arid limestone slopes at mid elevations in Chihuahuan
Hinckley oak P T T
hinckleyi Desert
FISH
Larger portions of major rivers in Texas; usually in channels
and flowing pools with a moderate current; bottom type
Cycleptus
Blue sucker P T usually of exposed bedrock, perhaps in combination with
elongates
hard clay, sand, and gravel; adults winter in deep pools and
move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles
Rio Grande basin, Big Bend region; clear, cool water that is
Chihuahua often associated with nearby springs; often in pools with
3-53

Notropis
P T
shiner Chihuahua slight current or riffles over a gravel or sand bottom where

Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure


vegetation might be present
Rio Grande and Devils River basins; sloughs, backwaters,
Cyprinodon
Conchos pupfish P T and margins of larger streams, channels of creeks, and
eximius
mouths
In Texas, Big Bend region; clear, fast riffles, chutes, and
Mexican Campostoma
P T pools in small to medium-sized creeks with gravel or sand
stoneroller ornatum
bottoms
REPTILES
Mostly crevice-dwelling in predominantly limestone-surfaced
Chihuahuan
Trimorphodon desert northwest of the Rio Grande from Big Bend to the
Desert Iyre H T
vilkinsonii Franklin Mountains, especially in areas with jumbled
March 2008

snake
boulders and rock faults/fissures
Preliminary Final EA

Federal State
Common Name Scientific Name County Habitat
Status Status
REPTILES (continued)
Mountain short- Phrynosoma Open, shrubby, or openly wooded areas with sparse
H T
horned lizard hernandesi vegetation at ground level; soil can vary from rocky to sandy
Open, arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation,
Texas horned Phrynosoma
H T including grass, cactus, scattered brush or scrubby trees;
lizard cornutum
soil can vary in texture from sandy to rocky
BIRDS
Nests in tall cliff eyries; migratory stopovers at leading
American Falco peregrines
H DL E landscape edges such as lake shores, coastlines, and
peregrine falcon anatum
barrier islands
Arctic peregrine Falco peregrines Migratory stopovers at leading landscape edges such as
H DL T
falcon tundrius lake shores, coastlines, and barrier islands
3-54

Nests along sand and gravel bars within braided streams,


Interior least Sterna antillarum
H rivers; also know to nest on man-made structures (e.g.,

Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure


E E
tern athalassos
inland beaches, wastewater treatment plants, gravel mines)
Mexican spotted Strix occidentalis Remote, shaded canyons of coniferous mountain woodlands
H T T
owl lucida (pine and fir)
Open country, especially savanna and open woodland, and
Northern Falco femoralis
H, P E E sometimes in very barren areas; grassy plains and valleys
aplomado falcon septentrionalis
with scattered mesquite, yucca, and cactus
Southwestern Empidonax traillii Thickets of willow, cottonwood, mesquite, and other species
H, P E
willow flycatcher extimus along desert streams
Deciduous woodlands with cottonwoods and willows; dense
Yellow-billed Coccyzus understory foliage is important for nest site selection; nests
H, P C; NL
March 2008

cuckoo americanus in willow, mesquite, cottonwood, and hackberry; forages in


similar riparian woodlands
Preliminary Final EA

Federal State
Common Name Scientific Name County Habitat
Status Status
MAMMALS
Ursus Bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible
Black bear H T/SA;NL T
americanus forested areas
Mexican long- Leptonycteris Cave-dwelling species that usually inhabits deep caverns;
P E E
nosed bat nivalis nectivorous, with Agave spp. Preferred
Sources: TPWD 2007, USFWS 2007
Notes: E = Endangered, T = Threatened
C = Candidate, DL = De-Listed, NL = Not listed
T/SA = Threatened due to similar appearance
H = Hudspeth County (Section L-1)
P = Presidio County (Section L-1A and L-1B)
3-55

Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure


March 2008
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Pre-consultation coordination with USFWS occurred for this project. The


2 USFWS provided critical feedback on the location and design of fence sections
3 to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts on listed species or designated
4 critical habitat. Due to the lack of suitable habitat within the proposed project
5 corridor, the Proposed Action would have no affect to federally listed species in
6 Hudspeth or Presidio counties. A Listed Species/Habitat No Effect Determination
7 is included in Appendix H.

8 Potential impacts on state and federally listed species would be due to direct
9 mortality during construction and operation, and loss of habitat (quality or
10 quantity).

11 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative


12 Under the No Action Alternative, new tactical infrastructure would not be built and
13 there would be no change in fencing, access roads, or other facilities along the
14 U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations within the
15 Marfa Sector. There would be no direct impacts on threatened and endangered
16 species and there would be no loss or alteration of habitat due to construction.

17 Alternative 2: Proposed Action


18 Under the Proposed Action, approximately 78 acres of vegetation would be
19 cleared to accommodate the construction of the tactical infrastructure (including
20 fences, access and patrol roads, lights, and construction staging areas). Within
21 Section L-1, construction grading would occur atop the short levee resulting in
22 approximately 34 acres of vegetation clearing and removal. Within Sections L-
23 1A and L-1B, construction clearing would occur south of and adjacent to the tall
24 levee resulting in approximately 44 acres of vegetation clearing and removal.
25 Vegetation clearing and removal within these sections is anticipated to have no
26 impact on state- and Federal-listed species and their habitats. Lights proposed
27 for Sections L-1A and L-1B are not anticipated to have impacts on any state and
28 Federal-listed species. No direct mortality of listed species is anticipated.

29 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative


30 Under Alternative 3, approximately 195 acres of vegetation would be cleared to
31 accommodate the construction of the tactical infrastructure Within Section L-1,
32 construction grading would occur atop the short levee resulting in approximately
33 84 acres of vegetation clearing and removal. Within Sections L-1A and L-1B,
34 construction clearing would occur south of and adjacent to the tall levee resulting
35 in approximately 111 acres of vegetation clearing and removal. Vegetation
36 clearing and removal within these sections is anticipated to have no effect upon
37 listed species or their habitats. No direct mortality of listed species is anticipated.

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-56
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 3.11 CULTURAL, HISTORIC, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES


2 Cultural resources are commonly subdivided into archaeological resources
3 (prehistoric or historic sites where human activity has left physical evidence of
4 that activity but no structures remain standing), architectural resources (buildings
5 or other structures or groups of structures that are of historic, architectural, or
6 other significance), and traditional cultural resources (e.g., traditional gathering
7 areas, locations referenced in origin myths or traditional stories, etc.).

8 Archaeological resources comprise areas where human activity has measurably


9 altered the earth or where deposits of physical remains of human activity are
10 found. Architectural resources include standing buildings, bridges, dams, and
11 other structures of historic, architectural, engineering, or aesthetic significance.
12 Traditional cultural resources include traditional cultural properties (TCPs), which
13 are properties eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places that
14 Native Americans or other groups consider essential for the preservation of
15 traditional cultures. Examples of TCPs are archaeological resources, prominent
16 topographic features, habitat, plants, minerals, or animals and their physical
17 location or resource referent.

18 The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the official listing of properties
19 significant in U.S. history, architecture, or prehistory, and includes both publicly
20 and privately owned properties. The list is administered by the National Park
21 Service (NPS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior. Cultural resources that
22 are listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP (36 CFR 800.16(l)) are called
23 historic properties. Properties are determined to be eligible for listing in the
24 NRHP by the Secretary of the Interior (NPS) or by consensus of a Federal
25 agency official and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Generally,
26 resources must be more than 50 years old to be considered for listing in the
27 NRHP. More recent resources, such as Cold War-era buildings, might warrant
28 listing if they have the potential to gain significance in the future or if they meet
29 “exceptional” significance criteria. NRHP-listed properties of exceptional national
30 significance can also be designated as National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) by
31 the Secretary of the Interior.

32 Buildings, structures, archaeological sites, objects, or districts are property types


33 that might be historic properties. To be listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP,
34 a resource must be one of these property types, generally should be at least 50
35 years of age or older, and must meet at least one of the four following criteria (36
36 CFR 60.4):

37 • The resource is associated with events that have made a significant


38 contribution to the broad pattern of history (Criterion A).
39 • The resource is associated with the lives of people significant in the past
40 (Criterion B).

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-57
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 • The resource embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or


2 method of construction; represents the work of a master; possesses high
3 artistic value; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose
4 components might lack individual distinction (Criterion C).
5 • The resource has yielded, or could be likely to yield, information important
6 in prehistory or history (Criterion D).

7 In addition to meeting at least one of the above criteria, a historic property must
8 also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
9 feeling, and association. Integrity is defined as the authenticity of a property’s
10 historic identity, as evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics it
11 possessed in the past and its capacity to convey information about a culture or
12 group of people, a historic pattern, or a specific type of architectural or
13 engineering design or technology. Resources that might not be considered
14 individually significant can be considered eligible for listing on the NRHP as part
15 of a historic or archaeological district. According to the NPS, a district possesses
16 a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or
17 objects that are historically or aesthetically united by plan or physical
18 development.

19 3.11.1 Affected Environment


20 Archaeological and Historical Overview
21 The history of the Trans Pecos Region is rich, unique, and important. The Rio
22 Grande has been a critical conduit for trade and transportation, and a natural
23 border between interests to the north and the south. Evidence of human
24 occupation in the region is abundant. The area’s archaeological record is
25 dominated by open-air sites, lithic artifact scatters, pithouses, and the ruins of
26 Spanish missions. Some of these sites are difficult to identify and date because
27 of heavy erosion, shallow soil horizons, and extensive artifact removal by
28 collectors.

29 The pre-contact history of Far West Texas can be divided into three general
30 cultural periods:

31 • The Paleoindian period (10000 to 6500 B.C.) represents the first


32 documented human occupation of the region. Evidence of the earliest
33 Paleoindian complexes, Clovis and Folsom, has been found throughout
34 West Texas, although most of this evidence is from surface collections of
35 the distinctive fluted points that characterize these complexes. Sites are
36 often found on extinct playa shorelines and creek terraces and are very rare in
37 this area.
38 • The Archaic period (6500B. C. to AD 1000) in West Texas is divided into
39 the early, middle, and late subperiods based on subtle changes in material
40 cultural and settlement patterns. During this period, hunting and gathering

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-58
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 continued as the primary means of subsistence, but populations


2 responded to fluctuations in regional climate by exploiting an increasingly
3 wide range of plant and animal resources and geographic settings for
4 settlement and subsistence. Archaic sites include rockshelters, lithic
5 artifact scatters, quarries, hearths, burned rock and ring middens, rock
6 circles, and petroglyphs. Late Archaic sites are relatively common in the
7 project area, suggesting increasing population density through time
8 (Hester et al. 1989).
9 • The Late Prehistoric period (A.D. 1000 to European Contact) is well-
10 documented in the region and is characterized by the appearance of
11 pottery and the bow and arrow, although point typologies have not been
12 formalized (Hester et al. 1989). Maize, squash, beans, and bottle gourds
13 were cultivated and people lived at least part of the year in pithouse
14 communities, and made El Paso brownware ceramics. Early in this period,
15 sites were located along the Rio Grande and along ephemeral mountain
16 and foothill drainages, as well as playas and alluvial fans. Later sites are
17 clustered in canyon mouths and alluvial fans.
18 • The post-contact history of the region is discussed in Appendix I,
19 Preliminary Cultural Resources Findings.

20 Previously Identified Resources in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project


21 In the following discussion, archaeological sites, historic districts, and individual
22 properties within 1 mile of the project area are described. These descriptions are
23 based on information contained in the Texas Historical Commission’s (THC)
24 Texas Historic Sites Atlas and Texas Archaeological Sites Atlas, a secure
25 website with information about past archaeological surveys and known
26 archaeological sites. Access to the Texas Archaeological Sites Atlas is limited to
27 professional archaeologists and only available through formal application to the
28 Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory (TARL). Also identified are
29 resources recognized by the THC as Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks
30 (RTHL) and those previously surveyed under their Neighborhood Survey
31 program.

32 A review of the prehistory and history of the area is presented in Appendix I.

33 Previously reported in the vicinity include the southern edge of the La Junta de
34 los Rios Archaeological District that is listed on the National Register of Historic
35 Places (NRHP). Sites within this district include open campsites, ceramic and
36 lithic scatters, pithouses, and the ruins of Spanish missions. Temporal and
37 cultural affiliations for some of these sites are unclear. Other historic-period
38 resources within a mile of the proposed project include a privately built fort, a
39 railroad trestle, and a former port of entry facility. Information about these
40 resources was plotted on project maps, aerial photographs, and topographic
41 maps to identify areas of interest for further identification and evaluation. These
42 resources are discussed by infrastructure section below.

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-59
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Section L-1. Section L-1 passes near three previously recorded archaeological
2 sites (see Table 3.11-1). Two Late Prehistoric open camp sites with hearths and
3 lithic scatters were recorded in 1948. The third site is a lithic scatter also
4 recorded in 1948. Its temporal affiliation is unknown.

5 Section L-1A and L-1B. Sections L-1A and L-1B pass near one NRHP-listed
6 archaeological district (La Junta de Los Rios Archaeological District) and 1.92
7 miles from a NRHP-listed historic property (Fort Leaton 41PS18) (see Table
8 3.11-1). Within the district there are four prehistoric sites within 1 mile of
9 Sections L-1A and L-1B. One of these sites is a prehistoric open camp and lithic
10 scatter (41PS16), the second is a multi-component site with prehistoric artifacts,
11 as well as ruins of a Spanish mission (41PS15). The remaining two sites are
12 poorly recorded and no information besides location and site number are
13 available on the THC Archaeological Sites Atlas (41PS86, 41PS87). A historic
14 cemetery is also located within a mile of the sections.

15 Table 3.11-1. National Register of Historic Places Listed Properties in the


16 Vicinity of the Proposed Project Corridor

Section Property Status


L-1A Fort Leaton NRHP Listed 1973
La Junta de los Rios Archaeological
L-1A and L-1B NRHP Listed 1978
District
17
18 Additional information on these prehistoric and historic properties is presented in
19 Appendix I.

20 Fort Leaton is situated 1.92 miles northeast of the southern terminus of L-1A. It
21 will not be affected by the proposed project. Section L-1B passes through or just
22 outside of the La Junta de Los Rios Archaeological District; however, the sites
23 within the district are located almost a mile distant and north of the alignment at
24 the edge of the modern floodplain. These properties are summarized in Table
25 3.1-1.

26 Area of Potential Effects


27 Under Section 106 as set forth in 36 CFR Part 800, the Federal agency official is
28 charged with identifying historic properties within the Area of Potential Effect
29 (APE) of a Federal undertaking. The APE is defined as the geographical area
30 within which effects to historic properties might occur if such properties
31 hypothetically exist. The APE should account for both direct and indirect
32 impacts. 36 CFR 800.5(a)(2) provides examples of adverse effects. Examples
33 specifically cited relevant to this project are damage or destruction of historic
34 properties and changes to the setting of a historic property where the setting
35 contributes to the significance of the property as adverse.

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-60
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Under Alternative 2, direct construction impacts would occur within a 60-foot wide
2 corridor that accounts for grading of vegetation and fence construction. Under
3 Alternative 3, the direct construction impacts would occur in a 150-foot wide
4 corridor. The archaeological APE is 150 feet to encompass Alternatives 2 and 3.
5 A second, larger APE has been developed for both Alternatives 2 and 3 to
6 account for potential impacts to architectural or other above-ground resources.
7 Topography, type and density of vegetation and intervening development,
8 orientation of streets and properties in relation to the alternatives, traffic patterns,
9 and surrounding development all are factors considered in the definition of this
10 historic APE for a specific location.

11 Cultural Resources Surveys


12 A cultural resources survey of the area affected by the Proposed Action in the
13 Marfa Sector has been completed. The survey identified both archaeological
14 (pre-contact-era) resources and historic-period/architectural resources for all
15 infrastructure sections of the Proposed Action. The archaeological survey
16 occurred between December 4-6, 2007 and the historic survey occurred on
17 January 7-9, 2008. Preliminary research was performed prior to performing
18 fieldwork. The research focused on developing a historic context for the survey
19 area, determining the environmental nature of the project area, areas of interest,
20 previously recorded sites, and information about historic-period resources such
21 as ownership history, construction dates, and prior uses when available from
22 county and other records. Federally recognized Indian tribes with ancestral ties to
23 lands within the Marfa Sector also were contacted for input into the cultural
24 resources survey, as required under NHPA.

25 The archaeological survey examined a 150-foot corridor for all proposed tactical
26 infrastructure sections (inclusive of the direct effect area for both Alternatives 2
27 and 3). An architectural/historic resource survey examined the larger APE that
28 accounts for visual and other effects on historic-period resources. Both surveys
29 considered access roads and stating areas. Seventeen historic-period resources
30 and one prehistoric isolated occurrence were identified in Sections L-1, L-1A and
31 L-1B. Two of these resources have been recommended as eligible for National
32 Register listing. Both properties recommended as eligible for the NRHP are
33 located in section L-1A and are associated the historic themes of border crossing
34 or transportation. They are at a distance of between 15 to 100 feet from the
35 proposed alignment. One of the properties will be located near a staging area.
36 The discussion below provides additional information about the resources
37 identified, recommendations regarding their NRHP eligibility, and environmental
38 consequences of each alternative.

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-61
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences


2 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
3 Under the No Action Alternative, proposed tactical infrastructure would not be
4 built and there would be no change in fencing, patrol roads, or other facilities
5 within the USBP Marfa Sector. Since there would be no tactical infrastructure
6 built, impacts on cultural, historical, and archaeological resources, including
7 historic properties, would continue to be affected by cross border violator
8 activities.

9 Alternative 2:
10 Section L-1. Based on field work conducted to date, no resources are
11 anticipated to be recommended as NRHP eligible in Section L-1. Consequently,
12 no historic properties would be affected.

13 Section L-1A. Section L-1A passes near two historic-period resources


14 recommended as NRHP eligible. The alignment passes perpendicular to the
15 South Orient Railroad trestle constructed in 1930. The trestle is located just
16 southeast of the town of Presidio and extended from the official international
17 boundary, the middle of the Rio Grande, to the edge of the modern floodplain,
18 approximately 2,200 feet. The bridge is one of only five rail crossings across the
19 Texas-Mexico Border, and the only one still constructed of peeled wood logs and
20 wood beams. An IBWC levee crossed the trestle 200 feet north of the river. A
21 March 2008 fire destroyed the portion of the trestle south of the levee to the
22 international border in the middle of the Rio Grande, but left the northern portion
23 (over 1,800 feet) intact. The remaining portion of the South Orient Railroad
24 trestle is recommended as eligible for the NRHP. The proposed tactical
25 infrastructure would be built on the south side of the levee, away from the trestle.
26 Consequently, the Proposed Action would not affect the trestle.

27 The infrastructure section also passes within 100 feet of the Dupuy Port of Entry
28 (POE) Building. The building, constructed between 1955-1960, served as the
29 U.S. Customs House/Port of Entry for the privately owned and operated Dupuy
30 Bridge. The bridge, no longer extant, was completed in 1926 and served as the
31 only international crossing in the area. The facility was used until 1985 when a
32 new POE was built 500 feet upstream. The POE Building and associated
33 canopy are recommended as eligible for the NRHP for its historical significance.
34 The POE Building is located north of the levee away from the proposed retaining
35 wall infrastructural location. The property and POE Building have been seized by
36 the U.S. Marshal and likely would be used for project-related purposes, such as a
37 staging area. The building and its associated canopy would be retained and not
38 affected by the project. Because of this, the Proposed Action would have no
39 effect to the Dupuy POE Building.

40

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-62
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Section L-1B. Section L-1B passes through or just outside a southern portion of
2 the La Junta de los Rios Archaeological District. Boundaries of the district in this
3 area are somewhat ambiguous. The National Register nomination (Clark 1975)
4 discusses 12 archaeological sites within the nearly 4,000 acres of the district. An
5 archaeological survey of the archaeological APE for the Proposed Action
6 identified no archaeological sites. Therefore, it can be concluded that the La
7 Junta de los Rios district would not be affected by the proposed infrastructure
8 project.

9 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative


10 Section L-1. No resources are evaluated as NRHP eligible in Section L-1 and
11 there would be no impacts and no effects to cultural resources.

12 Section L-1A. Alternative 3 could present potential impacts and effects to the
13 two cultural resources evaluated and recommended as NRHP eligible. This
14 alternative consists of a primary fence, a patrol road, and a secondary fence in a
15 150 foot corridor. Under this alternative, tactical infrastructure would be
16 constructed on the south side of the IBWC levee. As with Alternative 2, there
17 would be no impact or effect to the Dupuy POE Building.

18 Section L-1B. No historic-period resources or archaeological resources were


19 identified in the field survey for this section of tactical infrastructure. Since no
20 archaeological sites were identified, it can be concluded that the La Junta de los
21 Rios Archaeological District would not be affected by the proposed infrastructure
22 project.

23 3.12 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES


24 3.12.1 Definition of the Resource
25 CBP does not have a standard methodology for analysis and assessment of
26 impacts on visual resources. Accordingly a standard methodology developed by
27 another Federal agency was adopted for the analysis and assessment of impacts
28 on visual resources for this EA. Methodologies reviewed included those
29 developed by the National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau of Land Management
30 (BLM), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). It was determined that
31 the FHWA methodology was the most applicable for this analysis due to its focus
32 on linear corridors that include a variety of features and cross-cut a variety of
33 landscapes. The FHWA methodology examines visual resources in similar ways
34 (texture, contrast, visual quality) as those of NPS and BLM, but unlike those
35 methodologies, the FHWA does not tie the assessment to the management goals
36 for a given parcel of land (i.e., BLM- and NPS-owned land parcels typically have
37 specific management goals and the assessment of impacts on visual resources
38 within a given parcel is tied to the management priorities for those parcels).

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-63
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 The following discussion summarizes the methology presented in FHWA


2 Publication No. FHWA-HI-88-054: Visual Impact Assessment for Highway
3 Projects (USDOT undated). Under the FHWA approach, the major components
4 of the visual analysis process include establishing the visual environment of the
5 project, assessing the visual resources of the proposed project corridor, and
6 identifying viewer response to those resources.

7 Establishing a Visual Environment. Two related steps are performed to


8 characterize the visual environment: (1) develop a framework for visual
9 assessments that will help compare project alternatives and (2) define the
10 physical limits of the visual environment that each alternative might affect. The
11 landscape classification process establishes the general visual environment of a
12 project and its place in the regional landscape. The starting point for the
13 classification is an understanding of the landscape components that make up the
14 regional landscape, which then allows comparisons between landscapes.
15 Regional landscapes consist of landforms (or topography) and land cover. It
16 should be noted that land cover is not equivalent to land use, as that term is
17 defined and used in Section 3.3. Land cover is those features (e.g., water,
18 vegetation, type of man-made development) that dominate the land within a
19 given parcel. Examples of land cover would include an agricultural field, housing
20 development, airport, forest, grassland, or reservoir. While there is some overlap
21 with land use, land cover does not distinguish function or ownership of parcels.

22 Relatively homogenous combinations of landforms and land cover that occur


23 throughout a region can be considered landscape types. To provide a framework
24 for comparing the visual impacts of the project alternatives, regional landscape is
25 divided into distinct landscape units; these are usually enclosed by clear
26 landform or land cover boundaries and many of the views within the unit are
27 inward-looking. Landscape units are usually characterized by diverse visual
28 resources, and it is common for several landscape types to be in view at any one
29 time.

30 Assessing the Visual Resources. An assessment of the visual resources


31 within the proposed project corridor involves identification identification of the
32 character and quality of those resources. Descriptions of visual character can
33 distinguish at least two levels of attributes: pattern elements and pattern
34 character. Visual pattern elements are primary visual attributes of objects; they
35 include form, line, color, and texture. Awareness of these pattern elements
36 varies with distance. The visual contrast between a project and its visual
37 environment can frequently be traced to four aspects of pattern character:
38 dominance, scale, diversity, and continuity.

39 Visual quality is subjective as it relies on the viewer’s enjoyment or interpretation


40 of experience. For example, there is a clear public agreement that the visual
41 resources of certain landscapes have high visual quality and that plans for
42 projects in those areas should be subject to careful examination. Approaches to
43 assessing visual quality include identifying landscapes already recognized at the

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-64
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 national, regional, or local level for their visual excellence (e.g., National Historic
2 Landmarks (NHLs), National Scenic Rivers); asking viewers to identify quality
3 visual resources; or looking to the regional landscape for specific resource
4 indicators of visual quality. One evaluative approach that has proven useful
5 includes three criteria: vividness (the visual power or memorability of the
6 landscape), intactness (the visual integrity of the natural and man-made
7 landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements), and unity (the visual
8 coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole).
9 A high value for all three criteria equates to a high visual quality; combinations of
10 lesser values indicate moderate or low visual quality. It should be noted that low
11 visual quality does not necessarily mean that there will be no concern over the
12 visual impacts of a project. In instances such as urban settings, communities
13 might ask that projects be designed to improve existing visual quality.

14 Identifying Viewer Response. An understanding of the viewers who might see


15 the project and the aspects of the visual environment to which they are likely to
16 respond is important to understanding and predicting viewer response to the
17 appearance of a project. The receptivity of different viewer groups to the visual
18 environment and its elements is not equal. Viewer sensitivity is strongly related
19 to visual preference; it modifies visual experience directly by means of viewer
20 activity and awareness, and indirectly by means of values, opinions, and
21 preconceptions. Because viewers in some settings are more likely to share
22 common distractions, activities, and awareness of their visual environment, it is
23 reasonable to distinguish among project viewers in residential, recreational, and
24 industrial areas. Viewers also tend to notice and value the unusual, so they
25 might see more value in preserving the view towards a particularly dramatic
26 stand of trees than the view towards more ubiquitous landscape features.

27 Local values and goals operate indirectly on viewer experience by shaping view
28 expectations, aspirations, and appreciations. For example, at a regional or
29 national level, viewers might be particularly sensitive to the visual resources and
30 appearance of a particular landscape due to its cultural significance, and any
31 visual evidence of change might be seen as a threat to these values or
32 resources. Concern over the appearance of the Proposed Action often might be
33 based on how it will affect the visual character of an area rather than on the
34 particular visual resources it will displace.

35 3.12.2 Affected Environment


36 Aesthetics is the science or philosophy concerned with the quality of visual
37 experience. One cannot meaningfully assess the impacts of an action on visual
38 experience unless one considers both the stimulus (visual resources) and the
39 response (viewers) aspects of that experience.

40 Visual Environment. Based on the Physiographic Map of Texas (University of


41 Texas 2006), the proposed project corridor lies within the Basin and Range
42 Province. The Basin and Range Province contains eight mountain peaks that are

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-65
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 higher than 8,000 feet. Mountain ranges generally trend nearly north-south and
2 rise abruptly from barren rocky plains. Plateaus in which the rocks are nearly
3 horizontal and less deformed commonly flank the mountains. Large flows of
4 volcanic ash and thick deposits of volcanic debris flank the slopes of most former
5 volcanoes. Eroded craters, where the cores of volcanoes collapsed and
6 subsided, are abundant. Gray oak, pinyon pine, alligator juniper parks drape the
7 highest elevations. Creosote bush and lechuguilla shrubs sparsely populate
8 plateaus and intermediate elevations. Tobosa black grama grassland occupies
9 the low basins.

10 Primary landform types present within the APEs include the narrow Rio Grande
11 channel and floodplain, cutoff meander loops (most still containing water),
12 arroyos, and gentle ridges and swales within the floodplain. The City of Presidio
13 lies on the toeslope of an alluvial fan. The levee (man-made landform) is almost
14 invisible at Neely’s Crossing, but a substantive linear feature in Sections L-1A
15 and L-1B.

16 Land cover overlying these landforms can be simplified into three primary types:
17 agriculture, developed, and undeveloped. For the most part, these land cover
18 types parallel the Rio Grande, with developed lands situated farthest from the
19 river channel, and developed and undeveloped lands alternating next to the river
20 channel. The primary encroachment of one land cover type into another is at the
21 Presidio POE, where development intersects the river channel. There are also
22 certain features that cross-cut or link land cover types, such as transportation
23 features (e.g., highways, paved and unpaved roads, bridges) or flood control
24 features (e.g., the levee system).

25 At the macro level of analysis, the Basin and Range province is a distinct land
26 unit. Within that larger land unit, combinations of landform types with the range
27 of land cover types form smaller land units:

28 • Rural land unit. This unit includes the floodplain of the Rio Grande and
29 the intersecting arroyos where they are overlain by agriculture and range
30 lands; however, the character of the underlying landforms is still clearly
31 visible and plays a role in the placement of overlying features (see
32 Figure 3.12-1). Typical features include field breaks, irrigation features,
33 unpaved roads, occasional farmsteads or ranches, occasional water
34 towers, and larger metal utility towers.

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-66
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

Figure 3.12-1. Photograph View of Typical Rural Land Unit


(Section L-1)

1 • Urban/Industrial land unit. This unit includes the floodplain of the Rio
2 Grande and the toeslope of the adjacent alluvial fan in Sections L-1A and
3 L-1B where they are overlain by the city of Presidio (see Figure 3.12-2).
4 The underlying landforms are almost completely masked by man-made
5 features and play little or no role in the layout or location of overlying
6 features. Typical features include buildings of varying heights, sizes, and
7 materials; a mixture of gridded and more organic road networks (primarily
8 paved); planned park areas (often near water sources); open paved areas
9 (e.g., parking areas); the Presidio POE; industrial and commercial areas;
10 overhead utility lines on poles; elevated roadways and overpasses; and
11 elevated signage.

12 Character and Quality of Visual Resources. Tables 3.12-1 and 3.12-2 provide
13 summaries of the visual character and quality, respectively, of visual resources
14 observed within the land units within the Marfa Sector. Values reflect visual
15 character and visual quality of resources visible from distances of 50 feet to
16 1,000 feet (see Figure 3.12-3). Within Section L-1, where the levee is only a few
17 feet high, the Rio Grande channel can be seen from a distance, except where it
18 is obscured by vegetation. In Sections L-1A and L-1B, the levee typically
19 obscures the view of the Rio Grande channel except at the Presidio POE,
20 although the greater elevations within the city center might allow residents and
21 businesses to see over the levee in places. Additionally, the amount of visual
22 clutter between the viewer and the proposed project corridor increases with
23 distance.

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-67
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

Figure 3.12-2. Photograph View of Presidio (Section L-1B)

1 Table 3.12-1. Character of Visual Resources within Typical Marfa Sector


2 Land Units (Current Conditions)

Rural Urban/Industrial
Primarily horizontal lines (fields, Vertical lines more prominent than
roads, canals), with occasional horizontal
Line
vertical elements (water towers,
utility towers, tree lines, buildings)
Earthy colors (bare earth and Often a high variety of colors
Color crops, open ground, sparse associated with buildings, signs, green
vegetation) spaces
Mixture of angled and curved Primarily rectilinear forms but can be
forms (roads and buildings vs. punctuated by curves from more
Form
rolling hills and meandering river) elaborate architecture or organic
shapes of natural elements
Relatively subtle variations in Variety of textures related to different
Texture texture (mostly bare earth or building materials against natural
crops) textures in green spaces
3

4 Table 3.12-2. Quality of Visual Resources within Typical Marfa Sector


5 Land Units (Current Conditions)

Vividness Intactness Unity Rating


Rural Moderate/High Moderate/High Moderate/High Moderate/High
Urban/Industrial Low to High Moderate Low to High Moderate

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-68
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

2 Figure 3.12-3. Schematic Showing Visibility of Fencing


3 at Various Distances
Preliminary Draft EA March 2008
3-69
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 In terms of visual quality, the analysis presumes that any view that includes the
2 Rio Grande constitutes a high-quality view, except for views dominated by
3 industrial or commercial elements (e.g., views of the POEs). Similarly, given that
4 quality of view can be somewhat subjective, it is possible to find at least one low-
5 and one high-quality view within any land unit type. Rather than simply provide a
6 range of ratings of low to high for each, the quality of the most common views
7 within a given land unit type was used.

8 In addition to these averaged assessments of visual character and quality of


9 resources within each land unit type, there are a number of specific visual
10 resources considered to be of particular importance because of their natural or
11 cultural value, such as those listed in the following:

12 • Neely Ranch
13 • Neely Arroyo
14 • La Junta de los Rios Archaeological District
15 • Mimbrosa Arroyo
16 • Marfa Lights
17 • Presidio.

18 Viewer Response. The pool of viewers making up the affected environment


19 includes single individuals, such as rural landowners on whose property the
20 fence would be constructed, and groups of individuals such as residents and
21 business owners within the City of Presidio, or recreational users of public
22 access recreation areas. Viewers could also include avocational groups such as
23 local historical societies or local chapters of the National Audubon Society that
24 have interests in preserving the settings of cultural or natural resources. These
25 viewers are likely to have both individual responses to specific resources related
26 to their experiences and emotional connection to those resources, as well as
27 collective responses to visual resources considered to be important on a
28 regional, state, or national level. For the purposes of this analysis, the pool of
29 affected viewers will be grouped into the following general categories:

30 • Residential viewers
31 - Rural landowners, primarily farmers and ranchers
32 - Urban residents
33 • Commercial viewers
34 - Rural farms, ranches, and isolated businesses
35 - Urban businesses
36 • Industrial viewers
37 - Rural industries (e.g., pump stations, pipeline monitors)
38 - Urban industries

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-70
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 • Recreational viewers
2 - Tourists visiting towns and cities
3 • Special interest viewers
4 - Native American tribes
5 - Local historical societies
6 - Local chapters of conservation societies (e.g., Audubon Society)
7 - Park commissions
8 - Regulatory agencies (e.g., USFWS, THC)
9 • Intermittent viewers (view primarily from transportation corridors)
10 - Commuters
11 - Commercial (e.g., truck drivers, railroad operators, ferry operator).

12 Within each of these categories, viewer response will also vary depending on the
13 typical duration of exposure to visual resources and the typical distance from
14 which they view those resources. For example, a residential viewer who
15 currently has an unobstructed view of a high-quality resource from their backyard
16 will be impacted differently than a residential viewer who lives several streets
17 away and already has an obstructed view of those resources. Similarly, a viewer
18 that only views a resource such as the Rio Grande from the highway as they
19 pass through the region will have a different viewer response relative to that
20 resource than a viewer that regularly walks along the levee overlooking the river.

21 3.12.3 Environmental Consequences


22 The Proposed Action would adversely impact visual resources both directly and
23 indirectly. Construction of tactical infrastructure would result in the introduction of
24 new temporary (e.g., heavy equipment, supplies) and permanent (e.g., fencing
25 and patrol roads) visual elements into existing viewsheds. Clearing and grading
26 of the landscape during construction, as well as demolition of buildings and
27 structures within the proposed project corridor, would result in the removal of
28 visual elements from existing viewsheds. Finally, the fence sections would create
29 a physical barrier potentially preventing access to some visual resources.

30 Impacts on aesthetic and visual resources would include short-term impacts


31 associated with the construction phase of the project and use of staging areas,
32 recurring impacts associated with monitoring and maintenance, and long-term
33 impacts associated with the completed action. Impacts can range from minor,
34 such as the impacts on visual resources adjacent to the proposed project corridor
35 when seen from a distance or when views of fences are obstructed by
36 intervening elements (e.g., trees, buildings) to major, such as the intrusion of
37 fence sections into high-quality views of the Rio Grande. The nature of the
38 impacts would range from neutral for those land units containing lower quality
39 views or few regular viewers, to adverse, for those land units containing high-
40 quality views, important cultural or natural resources, or viewers who would have

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-71
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 constant exposure to the fence at close distances. Beneficial impacts are also
2 possible (e.g., addition of the fence increases the unity or dramatic impact of a
3 view, removal of visual clutter within the proposed project corridor can clarify a
4 view, or a viewer positively associates the fence with a feeling of greater
5 security), but are considered to be less common.

6 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative


7 Under the No Action Alternative, proposed tactical infrastructure would not be
8 built and there would be no change in fencing, patrol roads, or other facilities
9 along the U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations
10 within the USBP Marfa Sector. Therefore, there would be no adverse impacts
11 attributable to construction, operation, or maintenance of the proposed tactical
12 infrastructure. Conversely, the potential beneficial impacts of unifying a cluttered
13 landscape in some areas would not be realized, however minor or subjective this
14 beneficial impact might be.

15 Alternative 2: Proposed Action


16 The primary introduced visual elements associated with the Proposed Action in
17 Section L-1 are the single line of fencing, gates, patrol roads, access roads, and
18 construction clutter (stockpiles of supplies and heavy equipment during
19 construction), and lighting (Sections L-1A and L-1B). The Proposed Action would
20 also potentially remove existing visual elements, such as buildings, vegetation,
21 and portions of landforms (e.g. straightening of the levee face for construction of
22 the retaining wall in Sections L-1A and L-1B) that occur within the 60-foot
23 permanent impact area. Finally, the fence would act as a physical barrier
24 between viewers and those views that can only be viewed from vantage points
25 on the other side of the fence (e.g., views from the tops of levees).

26 Of these, addition of the line of fencing and the associated patrol road, removal
27 of existing elements from the proposed project corridor in Section L-1, and the
28 loss of access to specific visual resources due to the fact that the fence is a
29 barrier would have long-term impacts on visual resources, while the remaining
30 elements would have temporary or short-term impacts limited to the period of
31 construction. The nature (adverse or beneficial) and degree (minor to major) of
32 the long-term impacts can be affected by the appearance of the fencing (width,
33 height, materials, color), the patrol road (paved or unpaved, width), the lighting
34 configuration (number of lighting poles, number of lights per pole, angle and
35 screening of lights), and the access roads (number, paved or unpaved, width).

36 Removal of existing visual elements in Section L-1 would also constitute a long-
37 term impact. Where the existing element adds to the visual character and quality
38 of the resource, the impact of its removal would be adverse. Where the existing
39 element detracts from the visual character and quality of the resource (e.g.,
40 rusted equipment or dead trees), the impact of removal could be beneficial. In all
41 cases, removal of existing elements would have the net result of exposing more

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-72
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 of the fence, patrol road, and other tactical infrastructure; in settings where the
2 addition of the fence is considered to have a major adverse impact on visual
3 resources, any benefit accruing from removal of existing elements would be
4 outweighed by the more dominant adverse visual impact of the fence.

5 In Sections L-1A and L-1B, the tactical infrastructure would consist of a retaining
6 wall on the river side of the existing levee, topped with a typical guard rail. The
7 patrol road would be the existing road on top of the levee. Apart from the guard
8 rail, the only new addition to the corridor will be lighting poles, placed at
9 approximately 50-foot intervals along the levee in each of these sections. No
10 clearing or removal of visual elements is anticipated in Sections L-1A and L-1B.

11 Visual Resource Concerns. In Section 3.12.1, Tables 3.12-1 and 3.12-2


12 provide a summary of the character and quality associated with visual resources
13 currently present within the proposed project corridor. Tables 3.12-3 and 3.12-4
14 list how implementation of Route A would likely alter the character and quality of
15 existing visual resources within each land unit. Figures 3.12-4 and 3.12-5
16 provide examples of typical impacts; these images illustrate the impacts
17 associated with the addition of a fence constructed using a type of primary
18 pedestrian fence currently being constructed in other USBP sectors. These
19 photographs provide approximations of the degree of alteration that would result
20 from introduction of the fence and patrol road to these viewsheds.

21 In rural land units in Section L-1, the fence would add an additional linear feature,
22 but will generally be taller than any existing feature in the immediate viewshed.
23 Accordingly, the impact in Section L-1 would be negative to the owners of Neely
24 Ranch and to casual viewers of this section of the Rio Grande that use Rancho
25 Road. In the rural land units within Sections L-1A and L-1B, the version of the
26 fence that would be used (retaining wall behind levee and guard rail) would
27 typically be lost from view once the viewer moves more than a few hundred feet
28 from the guard rail. Even in relatively close proximity, the impact on the views
29 from on top of the levee would be minor and typically neutral.

30 The lighting associated with the patrol road is likely to be the most visually
31 intrusive element of the Proposed Action, with the degree of impact during
32 daylight hours tied to the number and height of lighting poles, and the degree of
33 impact during night hours tied to the brightness and extent of illumination created
34 by the lights. From the vantage point of the City of Presidio, which is set back
35 several hundred or more feet from the levee, except at the Presidio POE, the
36 addition of a guard rail along the top of the levee would hardly be visible. The
37 impact would be greater for those residences and businesses closest to the river
38 or at high points within the city, and less for those lying further inside the city, as
39 there would be greater screening of the lights and lighted areas from other
40 buildings and visual elements of the urban landscape. For this land unit,
41 therefore, impacts would range from minor to major, and neutral to adverse.

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-73
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Table 3.12-3. Impact on the Character of Visual Resources


2 within Typical Marfa Sector Land Units

Rural Urban/Industrial
In Section L-1, the horizontal line of the For viewers in the City of
fence would blend to some extent with Presidio that have a clear view
other linear features; however, due to its of the levee or the Rio Grande,
height, the fence would become the the addition of the guard rail
dominant linear element in the viewshed. would blend with the linear
In Sections L-1A and L-1B, the guard rail feature of the levee. The
will blend with the levee even at short lighting poles might be
Line
distances; however, the lights would discordant except where they
contrast with the generally horizontal co-occur with other vertical
lines in these areas except where they linear features.
co-occur with other vertical features such
as electric poles. The patrol road and
access roads also should blend, both at
short and long distances.
The current fence design parameters call The “color” parameter of most
for fencing to be black in Section L-1. importance in the
Although some of the vegetation trunks urban/industrial land unit is that
are black, the height and massive quality of the pool of light created by
of the fence will be completely discordant the lights in the corridor
with the other colors in Section L-1. In between dusk and dawn.
Color
Sections L-1A and L-1B, the color of the Although the POE has lights,
guard should have no impact. For rural most of the area towards the
landowners, the same comments river is rural and any pools of
regarding lighting noted for light would contrast with the
urban/industrial viewers are also valid. normal nighttime views in that
direction.
The fence and patrol road are rectilinear In Sections L-1A and L-1B, the
in form and will result in greater form of the guard rail would be
domination of rectilinear forms compared lost against that of the more
Form to organic forms in Section L-1. In dominant levee.
Sections L-1A and L-1B, the form of the
guard rail would be lost against that of the
more dominant levee.
As a man-made, synthetic element, the Because this land unit contains
fence would contrast with the dominant a variety of textures, the texture
textures of this land unit in Section L-1. of the guard rail, lights, and
In Sections L-1A and L-1B, the guard rail patrol road are more likely to
Texture
also represents a contrast, but would blend with the textures of this
contrast no more than similar existing land unit at least at a distance.
features such as the POE bridge and the
levee.
3

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-74
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Table 3.12-4. Quality of Visual Resources within Typical Marfa Sector Land
2 Units After Proposed Construction

Land Units Vividness Intactness Unity Rating


Rural Moderate Moderate/High Moderate Moderate
Urban/Industrial Low to High Low/Moderate Low to High Moderate
3

5
6 Figure 3.12-4. Typical Views Towards Proposed Construction Corridor,
7 Section L-1

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-75
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

5
6 Figure 3.12-5. Typical Views Towards Proposed Project Corridor,
7 Sections L-1A and L-1B

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-76
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Finally, with respect to the impacts on the specific visual resources listed in
2 Section 3.12.1, implementation of the Proposed Action would likely have short-
3 or long-term adverse impacts on the settings of those resources. The greater the
4 distance between the resource and the intrusive visual elements (primarily the
5 fence), and the more intervening visual elements between them, the less severe
6 of an impact. For example, construction of the fence at a distance of 60 feet from
7 a historic building would typically constitute a major adverse impact, while
8 construction of the fence several hundred feet from the resource with intervening
9 vegetation or buildings would reduce the impact to moderate or minor.
10 Placement of the fence within the boundaries of an NHL or historic district,
11 particularly where there is a high degree of visual continuity between resources
12 (few noncontributing elements) would also be considered a major adverse impact
13 on that resource.

14 Intrusions into the settings or viewshed of many of these resources would need
15 to be avoided, minimized, or mitigated depending on the extent and duration of
16 the impact.

17 With respect to the potential impacts on viewing of the phenomenon known as


18 the Marfa Lights, the primary element of the Proposed Action that has the
19 potential to negatively impact the viewer experience is lighting. CBP is working
20 with the University of Texas to identify lighting configurations that would minimize
21 the ambient glow of the lights onto the patrol road and fence, including use of
22 down-lights and shielding.

23 Viewer Response Concerns. In Section 3.12.1, the pool of potential viewers


24 was grouped into several general categories. As noted in that discussion, any
25 single viewer would have some responses to the alteration to the visual
26 resources in each land unit that are based on their own personal experiences
27 and ties to those resources, and other responses tied to more common
28 experiences (group sentiment).

29 In many respects, the principle of “not in my backyard” has a strong correlation


30 with the responses of viewers for whom view of the tactical infrastructure would
31 be regular or constant (i.e., residential, commercial, or industrial viewers). Where
32 the fence would directly impact private property, the viewer response from the
33 landowner is likely to be that it would represent a major adverse impact on visual
34 resources visible from their property. In the case of the properties in Presidio,
35 however, the use of a retaining wall and short guard rail on the back of the
36 existing levee might be considered less of an impact than the lighting used to
37 illuminate the patrol road. There is also a possibility that the viewer response in
38 this instance could be beneficial, based on a feeling of increased safety or
39 security (e.g., fence as protection). Responses from viewers located a greater
40 distance from the fence, particularly if their view of the fence is obstructed by
41 other elements or is simply part of the overall visual clutter, would typically be
42 less intense (minor) and more likely neutral, particularly in the case of Sections
43 L-1A and L-1B where the primary visual element will be a guard rail, unless the

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-77
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 fence obscures a visual resource considered to be of high quality or cultural


2 importance (e.g., a view of the Rio Grande in Section L-1). In general, the closer
3 the proximity of the viewer to the fence, the more likely the response is to be
4 major and adverse.

5 For viewers likely to observe the tactical infrastructure on a less regular basis
6 (i.e., recreational viewers, special interest viewers, intermittent viewers), viewer
7 responses would be tied to perception of how the tactical infrastructure has
8 altered their access (impede existing views or impede physical access to views)
9 to valued visual resources. Although any of these groups might object on
10 principal to any type of alteration or feel a beneficial response due to a sense of
11 increased security, responses would be more intense and adverse where
12 alterations downgrade the quality or character of existing visual resources.

13 As a final point, for viewers accustomed to accessing views available from the
14 levees or from settings other than parks or refuges, the construction of the fence
15 would place a permanent barrier between the viewer and the visual resources in
16 those locales. By presumption, any visual resource regularly sought out by a
17 viewer would constitute a moderate or high quality visual resource; and
18 restricting physical access to those resources would thus constitute a long-term
19 major adverse impact for those viewers.

20 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative


21 Project Characteristics. In addition to those physical characteristics already
22 noted for Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would involve addition of a second line of
23 fencing (permanent element, long-term impact) and remove a greater number of
24 existing visual elements due to the larger proposed project corridor. In general,
25 however, having two lines of fencing amplifies the overall visual impact of
26 Alternative 2, as does the larger proposed project corridor. Impacts related to the
27 physical characteristics of Alternative 3 are, therefore, likely to be major and
28 adverse compared to those of Alternative 2.

29 Visual Resource Concerns. Implementation of Alternative 3 would also amplify


30 the impacts on the character and quality of visual resources within each of the
31 land units compared to Alternative 2. The broader proposed project corridor and
32 additional line of fencing would have a greater visual contrast and a greater
33 chance of dominating the view in most settings, although one could argue that
34 parallel lines of fencing would potentially add more visual unity to some settings.
35 Long-term impacts on the visual environment associated with Alternative 3
36 (permanent construction elements) would range from neutral to adverse, and
37 moderate to major. Short-term impacts would also be more adverse and intense
38 (moderate to major) given that construction of a double fence and wider corridor
39 could take more time.

40 Viewer Response Concerns. Implementation of Alternative 3 would also


41 amplify viewer responses, in most cases changing minor or neutral responses to

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-78
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 moderate or major adverse responses. For the viewers with constant or close
2 proximity exposure, a double line of fencing and larger corridor would be
3 perceived as doubly intrusive. The proposed project corridor would intrude more
4 closely on many landowners, increase the number of viewers that would have
5 regular exposure, and would further complicate access to visual resources
6 behind the far line of fencing. For viewers with less regular exposure, Alternative
7 3 would still likely be perceived as having a greater impact than Alternative 2,
8 simply because it makes impacts on various visual resources more difficult to
9 avoid.

10 3.13 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND


11 PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
12 3.13.1 Definition of the Resource
13 Socioeconomics is defined as the basic attributes and resources associated with
14 the human environment, particularly characteristics of population and economic
15 activity. Socioeconomic data shown in this section are presented at census tract,
16 county, and state levels to characterize baseline socioeconomic conditions in the
17 context of regional and state trends. Census tracts are designed to be relatively
18 homogenous units with respect to population characteristics, economic status,
19 and living conditions at the time of establishment. Data have been collected from
20 previously published documents issued by Federal, state, and local agencies;
21 and from state and national databases (e.g., U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis’
22 Regional Economic Information System).

23 There are no Federal regulations specifically addressing socioeconomics;


24 however there are two EOs that are included in the socioeconomics analysis
25 because they relate to specific socioeconomic groups. On February 11, 1994,
26 President Clinton issued EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental
27 Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. This EO requires
28 that Federal agencies’ actions substantially affecting human health or the
29 environment do not exclude persons, deny persons benefits, or subject persons
30 to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin. The purpose of
31 the EO is to ensure the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people
32 regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the
33 development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
34 regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no groups of people,
35 including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportionate
36 share of the adverse environmental consequences resulting from industrial,
37 municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of Federal, state, tribal,
38 and local programs and policies. Consideration of environmental justice
39 concerns includes race, ethnicity, and the poverty status of populations in the
40 vicinity of a proposed action. Such information aids in evaluating whether a
41 proposed action would render vulnerable any of the groups targeted for
42 protection in the EO.

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-79
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 EO 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety


2 Risks, addresses the Federal policy of protection of children from exposure to
3 disproportionate environmental health and safety risks. This EO establishes that
4 each agency has a responsibility to ensure that its policies, programs, activities,
5 and standards address risk to children that result from environmental health risks
6 or safety risks.

7 3.13.2 Affected Environment


8 Socioeconomic Resources. The Proposed Action includes the construction,
9 operation and maintenance of tactical infrastructure along the U.S./Mexico
10 international border in Hudspeth County, Texas (Section L-1) and Presidio
11 County, Texas (Sections L-1A and L-1B). Section L-1 would occur in a
12 rural/undeveloped area approximately 16.5 miles southwest of Sierra Blanca,
13 Texas, while Sections L-1A and L-1B would occur within the vicinity of Presidio,
14 Texas, and adjacent to Ojinaga, Chihuahua, Mexico, which is characterized by
15 agricultural, residential, and commercial uses. The most current census tract
16 data are from Census 2000. Section L-1 is within Hudspeth County Census
17 Tract 9502, and Sections L-1A and L-1B are within Presidio County Census Tract
18 9502 (although numbered the same, these are different census tracts). For the
19 purposes of this project, Census Tracts 9502 in both counties are considered the
20 Region of Influence (ROI).

21 The largest employment type in Census Tract 9502 (Presidio County), Presidio
22 County, and Texas is educational, health, and social services (23.9, 22.0, and
23 19.3 percent, respectively) (see Table 3.13-1). The largest employment type in
24 Census Tract 9502 (Hudspeth County) is public administration; agriculture,
25 forestry, fishing, and hunting; retail trade; and educational, health, and social
26 services (U.S. Census Bureau 2002).

27 In 2006, Hudspeth and Presidio counties had unemployment rates of 7.4 percent
28 and 10.7 percent, respectively, compared to a 4.9 percent unemployment rate for
29 all of Texas (Fedstats 2007a, Fedstats 2007b). Table 3.13-2 shows
30 demographic data and economic indicators of the ROI, Hudspeth and Presidio
31 counties, and Texas.

32 The population of the City of Ojinaga is approximately 30,000; however, Presidio


33 is heavily influenced by Ojinaga and its economy (City of Presidio 2007).
34 Presidio’s population has been impacted by Mexican immigrants seeking
35 residency and citizenship in the United States. Similarly, Presidio’s economy
36 depends on sales geared toward a Mexican market created by the growing
37 population of immigrant and other Mexican nationals (City of Presidio 2007). The
38 Presidio POE which connects Ojinaga and Presidio is the only POE along 490
39 miles of Texas border between El Paso and Del Rio (TxDOT 2007).

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-80
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Table 3.13-1. Employment Type of Residents in Census Tracts,


2 Hudspeth and Presidio Counties, and the State of Texas (Percent)

Census Census
Tract Tract State
Economic and Social Hudspeth Presidio
9502 9502 of
Indicators County County
(Hudspeth (Presidio Texas
County) County)

Employed Persons in Armed


0.0 0.0 0.0 < 0.001 0.7
Forces
Employed Persons in Civilian Labor Force (By Industry)
Agriculture, forestry, fishing
10.5 18.0 11.2 11.4 2.7
and hunting, and mining
Construction 4.8 6.5 13.2 10.1 8.1
Manufacturing 0.6 10.3 2.1 3.4 11.8
Wholesale trade 8.2 3.8 3.5 3.7 3.9
Retail trade 12.7 8.1 12.0 10.4 12.0
Transportation and
1.4 6.6 3.6 5.5 5.8
warehousing, and utilities
Information 1.4 2.9 0.7 1.0 3.1
Finance, insurance, real
3.4 1.6 2.4 3.5 6.8
estate, and rental and leasing
Professional, scientific,
management, administrative,
2.3 1.9 2.5 3.2 9.5
and waste management
services
Educational, health and social
12.4 14.3 23.9 22.0 19.3
services
Arts, entertainment, recreation,
accommodation and food 11.9 6.3 9.9 9.4 7.3
services
Other services (except public
3.4 4.3 4.4 4.2 5.2
administration)
Public administration 27.1 15.5 10.6 12.3 4.5
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2002
Note: Census 2000 data are the most recent comprehensive employment data for the ROI.

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-81
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Table 3.13-2. Demographic and Economic Characteristics of the Census


2 Tracts, Hudspeth and Presidio Counties, and the State of Texas

Census Census
Tract Tract
Hudspeth Presidio
9502 9502 Texas
County County
(Hudspeth (Presidio
County) County)
Total Population 772 3,344 4,645 7,304 20,851,820
Percent White 87.8 87.2 81.9 85.0 71.0
Percent Black or African
0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 11.5
American
Percent American Indian
3.0 1.4 0.2 0.3 0.57
Alaska Native
Percent Asian 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 2.7
Percent Native Hawaiian
0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.07
and Other Pacific Islander
Percent “Some other
4.7 8.8 16.7 13.5 11.7
race”
Percent Reporting 2 or
4.4 2.1 1.0 0.9 2.5
more races
Percent Below Poverty 18.2 35.8 43.7 36.4 15.4
Per Capita Income $13,296 $9,549 $7,166 $9,558 $19,617
Median Household
$28,333 $21,045 $17,515 $19,860 $39,927
Income
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2002
Note: Census 2000 data are the most recent comprehensive economic and demographic data
for the ROI.

3 Environmental Justice, Protection of Children, and Safety. The affected


4 census tracts are considered to have a disproportionately high percentage of
5 low-income or minority residents under either of two conditions: (1) the
6 percentage of low-income or minority populations within each census tract is
7 greater than its perspective county’s minority percentage, or low-income
8 percentage, or (2) the percentage of persons in low-income or minority
9 populations within each census tract is greater than 50 percent.

10 Census tract 9502 in Presidio County has a higher percentage of minority and
11 low-income populations than the county (see Table 3.13-2). In addition, 43.7
12 percent of the residents in census tract 9502 (Presidio County) live below the
13 poverty line, as compared to 36.4 percent in the county and 15.4 percent in the
14 State of Texas. A larger proportion of residents living in Census Tract 9502
15 (Hudspeth County) also live below the poverty line compared to the statewide
16 average. Therefore, both census tracts will be evaluated further for
17 environmental justice impacts.
Preliminary Draft EA March 2008
3-82
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 3.13.3 Environmental Consequences


2 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
3 Alternative 1 would result in continuation of the existing baseline socioeconomic
4 conditions, as discussed in Section 3.13.1. Under this Alternative, illegal
5 immigration, narcotics trafficking, and opportunities for terrorists and terrorist
6 weapons to enter the United States would remain. Over time, the number of
7 crimes committed by smugglers and some cross-border violators would increase,
8 and an increase in property damage would also be expected. If Alternative 1
9 were implemented, short-term local employment benefits from the purchase of
10 construction materials and the temporary increase in construction jobs would not
11 occur. Furthermore, money from construction payrolls that would circulate within
12 the local economy would not be available.

13 Alternative 2: Proposed Action


14 Socioeconomic Resources. Short-term, minor, direct, beneficial effects would
15 be expected as a result of construction associated with Alternative 2. The
16 construction activities would occur over FY 2008. Some local materials and
17 supplies would be used, providing a minor beneficial impact on the local
18 economy through new jobs and increased local spending. For example, the
19 Presidio Cement Plant could benefit from supplying the project with cement to be
20 used during construction. As stated in Section 2.2.2, construction of the
21 proposed tactical infrastructure would require up to 75 workers consisting of one
22 fabrication crew (35 workers) and one installation crew (40 workers) completing 1
23 mile of tactical infrastructure per month. Based upon U.S. Census data, there are
24 73 and 227 construction workers in Hudspeth and Presidio counties,
25 respectively, which represents approximately 103 percent and 33 percent of the
26 number of workers required to construct the proposed tactical infrastructure in
27 Hudspeth and Presidio counties, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 2002). Due
28 to the limited number of construction workers in Hudspeth County, and to a
29 lesser degree in Presidio County, it would be necessary for workers from other
30 locations to participate in the construction activities. The temporary nature of the
31 construction (approximately 11 miles) and new employment (up to 75 workers)
32 associated with Alternative 2 would cause a temporary influx of construction
33 workers that would create a negligible increase in local population, and a minor,
34 indirect, beneficial effect on local businesses and the local economy.

35 In addition, long-term, minor, indirect beneficial effects could be expected as a


36 result of the presence of a primary pedestrian fence along Section L-1 where
37 grazing occurs, and along Sections L-1A and L-1B where agricultural operations
38 exist. The decrease of cross-border violators in this area would reduce the
39 occurrence of littering, trampled vegetation and crops, tampering of gates and
40 buildings, hurt or killed cattle, and stolen property, thereby improving the
41 economic outcome of the existing grazing and agricultural operations.

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-83
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Environmental Justice and Protection of Children. Some adverse


2 disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income populations could be
3 expected. Direct beneficial impacts on safety and the protection of children are
4 expected from the projected deterrence of cross-border violators, smugglers,
5 terrorists, and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, and therefore
6 providing for safer communities.

7 Property owners and residents would be adversely affected by restricted access


8 to the Rio Grande, visual impacts, noise and disruption during construction, and,
9 in some cases, loss of property. In several proposed locations along Sections
10 L−1A and L-1B in Presidio, the proposed tactical infrastructure would be located
11 on or immediately adjacent to private property. The affected properties could be
12 owned by minority or low-income residents. In cases where properties would be
13 acquired or substantially impaired, the adverse impact would be mitigated
14 through purchase of land at a fair value.

15 The proposed tactical infrastructure under Alternative 2 would have short- to


16 long-term direct beneficial impacts on children and safety in the surrounding
17 areas. The addition of tactical infrastructure could increase the safety of USBP
18 agents in the USBP Marfa Sector. In addition, this alternative would help to deter
19 cross-border violators in the immediate area, which in turn could prevent drug
20 smugglers, terrorists, and terrorist weapons from entering nearby neighborhoods.

21 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative


22 Socioeconomic Resources. Short-term, minor, direct, beneficial effects would
23 be expected as a result of the construction, operation, and maintenance of
24 Alternative 3. The potential effects of Alternative 3 on socioeconomic indicators
25 are expected to be similar to Alternative 2; however the effects on the local
26 economy would be slightly greater due to the construction of two layers of
27 primary pedestrian fence rather than one. Furthermore, two layers of fence
28 would be more effective in preventing illegal entry into the United States, thereby
29 decreasing the potential for degradation to grazing and agricultural operations in
30 the area.

31 Environmental Justice. Impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar to those


32 discussed for Alternative 2. Direct beneficial impacts on safety and the
33 protection of children would be expected as Alternative 3 would be designed with
34 two layers of primary pedestrian fence along each section. The additional layer
35 of fencing would deter drug smugglers, terrorists, and cross-border violators, and
36 therefore provide for a generally safer area. Environmental justice issues would
37 be slightly greater for Alternative 3 than for Alternative 2. Alternative 3 has a
38 wider corridor and a more intrusive visual presence affecting any potential low-
39 income, minority residents who live adjacent to the proposed infrastructure.

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-84
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 3.14 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE


2 3.14.1 Definition of the Resource
3 Infrastructure consists of the systems and physical structures that enable a
4 population in a specified area to function. Infrastructure is wholly human-made,
5 with a high correlation between the type and extent of infrastructure and the
6 degree to which an area is characterized as “urban” or developed. The
7 availability of infrastructure and its capacity to support growth are generally
8 regarded as essential to the economic growth of an area.

9 3.14.2 Affected Environment


10 Section L-1. The area surrounding Neely’s Crossing at the Sierra Blanca patrol
11 station is in an unpopulated area in southwestern Hudspeth County, Texas. No
12 known underground utilities exist in the area. Information provided by the
13 USACE indicated one pump for a private landowner, and water access right
14 issues for cattle ranching known to exist in the area. The project corridor would
15 be located on USIBWC lands (CBP 2007). The Hudspeth County Water Control
16 and Improvement District does not supply water outside the city limits of Sierra
17 Blanca (Marquez 2007). Therefore, it is assumed that water is supplied by wells
18 and from surface waters from the Rio Grande.

19 Sections L-1A and L-1B. The area surrounding each side of the Presidio POE
20 is in an urban area of Presidio County, Texas. The project corridor would be
21 located on both USIBWC and private lands.

22 Utilities. Electrical power for Presidio, Texas, and the surrounding area is
23 provided through aboveground utility lines. Field photographs show utility lines
24 run between Presidio, Texas, and Ojinaga, Mexico, within the project corridor.

25 Solid Waste Management. Solid waste management primarily relates to the


26 availability of landfills to support a population’s residential, commercial, and
27 industrial needs. Alternative means of waste disposal might involve waste-to-
28 energy programs or incineration. In some localities, landfills are designed
29 specifically for, and limited to, disposal of construction and demolition debris.
30 Recycling programs for various waste categories (e.g., glass, metals, papers,
31 asphalt, and concrete) reduce reliance on landfills for disposal.

32 According to TCEQ, there are three active landfills in Hudspeth County, and five
33 active landfills in Presidio County. In Hudspeth County, the closest landfill is in
34 Sierra Blanca. The City of Presidio operates the closest landfill to the project
35 corridor in Presidio County. Both landfills are permitted to accept arid-exempt
36 municipal solid waste (TCEQ 2007).

37 Water Supply Systems. The principal source of water for irrigation and
38 municipal water in the project corridor is the Rio Grande. There are several

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-85
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 private water pumps within the project corridor and water access could become
2 an issue for some private landowners (CBP 2007). No underground utilities are
3 known to exist in the proposed project corridor, and no outfalls were seen during
4 site visits.

5 Municipal Sanitary Sewer Systems. Municipal water and Sanitary Sewer


6 Systems along the Rio Grande Valley take raw water from the water distribution
7 networks of irrigation districts. Some municipal sanitary sewer systems in the
8 proposed project corridor discharge into the Rio Grande. However, no known
9 municipal sanitary sewer infrastructure is within the proposed project corridor.

10 3.14.3 Environmental Consequences


11 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
12 Under the No Action Alternative, no impact on utilities and infrastructure would be
13 expected because the tactical infrastructure would not be built and therefore
14 there is no potential for impacts on utilities and infrastructure as a result of the
15 Proposed Action.

16 Alternative 2: Proposed Action


17 Waste Supply Systems. No adverse impacts on the Marfa Sector irrigation and
18 municipal water supply systems would be expected since the proposed project
19 corridor is not located near irrigation and municipal water supply infrastructure.
20 Private water supply infrastructure would be identified prior to construction, and
21 impacts on these systems would be avoided to the maximum extent practical.
22 Temporary interruptions in irrigation might be experienced when this
23 infrastructure is moved. No long-term impacts would be expected.

24 Drainage Systems. No adverse impacts on irrigation and storm water drainage


25 systems would be expected. Adherence to proper engineering practices, and
26 applicable codes and ordinances would reduce storm water runoff-related
27 impacts. In addition, erosion and sedimentation BMPs would be in place during
28 construction to reduce and control siltation or erosion impacts on areas outside of
29 the construction site. Storm water drainages would be identified prior to
30 construction and impacts on these systems would be minimal.

31 Municipal Sanitary Sewer Systems. No adverse impacts on municipal sanitary


32 systems would be expected. There is no known infrastructure in the proposed
33 project corridor. Should infrastructure be identified prior to construction, impacts
34 on these systems would be avoided to the maximum extent practical. Any outfall
35 pipes that would be affected by the proposed construction would be moved. No
36 long-term impacts would be expected.

37 Solid Waste Management. Short-term minor adverse impacts on solid waste


38 management would be expected. Solid waste generated from the proposed

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-86
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 construction activities would consist of building materials such as concrete and


2 metals (conduit and piping). The contractor would recycle construction materials
3 to the greatest extent practical. Nonrecyclable construction debris would be
4 taken to one or more of the Hudspeth or Presidio county landfills permitted to
5 take this type of waste. Solid waste generated associated with the Proposed
6 Action would be expected to be negligible compared to the solid waste currently
7 generated in these areas, and would not exceed the capacity of any landfill.

8 Electrical and Natural Gas Systems. No adverse impacts on the electrical and
9 natural gas systems would be expected. All electrical and natural gas
10 infrastructure would be identified prior to construction and impacts on these
11 systems would be avoided to the maximum extent practical. Any electrical
12 transmission or natural gas distribution lines impacted by construction would be
13 moved. Temporary interruptions in electrical power transmission and natural gas
14 distribution could be experienced when this infrastructure is moved. No long-
15 term impacts would be expected.

16 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative


17 The potential impacts of Alternative 3 on infrastructure and utilities are expected
18 to be similar to the potential impacts of Alternative 2. However, the proposed
19 project corridor for Alternative 3 is 2.5 times wider. The construction of two
20 fences would generate more solid waste from construction debris than the
21 construction of one fence under Alternative 2.

22 3.15 ROADWAYS AND TRAFFIC


23 3.15.1 Definition of the Resource
24 Roadways and traffic consists of the transportation systems and physical
25 structures that enable a population to move through and within a specified area.
26 Similar to non-transportation infrastructure, the availability of transportation
27 infrastructure and its capacity to support growth are generally regarded as
28 essential to the economic growth of an area.

29 3.15.2 Affected Environment


30 The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), in cooperation with local and
31 regional officials, is responsible for planning, designing, building, operating, and
32 maintaining the state’s transportation system. CBP intends to use existing
33 roadways to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed infrastructure
34 sections. Unimproved surfaces would be built up as necessary to accommodate
35 construction equipment.

36 Section L-1 would be situated southwest of Sierra Blanca, Texas. There are two
37 primary roads leading to the proposed project corridor: FM 192 and FM 111. FM
38 192 crosses I-10 between McNary, Texas, and Esperanza, Texas. Traveling

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-87
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 west to the project location from I-10, FM 192 traverses the towns of Ninety,
2 Esperanza, and Fort Quitman. FM 111 crosses I-10 in the City of Sierra Blanca,
3 Texas. From I-10 to the project location, FM 111 travels south and west where it
4 eventually splits into Quitman Canyon Pass Road and Red Light Draw Road.
5 Quitman Canyon continues southwest to the proposed project corridor. There
6 are no roads crossed by FM 111 from Sierra Blanca, Texas, to the proposed
7 project corridor (Texas Atlas and Gazetteer 2003). Dirt roads and jeep trails also
8 occur along the project corridor.

9 Sections L-1B and L-1A would be situated on either side of the Rio Grande East
10 POE west of Presidio, Texas. Presidio is accessed from the north by U.S. Route
11 67, from Marfa, Texas. State Route 310 divides from U.S. Route 67 directly to
12 Presidio and then meets again south of Presidio just before the U.S./Mexico
13 international border where the name changes to MEX 16. FM 170 travels along
14 the U.S./Mexico international border from Presidio, Texas, northwest to the
15 proposed project corridor through the town of La Junta, Texas. The South Orient
16 Railroad Company operates the railroad. The line runs from the north to the
17 U.S./Mexico international border (Texas Atlas and Gazetteer 2003, TTMCRO
18 undated). Dirt roads and jeep trails also occur along the project corridor.

19 3.15.3 Environmental Consequences


20 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
21 Under Alternative 1, there would be no effect on roadways or traffic.

22 Alternative 2: Proposed Action


23 Short-term minor adverse impacts would be expected from the temporary
24 increases in traffic volume associated with proposed construction activities.
25 Heavy vehicles are frequently driven on local transportation systems. Therefore,
26 the vehicles necessary for construction would not be expected to adversely
27 impact local transportation systems. No road or lane closures would be
28 anticipated. However, if roadways or lanes are required to be closed, CBP would
29 coordinate with TxDOT and local municipalities.

30 No long-term adverse impacts on transportation systems would be expected.


31 The proposed construction would require delivery of materials to and removal of
32 debris from the construction sites. Construction traffic would make up a small
33 percentage of the total existing traffic and many of the vehicles would be driven
34 to and kept onsite for the duration of construction activities, resulting in relatively
35 few additional trips.

36 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative


37 The potential effects of Alternative 3 on roadways and traffic would be expected
38 to be similar to Alternative 2. However, the duration of construction traffic would

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-88
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 be longer due to the construction of two layers of primary pedestrian fence rather
2 than one.

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-89
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


3-90
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 4. CUMULATIVE AND OTHER IMPACTS

2 CEQ defines cumulative impacts as the “impacts on the environment that result
3 from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and
4 reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or
5 non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7).
6 Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant
7 actions taking place over a period of time by various agencies (Federal, state,
8 and local) or individuals. Informed decisionmaking is served by consideration of
9 cumulative impacts resulting from projects that are proposed, under construction,
10 recently completed, or anticipated to be implemented in the reasonably
11 foreseeable future.

12 This cumulative impacts analysis summarizes expected environmental effects


13 from the combined impacts of past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future
14 projects in accordance with CEQ regulations implementing NEPA and CEQ
15 guidance on cumulative effects (CEQ 1997, 2005). The geographic scope of the
16 analysis varies by resource area. For example, the geographic scope of
17 cumulative impacts on resources such as noise, visual resources, soils, and
18 vegetation is very narrow and focused on the location of the resource. The
19 geographic scope of air quality, wildlife and sensitive species, and
20 socioeconomics is much broader and considers more county- or region-wide
21 activities. Projects that were considered for this analysis were identified by
22 reviewing CBP documents, news releases, and published media reports, and
23 through consultation with planning and engineering departments of local
24 governments, and state and Federal agencies. Projects that do not occur in
25 close proximity (i.e., within several miles) to the proposed infrastructure would
26 not contribute to a cumulative impact and are generally not evaluated further.

27 Cumulative Fencing, Southern Border. There are currently 62 miles of landing


28 mat fence at various locations along the U.S./Mexico international border (CRS
29 2006); 14 miles of single, double, and triple fence in San Diego, California; 70
30 miles of new primary pedestrian fence approved and currently under construction
31 at various locations along the U.S./Mexico international border; and fences at
32 POE facilities throughout the southern border. In addition, 225 miles of proposed
33 new fence (including the 11 miles proposed under the action considered in this
34 EA) are being studied for Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

35 Past Actions. Past actions are those within the cumulative effects analysis
36 areas that have occurred prior to the development of this EA. Past actions have
37 shaped the current environmental conditions around the Proposed Action.
38 Therefore, the effects of these past actions are now part of the existing
39 environment, and are generally included in the affected environment described in
40 Section 3. For example, development of Presidio has altered the natural
41 environment.

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


4-1
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Present Actions. Present actions include current or funded construction


2 projects, USBP or other agency operations in close proximity to the proposed
3 fence locations, and current resource management programs and land use
4 activities within the affected areas. Ongoing actions considered in the cumulative
5 effects analysis include the following:

6 • Texas Department of Transportation. TxDOT has one ongoing road


7 transportation system project in the vicinity of the Proposed Action. The
8 area of impacts would tend to be low, as the majority of any potential work
9 would be within existing ROW. The project is the La Entrada al Pacifico
10 Corridor Feasibility Study. This corridor was designated a High Priority
11 Corridor on the National Highway System by the Safe, Accountable,
12 Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act. It is an international project
13 between Mexico and the United States that designates a trade route,
14 thereby increasing the efficiency of transportation of goods and people
15 from the Port of Topolobampo in Sinaloa, Mexico, to Midland-Odessa,
16 Texas. The goal of the feasibility study is to determine the most efficient
17 location for the potential route. The currently proposed corridor would
18 utilize the Presidio POE at the U.S./Mexico international border, and follow
19 U.S. Highway 67 through Presidio, Texas. A Corridor Development Plan
20 is expected to be completed in March 2008 (NADB 2007).

21 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future


22 actions consist of activities that have been proposed or approved and can be
23 evaluated with respect to their effects. The following are reasonably foreseeable
24 future actions that are related to securing the southern international border:

25 • SBInet is a comprehensive program focused on transforming border


26 control through technology and infrastructure. The goal of the program is
27 to field the most effective proven technology, infrastructure, staffing, and
28 response platforms, and integrate them into a single comprehensive
29 border security suite for DHS. Potential future SBInet projects include
30 deployment of sensor technology, communications equipment, command
31 and control equipment, fencing, barriers capable of stopping a vehicle,
32 and any required road or components such as lighting and all-weather
33 access roads (Boeing 2007). Within the next 2 years, 225 miles of
34 primary fence are proposed for construction (including the 11 miles
35 proposed in this EA). The first phase of construction would occur in areas
36 that have already been developed (e.g., currently contains permanent
37 vehicle barriers or temporary vehicle barriers) and, thus, little or no
38 additional environmental impacts would be expected. The second phase
39 of construction would generally occur in more remote areas.
40 • North American Development Bank (NADB). The NADB is funding
41 several projects in Ojinaga, Chihuahua, Mexico, which is south of the City
42 of Presidio, Texas, across the Rio Grande (NADB 2007), including:
43 Improvements to the Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems and

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


4-2
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Construction of a Wastewater Treatment Plant. Construction of a


2 wastewater treatment plant and force main were completed in October
3 2006. Construction of one collector is underway, and bidding for
4 additional sewer works is expected to begin in the first quarter of 2008.
5 The improved collection/treatment system will reduce the contamination of
6 local aquifers and land, and ensure that the effluent discharged into the
7 Rio Grande complies with established environmental standards. The
8 construction of this project will overlap temporally with that of the
9 Proposed Action.
10 • South Orient Rail Line. The South Orient line is one of only seven rail
11 gateways between the United States and Mexico, and crosses the
12 U.S./Mexico international border at the City of Presidio. The 391-mile-long
13 line has not had significant rehabilitation since the early 1980s, and has
14 only seen limited use since July 1998 when regular operations over the
15 western end of the line were allowed to be discontinued by the Surface
16 Transportation Board. However, this line is currently being operated by
17 Texas Pacifico Transportation Limited (TXPF), and limited operations over
18 the border at Presidio resumed in March 2005. Increased traffic over the
19 line would contribute to the rapid deterioration of the infrastructure, and a
20 substantial rehabilitation program is necessary to sustain operations along
21 the entire line. TXPF has begun the rehabilitation of the line to improve
22 service and begin operations to the border, with an initial rehabilitation
23 expenditure of roughly $9 million (TxDOT 2005).

24 Cumulative Analysis by Resource Area. This section presents the resource-


25 specific impacts related to the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions
26 discussed above. Only those actions that are additive to the potential impacts
27 associated with the Proposed Action are considered. Table 4.0-1 presents the
28 cumulative effects by resource area that might occur from implementation of the
29 Proposed Action when combined with other past, present, and future activities
30 that are discussed in more detail below.

31 4.1 AIR QUALITY


32 Minor, short-term, adverse cumulative impacts on air quality are expected from
33 the construction of proposed tactical infrastructure in combination with other
34 reasonably foreseeable future actions. As discussed in Section 3.1.2, emissions
35 from construction, operation, and maintenance activities would not contribute to
36 or affect local or regional attainment status with the NAAQS, and would be below
37 thresholds established by the USEPA for CAA cumulative impacts analysis.
38 Construction equipment would temporarily increase fugitive dust and operation
39 emissions from combustion fuel sources. Since there would be no substantive
40 change in USBP operations, emissions from vehicles would remain constant and
41 there would be no cumulative impact on air quality.

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


4-3
Preliminary Draft EA

Table 4.0-1. Summary of Potential Cumulative Effects

Current
Known Future Cumulative
Resource Past Actions Background Proposed Action
Actions Effects
Activities
Air Quality Attainment criteria Existing emissions Fugitive dust and Existing emission Continued
for all criteria sources continue to combustion sources continue attainment.
pollutants. adversely affect emissions generated to adversely affect
regional air quality. during construction. regional air quality.
No new major
sources identified
in Marfa Sector.
Noise Commercial and Commercial and Short-term noise from Commercial and Existing sources
residential residential construction residential would be the
development, development, equipment and development near dominant noise
vehicles dominate vehicles dominate increased traffic. Presidio source. Negligible
4-4

ambient noise near ambient noise near contributes to cumulative

Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure


urban areas. urban areas. ambient noise. impacts.
Land Use Some agricultural Minor development CBP purchase of land La Entrada al Minor contribution
lands impacted by of open and or easements to Pacifico Corridor to change in
development. agricultural lands. construct tactical might stimulate natural and
infrastructure. development and agricultural land
Natural areas alter land use. use.
developed for tactical Development
infrastructure. permanently alters
natural areas and
agricultural lands.
March 2008
Preliminary Draft EA

Current
Known Future Cumulative
Resource Past Actions Background Proposed Action
Actions Effects
Activities
Geology and Soils Installation of Installation of Minor grading and Continued cross- Minor long-term
infrastructure and infrastructure; recontouring would border violator’s impact from
other features. continued cross- disturb soils; activities adversely construction of
border violators installation of fence affect soils. additional
activities adversely might affect geology. Installation of infrastructure.
affect soils. infrastructure near
Presidio.
Hydrology and Degradation of Continued None. Improvements to None.
Groundwater aquifers to degradation of the wastewater
historical pollution. aquifers from collection system
pollution. should reduce
current adverse
impacts on water
4-5

quality.

Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure


Surface Water and Point and nonpoint Point and nonpoint Construction erosion Improvements to Moderate impacts
Waters of the discharges discharges including and sediment runoff, the wastewater from construction
United States including wastewater potential oil spills and collection system activities, including
wastewater treatment effluent, leaks. Removal of should reduce potential impacts
treatment effluent, agricultural runoff, wetland vegetation, current adverse on wetlands.
agricultural runoff, and storm water fill of wetlands, and impacts on water Minor short-term
and storm water have impacted water temporary quality. Continued impacts from
have impacted quality. degradation of water development could erosion. Mitigation
water quality. quality. adversely affect of wetlands and
Removal of surface waters construction BMPs
wetland vegetation from erosion and should reduce
and fill of waters of sedimentation. impacts to
March 2008

the United States, insignificant levels.


including wetlands.
Preliminary Draft EA

Current
Known Future Cumulative
Resource Past Actions Background Proposed Action
Actions Effects
Activities
Floodplains Permanently Various storm water Adverse impacts due New development Minor contribution
altered by and floodplain to installation of could add to cumulative
development and management tactical infrastructure impervious areas impacts from
safety features practices when in floodplain. and alter peak flow construction of
such as levees and activities are or floodplain tactical
dams. proposed in or near capacity during infrastructure in
floodplains. high-volume storm floodplain.
events.
Vegetation Degraded historic Continued minor Minor loss of native Development Minor contribution
Resources habitat of sensitive urbanization results species and habitat. causes minor loss to adverse impacts
and common in loss of native of native species on native habitats
wildlife species. species. and habitat. and vegetation.
Wildlife and Urbanization and Minor loss of green Minor loss of green Loss of green Minor loss of
4-6

Aquatic loss of green corridor for wildlife. corridor and water corridor for wildlife. green corridor and

Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure


Resources corridors impacted access for wildlife. water access for
habitat and food wildlife.
sources.
Threatened and Degraded water Urbanization and No direct adverse Development Current and future
Endangered quality and agricultural impact expected. reduces suitable activities would
Species urbanization development Minor loss of habitat. habitat for continue to delete
impacted sensitive degraded habitat for sensitive species green corridor and
species. sensitive species. and degrades water access for
water quality. wildlife.
March 2008
Preliminary Draft EA

Current
Known Future Cumulative
Resource Past Actions Background Proposed Action
Actions Effects
Activities
Cultural, Historic, Development and Development and Moderate to major Continued Moderate to major
and infrastructure infrastructure long-term adverse development and long-term adverse
Archaeological improvements improvements impacts on cultural infrastructure impacts on cultural
Resources adversely affected adversely affect resources. improvements resources.
cultural resources. cultural resources. adversely affect
cultural resources.
Aesthetics and Past development Development of Constant static visual Constant static Minor to moderate
Visual Resources affected natural natural areas for interruption at fixed visual interruption long-term impacts
viewshed. community and points. at fixed points. from permanent
industry infrastructure.
infrastructure.
Socioeconomics, Commercial and Commercial and Minor, short-term Infrastructure Minor stimulation
Environmental residential residential contribution to local development to of local economy
4-7

Justice, and development development around construction industry. support future from construction

Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure


Protection of around Presidio Presidio. commercial and activities. No
Children affected local residential adverse impact on
economies. development environmental
around Presidio. justice, children, or
human health and
safety.
Utilities and Historical Utilities and Minor short-term Continued None.
Infrastructure development and infrastructure have adverse impacts on development and
maintenance of been upgraded as local utilities and maintenance of
utilities and necessary. infrastructure during utilities and
infrastructure in construction. infrastructure in
area. area.
March 2008
Preliminary Draft EA

Current
Known Future Cumulative
Resource Past Actions Background Proposed Action
Actions Effects
Activities
Roadways and Construction and Roadways have Minor short-term Continued None.
Traffic maintenance of been upgraded as adverse impacts on development and
roadways in area. necessary. traffic during maintenance of
construction roadways in area.
4-8

Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure


March 2008
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 4.2 NOISE
2 Minor cumulative impacts on ambient noise are expected from the additive
3 impacts of construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure and
4 anticipated development activities and infrastructure improvement projects that
5 would occur near the proposed project corridor. Noise intensity and duration
6 from construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure would be
7 similar to construction activities from other development, or road construction and
8 maintenance. Because noise attenuates over distance, a gradual decrease in
9 noise levels occurs the further a receptor is away from the source of noise.
10 Construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure would be
11 distant from other substantial noise-generating activities in urban areas in
12 Presidio. Increased noise from construction of tactical infrastructure could
13 combine with existing noise sources or other construction activities to produce a
14 temporary cumulative impact on sensitive noise receptors. Construction noise
15 would not be louder, but might be heard over a greater distance or over a longer
16 time period.

17 4.3 LAND USE


18 Construction of tactical infrastructure would result in minor changes to land use.
19 Recent activities that have most affected land use near the proposed tactical
20 infrastructure are development of agricultural and open lands in the Presidio
21 area. Minor cumulative impacts on land use are expected from the additive
22 effects of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, but
23 changes in local land use would continue to be dominated by development in
24 Presidio. For example, the designation of the La Entrada al Pacifico corridor
25 could spur additional development in Presidio. Residential areas and agricultural
26 lands would be displaced by the Proposed Action. Future development of
27 residential areas would further alter the current land use.

28 4.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS


29 Additive effects include minor changes in topography due to grading, contouring,
30 and trenching; minor soil disturbance; and a minor increase in erosion.
31 Construction of the tactical infrastructure would not be in close proximity to other
32 development and would not interact to cumulatively affect geological resources,
33 including soils. However, each present or reasonably foreseeable future action
34 identified has the potential for temporary erosion from construction activities.

35 4.5 HYDROLOGY AND GROUNDWATER


36 Minor impacts on hydrology and groundwater would occur from the construction
37 of tactical infrastructure when combined with other past, present, and reasonably
38 foreseeable future actions due to increased erosion and stream sedimentation.

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


4-9
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 4.6 SURFACE WATERS AND WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES


2 Minor impacts on surface water and waters of the United States could occur from
3 increased erosion and stream sedimentation. Disturbance from construction and
4 operation of the tactical infrastructure along with other development activities
5 have the potential for additional erosion and stream sedimentation and adverse
6 cumulative effects. However, as discussed in Section 3.6.2, a Texas
7 Construction General Permit would be obtained to include a SWPPP and
8 sediment control and storm water BMPs to minimize potential impacts. Past
9 actions, including sewage, agricultural runoff, and industrial discharges have
10 generally degraded the quality of water in the upper Rio Grande and have
11 resulted in long-term direct moderate impacts on water quality. The Rio Grande
12 is a CWA Section 303(d) impaired water. Upgrades to existing wastewater
13 facilities and construction of new facilities in Ojinaga, Mexico, could produce a
14 moderate beneficial effect on water quality of the Rio Grande.

15 Wetland losses in the United States have resulted from draining, dredging, filling,
16 leveling, and flooding for urban, agricultural, and residential development.
17 According to the NWI database, there is no wetland information available for the
18 proposed project corridor for any of the three fence sections. However, due to
19 the proximity of the Rio Grande and the identification of irrigation and drainage
20 canals on the topographic quads for these areas, wetlands might be present
21 within all three sections of the proposed project corridor. Areas of potential
22 wetlands or other waters of the United States will be identified during field
23 surveys. If wetlands are identified in the proposed project corridor, effects would
24 be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. CBP would obtain CWA Section
25 404 permits and mitigate the loss of wetlands. The cumulative impacts on
26 wetlands would be long-term and moderate.

27 4.7 FLOODPLAINS
28 Floodplain resources can be adversely impacted by development, increases in
29 impervious areas, loss of vegetation, changes in hydrology, and soil compaction.
30 Construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure has the
31 potential for minor impacts on floodplains from further loss of vegetation, soil
32 compaction on access roads and patrol roads, and the placement of structures in
33 the floodplains. Floodplains were previously impacted by the construction of the
34 levee system which controls the flow of water over low-lying areas. When added
35 to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, impacts from
36 the new tactical infrastructure would be minor due to the relatively small impact
37 within floodplains. As discussed in Sections 1.5 and 3.7, CBP would follow the
38 FEMA process to floodproof the structures and minimize adverse impacts on
39 floodplain resources.

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


4-10
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 4.8 VEGETATIVE RESOURCES


2 Minor impacts on native species vegetation and habitat are expected from the
3 additive effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
4 There has not been much development in the vicinity of the Proposed Action in
5 the past and there are very few existing or future projects planned. However,
6 Presidio has likely seen minor urbanization development, which has directly
7 reduced habitat for sensitive flora species. Indirect impacts from urbanization
8 include changes in floodways, water quality, and the introduction of nonnative
9 species.

10 Minor development of land for urban use in the Presidio area would continue at
11 an unknown pace resulting in the loss of some farmland and of wildlife habitat.
12 Construction of tactical infrastructure would contribute to this development issue.
13 Water rights issues could become important and affect agricultural and urban
14 acreages and planning efforts.

15 4.9 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES


16 Minor impacts on wildlife and species are expected from the additive effects of
17 the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Some urbanization
18 of the Presidio area has effectively reduced green corridor and water access for
19 wildlife. Cumulative impacts would mainly result from loss of habitat as
20 described in Section 4.8, habitat disturbance and degradation, construction
21 traffic, and permanent loss of green corridors. Displaced wildlife would move to
22 adjacent habitat if sufficient habitat exists. Because the development in the
23 Presidio area could increase due to the designation of a trade route, the amount
24 of potentially suitable habit could continue to decrease, producing a long-term,
25 minor to major adverse cumulative effect. Wildlife could also be adversely
26 impacted by noise during construction, operational lighting, and loss of potential
27 prey species. Species could also be impacted by equipment spills and leaks.
28 The permanent lighting could have minor, adverse cumulative impacts on
29 migration, dispersal, and foraging activities of nocturnal species.

30 4.10 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES


31 As discussed in Section 3.10, CBP conducted Section 7 preconsultation
32 coordination with the USFWS regarding potential impacts on listed species or
33 designated critical habitat. Due to the lack of suitable habitat within the proposed
34 project corridor, the Proposed Action would have no cumulative effect to federally
35 listed species in Hudspeth or Presidio counties. A Listed Species/Habitat No
36 Effect Determination is included in Appendix H.

37 Cumulative, adverse impacts on migratory birds could be substantial due to the


38 potential timing of fence construction. Implementation of BMPs presented in
39 Section 3.10 could reduce their intensity. However, past loss of habitat

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


4-11
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 combined with potential construction has the potential for long-term, major,
2 adverse cumulative impacts.

3 4.11 CULTURAL, HISTORIC, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES


4 Moderate to major adverse, long-term impacts on cultural resources are
5 expected from the additive effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
6 future actions. Past, current, and future development; improvements to
7 infrastructure such as highway and irrigation projects; and the clearing of land for
8 other development projects in the Presidio area have caused impacts on cultural
9 resources and can be expected to continue to do so. Cumulative effects on
10 historic properties are expected to be moderate to major, adverse, and long-term.

11 In compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, cultural resources surveys are
12 underway to identify and evaluate properties listed in or eligible for listing in the
13 NRHP that might be affected by the proposed tactical infrastructure.
14 Consultation with Native American tribes would ensure that properties of religious
15 and cultural significance to the tribes are addressed. It is anticipated that
16 additional properties to be determined as eligible for listing in the NRHP will be
17 identified that would be affected. Known historic properties would also be
18 affected.

19 Impacts on cultural resources (including resources potentially eligible for


20 inclusion in the NRHP) would be avoided, minimized, or reduced through careful
21 planning, siting, and design of the proposed tactical infrastructure and
22 development of special measures. In other cases, special designs could be
23 developed to reduce effects on historic properties. The integrity of areas that
24 might have significant archaeological resources and be potentially affected by the
25 proposed infrastructure would be studied. Additional archaeological resources
26 are expected to be identified.

27 4.12 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES


28 Minor to moderate impacts on aesthetics and visual resources are expected from
29 the additive effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
30 The presence of construction equipment would produce a short-term adverse
31 impact on visual resources. Once installed, the tactical infrastructure would
32 create a permanent and fixed visual interruption at fixed points. Adverse
33 cumulative effects could include temporary construction impacts and the
34 introduction of light poles and increased night illumination during and after
35 construction. Other development in Presidio would introduce night illumination
36 into previously open or agricultural lands. Recreational activities such as star-
37 gazing would be adversely affected by this cumulative impact in night
38 illumination.

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


4-12
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 4.13 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND


2 PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
3 Short-term beneficial impacts on local and regional socioeconomic resources are
4 expected from the additive effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
5 future actions. Economic benefits would be realized by construction companies,
6 their employers and suppliers, and by Hudspeth and Presidio counties through a
7 minor increase in tax receipts for the purchase of goods and services.
8 Construction of tactical infrastructure has the potential for beneficial effects from
9 temporary increases in construction jobs and the purchase of goods and services
10 in Hudspeth and Presidio counties. Approximately 315 workers are employed in
11 the construction industry in the two counties, and an increase of 75 construction
12 jobs would represent 25 percent of construction jobs, so the cumulative effect
13 could be moderate. However, since the construction jobs would be temporary,
14 negligible cumulative effects on population growth, income, or other services
15 would be expected.

16 The conversion of 78.1 acres to support tactical infrastructure is a minimal


17 cumulative effect because most of the land is publicly-owned by the USIBWC.
18 The USIBWC-owned land does not support any active land uses and has
19 restrictions on any development occurring within the USIBWC ROW.

20 The cumulative impacts of USBP activities to reduce the flow of illegal drugs,
21 terrorists, and terrorist weapons into the United States and the concomitant
22 effects upon the Nation’s health and economy, drug-related crimes, community
23 cohesion, property values, and traditional family values would be long-term and
24 beneficial, both nationally and locally. Residents of the border towns would
25 benefit from increased security, a reduction in illegal drug-smuggling activities
26 and the number of violent crimes, less damage to and loss of personal property,
27 and less financial burden for entitlement programs. This would be accompanied
28 by the concomitant benefits of reduced enforcement and insurance costs. There
29 could be an adverse cumulative effect on agriculture and other employers of low-
30 income workers if the labor pool of illegal aliens was substantially reduced.
31 Operation and maintenance of the tactical infrastructure has little potential for
32 cumulative impacts on socioeconomic resources.

33 As discussed in Section 3.3, some tactical infrastructure would be constructed


34 on or adjacent to private property. At several proposed locations along Sections
35 L-1, L-1A, and L-1B the proposed tactical infrastructure would encroach on
36 privately-owned land. Census tract 9502 in Presidio County, which
37 encompasses Sections L-1A and L-1B, has a higher portion of minority and low-
38 income residents. However, the number of potential minority and low-income
39 residents in close proximity to the proposed project corridor that would be
40 affected would be low. Therefore, while Census Tract 9502 in Presidio County
41 does have disproportionately higher minority and low-income residents, all
42 residents along the construction corridor would be equally impacted (no

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


4-13
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 disproportionate impacts). The number of residents that could be affected by the


2 Proposed Action could be small, and the overall effects of the proposed tactical
3 infrastructure on these populations would be minor.

4 4.14 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE


5 The construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure would
6 have minimal demand for utilities and infrastructure, combining to produce a
7 minimal adverse cumulative impact.

8 4.15 ROADWAYS AND TRAFFIC


9 Minor impacts on roadways and traffic are expected from the additive effects of
10 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

11 4.16 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF


12 RESOURCES
13 An irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources refers to impacts on or
14 losses to resources that cannot be reversed or recovered, even after an activity
15 has ended and facilities have been decommissioned. A commitment of
16 resources is related to use or destruction of nonrenewable resources, and effects
17 that loss will have on future generations. For example, if prime farmland is
18 developed there would be a permanent loss of agricultural productivity.
19 Construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure involves the
20 irreversible and irretrievable commitment of material resources and energy, land
21 and wetland resources, biological resources, and human resources. The impacts
22 on these resources would be permanent.

23 Material Resources. Material resources irretrievably utilized for the Proposed


24 Action include steel, concrete, and other building materials (for construction of
25 fence). Such materials are not in short supply, would not limit other unrelated
26 construction activities, and their irretrievable use would not be considered
27 significant.

28 Energy Resources. Energy resources utilized for the Proposed Action would be
29 irretrievably lost. These include petroleum-based products (e.g., gasoline and
30 diesel) and electricity. During construction, gasoline and diesel would be used
31 for the operation of construction vehicles. USBP operations would not change
32 and the amount of fuel used to operate government-owned vehicles might
33 decrease slightly due to increased operational efficiencies. Consumption of
34 these energy resources would not place a significant demand on their availability
35 in the region. Therefore, no significant impacts would be expected.

36 Land Resources. The proposed Action would result in the irretrievable loss of
37 alternative uses of the land within the proposed 60-foot corridor. Residential,
38 industrial, commercial, and undeveloped lands within the proposed impact
Preliminary Draft EA March 2008
4-14
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 corridor would not be available for future development. This loss would not be of
2 significance since the acreage is small and because the land is already
3 constrained in use by USIBWC easements.

4 Biological Resources. The Proposed Action would result in the irretrievable


5 loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat. In the long term, construction of the
6 tactical infrastructure would result in the loss of approximately 78 acres of
7 potential wildlife habitat, force the relocation of wildlife, and require the removal
8 of natural vegetation. This result would be a permanent loss or conversion of
9 decreasing open spaces. An unknown amount of wetlands could be permanently
10 impacted by the Proposed Action. CBP would obtain CWA Section 404 permits
11 and mitigate the loss of wetlands. The cumulative impacts on wetlands would be
12 long-term and adverse.

13 Human Resources. The use of human resources for construction is considered


14 an irretrievable loss, only in that it would preclude such personnel from engaging
15 in other work activities. However, the use of human resources for the Proposed
16 Action represents employment opportunities, and is considered beneficial.

17 4.17 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SHORT-TERM USE OF THE


18 ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
19 Short-term uses of the biophysical components of the human environment
20 include direct construction-related disturbances and direct impacts associated
21 with an increase in population and activity that occurs over a period of less than 5
22 years. Long-term uses of the human environment include those impacts that
23 occur over a period of more than 5 years, including permanent resource loss.
24 Activities that could result in short-term resource uses that compromise long-term
25 productivity include filling of wetlands and loss of habitat.

26

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


4-15
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


4-16
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 5. MITIGATION AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

2 CBP applied various design criteria to reduce adverse environmental impacts


3 associated with the Proposed Action, including selecting a route that would avoid
4 or minimize effects on environmental and cultural resources. Nonetheless, CBP
5 has determined that construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical
6 infrastructure in USBP Marfa Sector would result in adverse environmental
7 impacts. These impacts would be most adverse during the period of
8 construction. CBP has concluded, however, that the Proposed Action would be
9 an environmentally acceptable action and overall result in insignificant
10 environmental impacts. Although many factors were considered in this
11 determination, the principal reasons are as follows:

12 • An SPCC Plan would be developed and implemented to avoid impacts


13 associated with hazardous materials and wastes (see Section 3).
14 • A Dust Control Plan would be implemented to minimize fugitive dust
15 emissions (see Section 3.1).
16 • BMPs and an SWPPP would be implemented to minimize effects on soils,
17 hydrology, ground water, surface waters, waters of the United States,
18 floodplains, and storm water (see Sections 3.4.3, 3.5.3, 3.6.3, and 3.7.3).
19 Authorization under TCEQ Construction Storm water Permit (TXR
20 150000) would be required.
21 • Effects, including physical disturbance and construction of solid barriers,
22 on wetlands, riparian areas, streambeds, and floodplains would be
23 avoided or mitigated.
24 • A compensatory mitigation plan would be implemented to reduce and
25 compensate for unavoidable effects on waters of the United States (see
26 Section 3.6.3). CBP would obtain necessary CWA Section 404 and
27 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permits and a CWA Section 401 permit
28 from TCEQ.
29 • A Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan and Unanticipated Discovery
30 Plan to protect natural and cultural resources.
31 • Additional BMPs would be used to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on
32 biological resources including potential impacts on migratory birds (see
33 Sections 3.9.3 and 3.10.3).
34 • CBP would complete appropriate consultations with the USFWS, the
35 TPWD, TCEQ, the SHPO, and Native American tribes to determine all
36 necessary mitigation measures before construction would begin in any
37 given area.
38 • Fair market value would be paid for all property that needs to be acquired
39 or for property that would be substantially impaired by the Proposed
40 Action (see Section 3.13.3).

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


5-1
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 • An environmental inspection, CM&R Plan, and Mitigation and Monitoring


2 Plan would be prepared to ensure compliance with all mitigation
3 measures.

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


5-2
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 6. REFERENCES

ACHP 2007 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). 2007. ACHP


Regulations, 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800,
Protection of Historic Properties. Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office. 1 July 2007.
Bailey 1995 Bailey, Robert F. 1995. “Ecoregions of the United States.” U.S.
Forest Service. Available online: <http://www.fs.fed.us/
colorimagemap/images/300.html>.
Boeing 2007 Boeing Integrated Defense System. 2007. SBInet Backgrounder.
March 2007.
CBP 2004 U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). 2004. National Border
Patrol Strategy. September 2004.
CBP 2006 CBP. 2006. “Border Patrol Overview.” Last updated 11 January
2006. Available online: <http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/
border_security/border_patrol/overview.xml>. Accessed 2
October 2007.
CBP 2007 CBP. 2007. Marfa Sector Project Fence – Phase II Presentation.
17 September 2007.
CEQ 1997 Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the
President (CEQ). 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under
the National Environmental Policy Act. January 1997.
CEQ 2005 CEQ. 2005. Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in
Cumulative Effects Analysis. 24 June 2005.
City of City of Presidio. 2007. “Business: General Information Regarding
Presidio Presidio City.” Available online: <http://www.presidiotex.com/
2007 Business/business.html>. Accessed 7 November 2007.
Correll and Correll, Donovan S. and Marshall C. Johnston. 1970. Manual of
Marshall the Vascular Plants of Texas. Renner, TX: Texas Research
1970 Foundation.
CRS 2006 Congressional Research Service (CRS). 2006. Report for
Congress: Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International
Border. 12 December 2006.
EIA 2007 Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2007. “Voluntary
Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program.” Available online:
<www.eis.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients>. Accessed 4 November
2007.
Fedstats Fedstats. 2007. “Mapstats, Hudspeth County, Texas.” Available
2007a online: <http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/states/48/48229.html>.
Accessed 7 November 2007.

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


6-1
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

Fedstats Fedstats. 2007. “Mapstats, Presidio County, Texas.” Available


2007b online: <http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/states/48/48377.html>.
Accessed 7 November 2007.
FEMA 1985a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1985. “Map
Service Center Viewer–Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel
No. 4803611050B for Hudspeth County, Texas.” Effective Date 1
November 1985. Available online: <https://msc.fema.gov>.
Accessed 6 November 2007.
FEMA 1985b FEMA. 1985. “Map Service Center Viewer–FIRM Panel No.
4805300700B for Presidio County, Texas.” Effective Date 3 July
1985. Available online: <https://msc.fema.gov>. Accessed 6
November 2007.
FEMA 1986 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986. A Unified
National Program for Floodplain Management, March 1986.
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 3 October 2007.
Landrum & Landrum & Brown, Inc. 2002. “Common Noise Sources.”
Brown 2002 Available online: <www.landrum-brown.com/env/PVD/EIS/
Jan%202002%20Chapter%204/ 4%201-1%20%20common_
noise_sources.pdf>. Accessed 6 July 2004.
Larkin and Larkin, Thomas J. and George W. Bomar. 1983. Climatic Atlas of
Bomar 1983 Texas. Austin, TX: Texas Department of Water Resources.
Longcore Longcore, Travis, and Catherine Rich. 2004. Ecological Light
and Rich Pollution. Accessed online at: <http://www.urbanwildlands.org/
2004 Resources/LongcoreRich2004.pdf>

Marquez Marquez, Macario Jr. 2007. E-mail correspondence between Mr.


2007 Macario Marquez, Jr. (Hudspeth County Water Control and
Improvement District) and Andrea Poole (e2M) regarding water
service in Hudspeth County. 8 November 2007.
NADB 2007 North American Development Bank (NADB). 2007. “Summary of
Financing Activities, Active Projects.” 30 September 2007.
Available online: <http://www.nadbank.org/pdfs/ProjectMatrix_
Eng.pdf>. Accessed 8 November 2007.
NatureServe NatureServe Explorer. 2007. “Ecological System Comprehensive
2007 Reports.” Available online: <http://www.natureserve.org/
explorer/>.

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


6-2
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

NOAA 2007 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2007.


“Climate Summary (Annual Climatic Means and Extremes) for El
Paso, TX.” Available online: <http://www.srh.noaa.gov>.
Accessed 11 November 2007.
NRCS 2007 NRCS. 2007. “National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) Web
Soil Survey Version 1.1.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS.
Available online: <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/>.
Accessed 2 November 2007.
OSU 2007 Ohio State University (OSU). 2007. “Noise on the Farm Can
Cause Hearing Loss.” Available online: <http://ohioline.osu.edu/
aex-fact/0590.html>. Accessed 20 October 2007.
Rich and Rich, Catherine, and Travis Longcore. 2006. Ecological
Longcore Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Accessed online at:
2006 <http://books.google.com/books?id=dEEGtAtR1NcC&dq=%22ecol
ogical+consequences+of+artificial+night+lighting%22&pg=PP1&ot
s=81T8i686iO&sig=YMnjvuiaTgmjnW5p9dGTiCAjdhU&hl=en&pre
v=http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-
8&rlz=1T4DMUS_en___US205&q=%22Ecological+Consequences
+of+Artificial+Night+Lighting%22&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one
-book-with-thumbnail#PPA55,M1>.

TAC 2007 Texas Administrative Code (TAC). 2007. “Chapter 106,


Subchapter W: Turbines and Engines.” Available online:
<http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_view
=5&ti=30&pt=1&ch=106&sch=W&rl=Y >. Accessed 15 October
2007.
TCEQ 2007 Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2007.
“Landfill Data for Hudspeth and Presidio Counties, Texas.”
Available online: <http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/cgi/permitting
/waste>. Accessed 8 November 2007.
TxDOT 2005 Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2005. “Texas Rail
System Plan.” October 2005. Available online: <http://www.dot.
state.tx.us/publications/transportation_planning/FinalRail.pdf>.
Accessed 12 November 2007.
TxDOT 2007 TxDOT. 2007. “Texas-Mexico International Bridges and Border
Crossings Existing and Proposed.” Available online:
<ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/iro/2007final.pdf>.
Accessed 31 October 2007.
Texas Atlas Texas Atlas and Gazetteer. 2003. Texas Atlas and Gazetter
and (Map), Fifth Edition. DeLorme Mapping Company. October 2003.
Gazetteer
2003

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


6-3
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

TopoZone TopoZone.com. 2007. “U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Neeley


.com 2007 Canyon, Presidio West, and Presidio East Topographic Maps.”
Copyright TopoZone.com © 1999–2003. Maps a la carte, Inc.
Available online: <http://www.topozone.com>. Accessed 2
November 2007.
TPWD 2007 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 2007. “Texas
Wildlife Action Plan, Section II–Introduction and Purpose.” Last
updated 9 February 2007. Available online: <http://www.tpwd.
state.tx.us/business/grants/wildlife/wildlife_action_plan/>.
Accessed 9 October 2007.
TTMCRO Texas Train Management Company Rail Operators (TTMCRO).
undated Undated. Incorporated Employer Status Determination.
U.S. Census U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. “Decennial, Census 2000.” Available
Bureau 2002 online: <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPage
Servlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=datasets_0&_lang=en>.
Accessed 6 November 2007.
U.S. Census U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. “Decennial, Census 2000.” Available
Bureau 2002 online: <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPage
Servlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=datasets_0&_lang=en>.
Accessed 5 November 2007.
University of University of Texas. 2006. “The Physiography of Texas.”
Texas 2006 University of Texas Library System, the Walter Geology Library.
24 July 2006. Available online: <http://www.lib.utexas.edu/geo/
physiography.html>. Accessed 15 October 2007.
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Wetlands
1987 Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, MS:
USACE Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental
Laboratory.
USACE USACE. 1994. Environmental Baseline Document in Support of
1994 the Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
for INS and JTF-6 Activities Along the U.S./Mexico Border.
Volume 2: Texas Land Border Study Area. USACE Fort Worth
District. March 1999.
USACE USACE. 2000. Environmental Assessment for the Proposed JTF-
2000 6 Levee Road Maintenance and Repair Project, Brownsville,
Texas. USACE Fort Worth District. April 2000.
USACE USACE. 2003. “Section 4. Environmental Consequences.” In
2003 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for Infrastructure
Within U.S. Border Patrol Naco-Douglas Corridor Cochise County,
Arizona. Available online: <http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/
pubdata/notices/nacodouglaspdf/section_4.pdf>

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


6-4
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

USDA 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007. “PLANTS


Database.” USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Available online: <http://plants.usda.gov/>.
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Undated. Visual
undated Impact Assessment for Highway Projects.
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1971. Noise
1971 from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment,
and Home Appliances. NTID 300-1.
USEPA USEPA. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise
1974 Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate
Margin of Safety. March 1974.
USEPA USEPA. 2007. “EnviroMapper.” Available online: <http://www.
2007a epa.gov/enviro/html/em/>. Accessed 14 November 2007.
USEPA USEPA. 2007. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards
2007b (NAAQS).” Available online:
<http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html>. Accessed 13 November
2007.
USEPA USEPA. 2007. Texas Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
2007c Inventory. November 2007.
USEPA USEPA. 2007. “AirData NET Tier Report for BLIAQCR.”
2007d Available online: <http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html>.
Accessed 15 October 2007.
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. “Wetlands Online
2007 Mapper.” Last updated 24 October 2007. Available online:
<http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html.> Accessed 6
November 2007.
USIBWC United States Section International Boundary and Water
2005 Commission. 2005. Biological Resources Survey: Rio Grande
and Tijuana River Flood Control Projects; New Mexico, Texas and
California. August 2005.
Wermund Wermund, E.G. 2007. “Physiography of Texas.” University of
2007 Texas, Walter Geology Library. Available online:
<http://www.lib.utexas.edu/geo/physiography.html>. Accessed 2
November 2007.
1

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


6-5
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


6-6
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 7. LIST OF PREPARERS

2 This EA has been prepared under the direction of CBP and the U.S. Army Corps
3 of Engineers, Fort Worth District ECSO. The individuals who assisted in
4 resolving and providing agency guidance for this document are:

5 Christopher Oh
6 Chief, CBP Environmental Branch

7 Charles H. McGregor, Jr.


8 USACE Fort Worth District ECSO

9 This EA has been prepared by engineering-environmental Management, Inc.


10 (e²M) under the direction of CBP. The individual contractors that contributed to
11 the preparation of this document are listed below.

12 Domenick Alario 34 Shannon Cauley


13 B.A. Geography 35 B.S. Geology
14 Years of Experience: 2 36 USACE Certified Wetland
37 Delineator
15 Louise Baxter 38 Certified Professional Soil Scientist
16 M.P.A. Public Administration 39 Years of Experience: 23
17 B.S. Political Science
18 Years of Experience: 7 40 Laurence D. Gale
41 Michael Baker Corporation
19 Don Beckham 42 M.S. Marine Biology
20 M.P.A. Public Administration 43 B.S. Natural Resources
21 B.S. Engineering Physics 44 Years of Experience: 20
22 Years of Experience: 33
45 Megan Griffin
23 David Boyes, REM, CHMM 46 B.S. Environmental Studies
24 M.S. Natural Resources 47 M.S. Biology
25 B.S. Applied Biology 48 Years of Experience: 3
26 Years of Experience: 31
49 Sue Goodfellow
27 Suanne Collinsworth 50 Ph.D. Anthropology
28 M.S. Environmental Sciences and 51 B.A. Anthropology and Archaeology
29 Engineering 52 Years of Experience: 21
30 B.S. Geology
31 Certificate of Water Quality 53 Stuart Gottlieb
32 Management 54 B.A. Geography
33 Years of Experience: 10 55 GIS Professional Certificate
56 Years of Experience: 5

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


7-1
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Shawn Gravatt 41 Dr. Michael Moran


2 M.S. Environmental Studies 42 Ph.D. Biochemistry
3 B.S. Earth Science and Geography 43 B.S. Chemistry
4 Years of Experience: 10 44 Registered Environmental Manager
45 Years of Experience: 23
5 Leigh Hagan
6 M.E.S.M. Environmental Science 46 Cheryl Myers
7 and Management 47 A.A.S. Nursing
8 B.S. Biology 48 Years of Experience: 17
9 Years of Experience: 4
49 Margie Nowick
10 Gustin Hare 50 M.S. Historic Preservation
11 B.S. Environmental Science 51 M.S. Anthropology
12 Registered Environmental 52 B.S. Anthropology
13 Professional 53 Years of Experience: 24
14 Years of Experience: 12
54 Tanya Perry
15 Jeff Hokanson 55 B.S. Environmental Science
16 M.A. Anthropology 56 B.A. Communications
17 Years of Experience: 15 57 Years of Experience: 6

18 Brian Hoppy 58 Andrea Poole


19 B.S. Biology 59 B.S. Environmental Science
20 Certificate of Environmental 60 B.A. Business Administration
21 Management 61 Years of Experience: 9
22 Years of Experience: 17
62 Steve Pyle
23 David Kilby 63 B.S. Natural Resource Management
24 M.A. Anthropology 64 J.D. with Certificate in
25 Years of Experience: 17 65 Environmental Law
66 Years of Experience: 11
26 Daniel Koenig
27 B.S. Environmental Policy and 67 Christopher Roche
28 Planning 68 B.S. Environmental Studies
29 Years of Experience: 3 69 Years of Experience: 8

30 Ronald E. Lamb, CEP 70 Devin Scherer


31 M.S. Environmental Science 71 B.S. Biology
32 M.A. Political Science/International 72 Years of Experience: 4
33 Economics
34 B.A. Political Science 73 Cheryl Schmidt, Ph.D.
35 Years of Experience: 22 74 Ph.D. Biology
75 M.S. Biology
36 Sean McCain 76 B.S. Biology
37 M.B.A. Business Administration 77 Years of Experience: 22
38 B.S. Forestry and Natural
39 Resources Management
40 Years of Experience: 11
Preliminary Draft EA March 2008
7-2
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 Sue Sill 23 Adam Turbett


2 Ph.D. Botany 24 B.S. Environmental Studies
3 B.S. Biology 25 Years of Experience: 3
4 Years of Experience: 24
26 Jim Von Loh
5 Sarah Smith 27 M.S. Biology
6 B.S. Geography 28 B.S. Biology
7 Years of Experience: 2 29 Years of Experience: 32

8 Sarah Spratlen 30 Lauri Watson


9 B.S. Biology 31 B.S. Environmental Science
10 M.S. Engineering 32 Years of Experience: 5
11 Years of Experience: 5
33 Jeffrey Weiler
12 Karen Stackpole 34 M.S. Resource
13 M.S. Environmental Science and 35 Economics/Environmental
14 Education 36 Management
15 B.S. Biology 37 B.A. Political Science
16 Years of Experience: 9 38 Years of Experience: 32

17 Charles Thornton-Kolbe 39 Valerie Whalon


18 M.S. in Public Policy 40 M.S. Fisheries Science
19 B.A. Economics and Political 41 B.S. Marine Science
20 Science 42 Years of Experience: 12
21 Years of Experience: 14

22

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


7-3
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Preliminary Draft EA March 2008


7-4

Вам также может понравиться