DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment U.S. Border Patrol, Tucson

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment U.S. Border Patrol, Tucson FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED AJO FORWARD OPERATING BASE AJO STATION AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY U.S. BORDER PATROL, TUCSON SECTOR U.S. Department Department of ofHomeland Homeland Security Security U.S.U.S. Customs Customs and and Border Border Protection Protection U.S.U.S. Border Border Patrol Patrol BW1SEPTEMBER FOIA CBP 007049R 2011201 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR THE PROPOSED AJO FORWARD OPERATING BASE AJO STATION AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY U.S. BORDER PATROL, TUCSON SECTOR Project History: The United States (U.S.) Border Patrol (USBP), Ajo Station operates a tactical camp on a 1-acre site at the intersection of Bates Well Road and the western boundary of the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (OPCNM) under Special Use Permit number IMR ORPI 9500 10-04. This tactical camp was previously located at Bates Well which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Upon the request of the National Park Service (NPS) OPCNM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in an effort to protect historical properties and as a conservation measure for the endangered Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocarpa americana sonoriensis), the tactical camp was moved from the Bates Well site to the current site. Impacts of the move and operation of the camp were analyzed in the December 2009 Environmental Assessment for the Proposed SBInet Ajo-1 Tower Project, Ajo Station’s Area of Responsibility, U.S. Border Patrol Tucson Sector. This Environmental Assessment (EA) tiers from the December 2009 SBInet Ajo-1 Tower Project EA and addresses the proposed expansion of the existing 1-acre tactical camp into a 3-acre Forward Operating Base (FOB) to assist CBP in their goal of establishing and maintaining effective control of the border. This EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and analyzes the project alternatives and potential impacts on the human and natural environment for two selected alternative sites. Purpose and Need: The purpose of this project is to improve CBP’s efficiency and safety within the USBP Tucson Sector, encompassing remote border zones in the Ajo Station Area of Responsibility (AOR). USBP Agents assigned to patrol within the area may require 2 hours or more of travel time to reach their patrol areas after mustering at the Ajo Station. USBP Agents need to be deployed closer to the international border and remote western zones of the Ajo Station to improve efficiency and effectiveness during work shifts. With the improved deterrence afforded by the SBInet technology deployed throughout the OPCNM, the far western zones of the AOR on the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (CPNWR) have had an increase in CBV activity. By providing a FOB with living quarters for additional Agents and refueling facilities, Agent response time to illegal cross-border activities would be greatly improved, and Agents could be more efficiently deployed to patrol the more remote sections of the Ajo Station AOR. The overall safety and efficiency of USBP Agents would be enhanced, as would the safety of employees and visitors on the OPCNM, the CPNWR, and the general public. Proposed Action: The Proposed Action includes the expansion of the current USBP tactical camp on the OPCNM to include two additional acres, resulting in a 3-acre FOB to be run on solar or other alternative power sources with battery and diesel generator backups, including the following features: modular buildings to accommodate a maximum of 32 Agents (sleeping quarters, kitchen/dining facility, restrooms with showers, office space, muster area, communications equipment/server connectivity, fitness room, and secure storage), perimeter fencing, drinking water well system, fire suppression system, security camera, equipment and lighting for compound, bulk fuel storage, parking for up to 35 vehicles, a detention facility, BW1 FOIA CBP 007050 FONSI-2 equestrian stalls and hay storage, all-terrain vehicle storage, and supply storage. Construction of the facility would take place over approximately 5 years. It will be assumed that the FOB will run on generator power exclusively for 5 years until the full build out, including solar power panels and batteries, is completed. Conservation measures and best management practices (BMP) would also be implemented to avoid and minimize effects on U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) trust resources. Alternatives Considered: Four alternatives were identified and considered during the planning stages of the proposed project and all are carried forward for analysis in this EA. The four alternatives are 1) the Proposed Action (as discussed above), 2) Fossil Fuel Generator Power, 3) CPNWR Location, and 4) No Action. Fossil Fuel Generator Alternative The Fossil Fuel Generator Alternative includes the same features and 3-acre footprint identified for the Proposed Action; however, the site would be powered by diesel or natural gas generators with battery backup systems. CPNWR Location Alternative The CPNWR Location Alternative includes the same features identified for the Proposed Action; however, the site would be located within the non-wilderness corridor on the CPNWR at the intersection of Bates Well Road and the CPNWR eastern boundary. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the FOB would not be expanded. The No Action Alternative serves as a baseline against which the impacts of the Proposed Action and other action alternatives are evaluated. Affected Environment and Consequences: The Proposed Action would have a direct permanent impact on 2 acres. The FOB is located on NPS lands which are used for the protection of the Sonoran Desert Ecosystem, and recreational and educational purposes. Construction of the FOB would have direct long-term impacts on land use, wilderness, soils, wildlife, vegetation, due to loss of biological production and loss of habitat resulting from the expanded FOB. During construction, direct temporary impacts would occur on wilderness, soils, air quality, noise environment, and wildlife due to increased water and wind erosion of disturbed soil, increased traffic, increased noise emissions, and vehicle emissions. Disturbances from construction activities may affect, and likely adversely affect, the Federally endangered Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocarpa americana sonoriensis), and may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae). Impacts from noise and air emissions would be less in both duration and magnitude than those currently experienced from the diesel generators in continuous use at the tactical camp. Constructing the FOB would not directly impact wetlands, waters of the United States, surface waters, groundwater, floodplains, or utilities. BW1 FOIA CBP 007051 FONSI-3 A total of two previously recorded archaeological sites are located near the project site. Impacts on the previously recorded archaeological sites from the Proposed Action would be avoided through a combination of project design and monitoring. No significant adverse effects on the natural or human environment, as defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1508.27 of the Council on Environmental Quality’s Regulations for Implementing NEPA, are expected from implementation of any of the action alternatives. Best Management Practices: BMPs that will be implemented during the expansion and operation of the FOB are described in Section 4.0 of the EA and are incorporated by reference to this Finding of No Significant Impact. Some of the more pertinent BMPs include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Update the existing Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP) to prevent and manage accidental spills that might occur during expansion of the facility. Operation of the FOB will also require an SPCCP due to the presence of hazardous materials associated with fuel storage. 2. Prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control stormwater erosion and sedimentation during construction. 3. Conduct bird surveys, in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, in the event that clearing and grubbing activities occur during the normal migratory bird breeding and nesting season (February 15 through August 31). 4. CBP will minimize impacts on Sonoran pronghorn and lesser long-nosed bats and their habitats by using flagging or temporary fencing to clearly demarcate project perimeters with the land management agency. CBP will not disturb soil or vegetation outside of that perimeter. 5. CBP will minimize the number of construction vehicles traveling to and from the project site and the number of trips per day. CBP will coordinate construction vehicle activity with land managers at their discretion. 6. CBP will minimize animal collisions, particularly with Sonoran pronghorn, by not exceeding construction and maintenance speed limits of 35 miles per hour (mph) on major unpaved roads (i.e., graded with ditches on both sides) and 25 mph on all other unpaved roads. During periods of decreased visibility (e.g., night, weather, and curves), CBP and contractors will not exceed speeds of 25 mph. 7. The site boundaries of all previously recorded archaeological sites, including a 100-foot buffer, would be flagged around each of the sites to ensure that they are avoided. 8. CBP will have an archaeologist on-site during all subsurface disturbance activities. If any cultural resources are discovered during these activities, then the OPCNM archaeologist will be contacted and all work will cease
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Final Environmental Assessment for Reestablishment of Sonoran Pronghorn
    Final Environmental Assessment for Reestablishment of Sonoran Pronghorn U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2 6 October 2010 This page left blank intentionally 6 October 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION............................................ 1 1.1 Proposed Action.............................................................. 2 1.2 Project Need................................................................. 6 1.3 Background Information on Sonoran Pronghorn . 9 1.3.1 Taxonomy.............................................................. 9 1.3.2 Historic Distribution and Abundance......................................... 9 1.3.3 Current Distribution and Abundance........................................ 10 1.3.4 Life History............................................................ 12 1.3.5 Habitat................................................................ 13 1.3.6 Food and Water......................................................... 18 1.3.7 Home Range, Movement, and Habitat Area Requirements . 18 1.4 Project Purpose ............................................................. 19 1.5 Decision to be Made.......................................................... 19 1.6 Compliance with Laws, Regulations, and Plans . 19 1.7 Permitting Requirements and Authorizations Needed . 21 1.8 Scoping Summary............................................................ 21 1.8.1 Internal Agency Scoping.................................................. 21 1.8.2 Public Scoping ........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Public-Private Partnership Potentials
    Public‐Private Partnerships Potential for Arizona‐Mexico Border Infrastructure Projects Executive Summary ADOT Task Assignment MPD 31‐09 30 September 2009 Public‐Private Partnerships Potential for Arizona‐Mexico Border Infrastructure Projects Executive Summary Table of Contents Final Report 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................1 2.0 Methodology......................................................................................................................2 3.0 Overview of the Arizona‐Mexico Ports of Entry..........................................................4 4.0 Review of Key Border Initiatives and Innovative Finance Initiatives from FHWA...............................................................................................................................10 5.0 Existing and Planned Use of Public‐Private Partnerships and Private Sector Involvement at Border Crossings .................................................................................11 5.1 Identified Implementation Issues for Public‐Private Partnerships at Border Crossings ..........................................................................................................................12 6.0 Cross Border Commodity Movements between Arizona and Mexico ...................13 Exhibit 1: 2007 Exports and Imports through Arizona’s Ports of Entry......................................13 6.1 Exports to Mexico ...................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Assessment for Reestablishment of Sonoran Pronghorn
    Draft Environmental Assessment for Reestablishment of Sonoran Pronghorn U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2 1 October 2009 This page left blank intentionally 1 October 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION............................................ 1 1.1 Proposed Action.............................................................. 2 1.2 Project Need................................................................. 6 1.3 Background Information on Sonoran Pronghorn . 9 1.3.1 Taxonomy.............................................................. 9 1.3.2 Historic Distribution and Abundance......................................... 9 1.3.3 Current Distribution and Abundance........................................ 10 1.3.4 Life History............................................................ 12 1.3.5 Habitat................................................................ 13 1.3.6 Food and Water......................................................... 18 1.3.7 Home Range, Movement, and Habitat Area Requirements . 18 1.4 Project Purpose ............................................................. 19 1.5 Decision to be Made.......................................................... 19 1.6 Compliance with Laws, Regulations, and Plans . 19 1.7 Permitting Requirements and Authorizations Needed . 21 1.8 Scoping Summary............................................................ 21 1.8.1 Internal Agency Scoping.................................................. 21 1.8.2 Public Scoping ........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • LEIS Purpose Lead Agency and Cooperating Agencies Frequently
    Renewal of the Barry M. Goldwater Range Land Withdrawal Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) Frequently Referenced Information LEIS Purpose LEIS Contents This draft LEIS addresses the proposed renewal • Executive Summary —provides a concise of the military land withdrawal and reservation synopsis of the LEIS analysis and for the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR). conclusions. Renewal of the land withdrawal is required by the Military Land Withdrawal Act of 1986 • Chapter 1—describes the purpose of and (Public Law 99-606) if the military proposes to need for the renewal of the land withdrawal continue military use of the lands after as well as other introductory background 6 November 2001. information. The purpose of and need for renewing the • Chapter 2—describes the proposed action, BMGR land withdrawal is to preserve a alternatives, and sub-alternatives (or component of the national defense training base scenarios). for the continued and future readiness of America’s air forces to defend the security of the • Chapter 3—describes the baseline nation and its interests. environment that may be affected by the alternatives. Lead Agency and Cooperating Agencies • Chapter 4— reports the projected The lead agency is the Department of the Air environmental consequences for the Force. Cooperating agencies are the Department proposed action, alternative action, and no- of the Navy, Bureau of Land Management, and action alternative. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. • Chapter 5—reports the probable environmental consequences of each of the Frequently Referenced Figures and Tables renewal sub-alternatives for military administration, withdrawal land area, and Figure Figure Title Page administration of natural and cultural 1-2 BMGR Airspace Structure and 1-17 resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Single Tenant Investment Opportunity
    802 NORTH 2ND AVENUE, AJO, ARIZONA SINGLE TENANT INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY ACTUAL SITE EXCLUSIVELY MARKETED BY JOE SCHUCHERT FIRST VICE PRESIDENT 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1500 Newport Beach, CA 92660 M: 310.971.3116 [email protected] | CA License No. 01973172 JIM SCHUCHERT FIRST VICE PRESIDENT 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1500 Newport Beach, CA 92660 M: 310.971.3892 [email protected] | CA License No. 01969414 ED BEEH - BROKER OF RECORD EVP & CO-MARKET LEADER 3131 E. Camelback Road, Suite 110 Phoenix, AZ 85016 DL: 602.682.6040 | M: 602.980.3553 [email protected] | AZ License No. BR032807000 2 ACTUAL SITE SRS CONTENTS 5 9 INVESTMENT SUMMARY PROPERTY OVERVIEW OFFERING SUMMARY | INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS AERIALS | SITE PLAN | LOCATION MAP 18 20 AREA OVERVIEW FINANCIALS DEMOGRAPHICS RENT ROLL | BRAND PROFILE 3 ACTUAL SITE SRS 4 ACTUAL SITE SRS INVESTMENT SUMMARY SRS is pleased to present the opportunity to acquire the fee simple interest (land and building ownership) in a Dollar General property located in Ajo, Arizona. Built in 2005, the lease has approximately 7.5 years remaining in the current term with three (3) – five (5) year options at a 12% rental increase. In 2017, 4 years before the lease term was scheduled to expire, Dollar General extended the lease for an additional 5 years. The lease is guaranteed by Dollar General Corp (NYSE: DG) with an investment grade credit rating of BBB from Standard & Poor’s. The subject property is strategically located along Arizona State Route 85, which connects all the way to Gila Bend, Buckeye & Phoenix.
    [Show full text]
  • July 28, 2021
    Updated: July 28, 2021 # Name Age Date Location (STATE) Nationality Incident Type In Custody Off-Duty Firearm Wall-Related Car Chase Cross-Border Shooting Sector Incident Summary Media Source CBP Statement 177 Unknown Adult 7/25/2021 San Diego CA Mexican 1 San Diego According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Border https://www.cbp.gov/newsro Patrol agents responded to reports of individuals om/speeches-and- attempting to cross the border wall near Otay Mesa Port statements/mexican-citizen- of Entry. Upon arrival, agents allegedly witnessed an dies-head-injury-after-falling- individual fall from the wall and requested emergency border-fence medical assistance for the individual, a Mexican man. The man was suffering from a severe head injury and was declared dead on the scen by the San Diego Fire Department emergency medical personnel. The invident is being investigated by the San Diego County Medical Examiner's Office and reviewed by the CBP Office of Professional Responsibility. The DHS Office of Inspector General was also notified.R7 176 Unknown Adult 7/17/2021 Brownsville TX Mexican 1. In custody 1 1 Rio Grande Valley According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, on https://www.valleycentral.co https://www.cbp.gov/newsro 2. Wall related June 16th, Border Patrol agents assigned to the m/news/local-news/migrant- om/speeches-and- Brownsville Station responed to a report of a person falling attempting-to-climb-border- statements/migrant-dies- from border fence near the Gateway International Port of fence-dies/ attempting-climb-border- Entry in Brownsville, TX. The injured man was transported fence-brownsville-texas by emergency medical services to a hospital in Harlingen, TX, where he tested positive for COVID-19 and then was transported to another hospital to undergo surgery.
    [Show full text]
  • REGIONAL FREEWAY and HIGHWAY PROGRAM 2011 UPDATE Transportation Policy Committee March 23, 2011
    REGIONAL FREEWAY AND HIGHWAY PROGRAM 2011 UPDATE Transportation Policy Committee March 23, 2011 © 2011, All Rights Reserved. 1 Proposition 400 Sales Tax Collections Collections Percent Change 45.0 20.0% 40.0 15.0% 35.0 10.0% 30.0 5.0% 25.0 0.0% 20.0 -5.0% 15.0 -10.0% 10.0 5.0 -15.0% - -20.0% © 2011, All Rights Reserved. 2 Proposition 400 Sales Tax Revenue FY 2006 to FY 2026 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 Billions of of DollarsBillions 4.0 2.0 - RTP 2003 November November Seotember September September October 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 © 2011, All Rights Reserved. 3 Comparison of 2003 RTP and Current Sales Tax Projections $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 Thousands of of Dollars Thousands $400 $200 $0 RTP 2003 Oct-10 © 2011, All Rights Reserved. 4 Cash flow deficit by year MAG Highway Program Ending Cash Balance $600,000 $427,633 $400,000 $280,189 $179,423 $172,165 $200,000 $- $(247,497) $(252,833) $(234,104) $(389,357) $(200,000) $(284,000) $(280,126) $(359,913) $(412,842) $(374,428) $(455,172) $(400,000) Millions Dollarsof $(549,789) $(643,230) $(600,000) $(800,000) Year © 2011, All Rights Reserved. 5 Regional Freeway and Highway Program 2011 Update CORRIDOR SUMMARIES ACCOMPLISHMENTS, WORK UNDERWAY, AND CONTINUING PLANNING ACTIVITIES © 2011, All Rights Reserved. 6 Corridor Cost Summaries as of February 2011 330.6 I-10/Papago 327.0 763.7 I-10/Maricopa 842.0 1,532.9 I-17/ Black Canyon 1,523.3 186.4 US-60/Grand 162.9 156.1 US-60/Superstition 161.9 31.6 US-93 41.9 183.4 SR-24/Gateway 174.7 25.3 SR-30 20.3 51.3 SR-51/Piestewa 51.1 165.4 Loop 101/Agua Fria 128.5 453.7 Loop 101/Pima 448.5 96.4 Loop 101/Price 100.7 36.6 SR-143 24.5 395.1 Loop 202/Red Mtn 366.7 152.9 Lop 202/Santan 158.8 1,900.0 Loop 202/South Mtn 1,919.8 1,845.9 Loop 303 1,876.6 142.5 SR-85 180.1 60.8 SR-74, SR-87, SR-88 60.8 987.1 SystemWide 984.1 0 millions of dollars 2,000 2009 Program Recommendation 2011 ADOT Cost Opinion © 2011, All Rights Reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Proquest Dissertations
    A monitoring study of vertebrate community ecology in the northern Sonoran Desert, Arizona Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Rosen, Philip Clark Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 04/10/2021 03:10:08 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/289117 INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overiaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report (Posted 7/17)
    FINAL REPORT Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation on Southwestern DoD Facilities SERDP Project RC-2232 FEBRUARY 2017 Gregg Garfin University of Arizona Distribution Statement A Page Intentionally Left Blank Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 03/03/2017 Final Technical Report 05/11/2012 to 05/11/2017 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation on Southwestern DoD Facilities W912HQ-12-C-0060 5b. GRANT NUMBER N/A 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER W912HQ 1 1 1 2 6. AUTHOR(S) Garfin. G.M. , Falk, D.A., , Jacobs, K. , O’Connor, C.O. , Haverland, 5d. PROJECT NUMBER A.C.1, Weiss, J.L.1, Overpeck, J.T.1,Haworth, A.3, and Baglee, A.3 12C 5e.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology of the Amphibians and Reptiles at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona
    1 Ecology of the Amphibians and Reptiles at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona Philip C. Rosen and Charles H. Lowe Technical Report No. 53 April 1996 National Biological Service Cooperative Park Studies Unit School of Renewable Natural Resources 125 Biological Sciences East The University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 National Park Service Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Route 1, Box 100 Ajo, Arizona 85321 2 3 Contents List of Figures................................................................................................................................ iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... viii Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... ix Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1 General Introduction to the Project ........................................................................................1 Overview of Herpetofauna on the Monument .......................................................................2 Ecology and Conservation of Amphibians and Reptiles at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument .........................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Customs and Border Protection Ajo Housing Development Project
    Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Construction, Alteration, and Maintenance for U.S. Customs and Border Protection Ajo Housing Development Project Ajo, Arizona Prepared for: Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection Headquarters, Facilities Management and Engineering Division Washington, D.C. Prepared by: U.S. General Services Administration Pacific Rim Division Portfolio Management Division and EcoPlan Associates, Inc. 701 W. Southern Ave., Suite 203 Mesa, AZ 85210 April 2011 Contents Appendices ...............................................................................................................................ii Figures ...............................................................................................................................ii Tables ...............................................................................................................................ii Acronyms and Abbreviations .....................................................................................................iii Chapter 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Explanation of an Environmental Assessment ........................................ 1 1.2 Location ................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Background and Overview ...................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 Project Purpose and Need .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Repurposing Hot-Spot Analysis to Map Bare- Life in Southern
    The spatiotemporal forming of a state of exception: repurposing hot-spot analysis to map bare-life in Southern Arizona’s borderlands Item Type Article Authors Chambers, Samuel Norton Citation Chambers, S.N. The spatiotemporal forming of a state of exception: repurposing hot-spot analysis to map bare-life in Southern Arizona’s borderlands. GeoJournal 85, 1373–1384 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-10027-z DOI 10.1007/s10708-019-10027-z Publisher SPRINGER Journal GEOJOURNAL Rights Copyright © Springer Nature B.V. 2019. Download date 25/09/2021 18:38:00 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Version Final accepted manuscript Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/648100 Manuscript 1 2 3 4 The Spatiotemporal Forming of a State of Exception: Repurposing Hot-Spot Analysis to Map Bare- 5 Life in Southern Arizona’s Borderlands 6 7 8 Abstract 9 Through the use of Hot-Spot analysis, typically reserved for local analysis of crime and law enforcement, 10 11 I document the dispersal and clustering of migrant mortalities on a temporal scale in the Ajo valley of 12 Southern Arizona in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands. The study maps the influence of border enforcement 13 by time and documents the forming of a state of exception, by finding whether and where migrants had 14 taken other more-remote routes in relation to the constructing of and policing by a Border Patrol 15 16 checkpoint, The spatiotemporal nature of ‘Hot’ and ‘Cold-Spots’ plus an analysis of migrant mortality 17 locations before and after the establishment of a checkpoint serves as a novel approach to spatial analysis 18 in border studies.
    [Show full text]