Final

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE EAGLE PASS ROAD AND VARIOUS INFRASTRUCTURES PROJECT DEL RIO SECTOR, OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL MAVERICK COUNTY, TEXAS

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection Washington, D.C.

January 2007

Final

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE EAGLE PASS ROAD AND VARIOUS INFRASTRUCTURES PROJECT DEL RIO SECTOR, OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL MAVERICK COUNTY, TEXAS

January 2007

Lead Agency: U.S. Customs and Border Protection Headquarters Facilities and Engineering Room 3-4-D 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, D.C. 20229

Point of Contact: Mr. Glenn Bixler Environmental Planner Fort Worth District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 819 Taylor Street, Room 3A14 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Fax (817) 886-6499

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROPOSED ACTION: The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Office of Border Patrol (OBP) propose improvements to 1.3 miles of existing patrol roads along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande and the construction and maintenance of 1.1 miles of a permanent ornamental security fence. In addition, the Proposed Action includes the installation of 15 permanent lights along the eastern boundary of the Eagle Pass Golf Course, and the removal of giant cane (Arundo donax) along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande. Revegetation with native species would occur where giant cane is removed. These proposed actions are located within the City of Eagle Pass, Texas.

PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the proposed action is to provide enhanced FOR THE PROPOSED operational capabilities, a safer working environment for the OBP ACTION: agents, and to further facilitate the OBP’s mission to gain, maintain, and extend control of the U.S.-Mexico border. The need of the proposed project is to increase deterrence of illegal aliens (IAs), improve OBP agents’ line of sight to the Rio Grande, provide improved access and visibility along the Rio Grande for rescue operations, to enhance the safety of OBP agents and citizens of the U.S., reduce IA foot traffic through the Eagle Pass golf course and athletic fields, and increase the safety of the citizens of Eagle Pass.

ALTERNATIVES: One other alternative was considered in the Environmental Assessment: the No Action Alternative, which would preclude the implementation of the Proposed Action.

ENVIRONMENTAL The Proposed Action would impact approximately 15 acres of soil; IMPACTS OF THE however, 2.4 acres have already been disturbed from the existing PROPOSED ACTION: patrol roads. Approximately 9 acres of vegetation would be affected primarily from the removal of giant cane along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande. The giant cane located between the new patrol road and the Rio Grande would be replaced with native Texas plant species typical of thorny-scrub habitat types.

No direct impacts are expected to Federally protected species; however, approximately 9 acres of potential migration and foraging habitat for the Gulf Coast jaguarundi (Felis yaguarondi) and ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) would be temporarily impacted from the removal of giant cane along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande. The impacts from the proposed action may affect, but not likely to adversely affect these species and would be compensated by replacing the giant cane with native Texas thorny-scrub plant species to provide travel corridors. Section 7 concurrence has been granted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Appendix C).

Eagle Pass Road EA iii Final No significant impacts are anticipated regarding water, air, and noise quality. Temporary impacts to water quality of the Rio Grande along the boundaries of the project area are anticipated to occur during construction; however, these impacts would be mitigated through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs).

Section 106 concurrence has been granted by the Texas Historical Commission (Appendix B). Concurrence included the condition that a qualified archeologist be present during construction within the vicinity of the one site that was observed near the northern boundary of the project area.

CONCLUSIONS: Only minor, adverse impacts are anticipated to any resource analyzed within this document other than at the aforementioned cultural resource site. Therefore, no further analysis or documentation (i.e., Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. The CBP, in implementing this decision, would employ all practical means to minimize the potential adverse impacts on the local environment.

Eagle Pass Road EA iv Final TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1-1 1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 1-3 1.1.1 CBP Strategic Intent and Priorities ...... 1-3 1.1.2 OBP Strategic Intent and Priorities...... 1-3 1.1.3 Joint Task Force - North ...... 1-4 1.2 PROJECT AREA LOCATION...... 1-4 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED...... 1-4 1.4 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS...... 1-7 1.5 REGULATORY AUTHORITY ...... 1-7

2.0 ALTERNATIVES...... 2-1 2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...... 2-1 2.2 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...... 2-2 2.2.1 Roads and Bridge...... 2-2 2.2.2 Low Water Crossings...... 2-9 2.2.3 Ornamental Security Fence...... 2-9 2.2.4 Permanent Lights...... 2-9 2.2.5 Vegetation Removal ...... 2-14 2.3 SUMMARY ...... 2-14

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 3-1 3.1 LAND USE...... 3-1 3.2 SOILS ...... 3-2 3.2.1 Prime Farmlands ...... 3-2 3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 3-5 3.3.1 Vegetation ...... 3-5 3.3.1.1 Riparian Community ...... 3-5 3.3.1.2 Urban-Developed Area...... 3-5 3.3.2 Fish and Wildlife Resources ...... 3-9 3.3.2.1 Texas Wildlife ...... 3-9 3.4 PROTECTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT ...... 3-10 3.4.1 Federal ...... 3-11 3.4.1.1 Gulf Coast Jaguarundi...... 3-11 3.4.1.2 Ocelot ...... 3-12 3.4.2 Critical Habitat ...... 3-12 3.4.3 State ...... 3-12 3.4.3.1 Interior Least Tern ...... 3-13 3.4.3.2 Indigo Snake...... 3-14 3.5 UNIQUE AND SENSITIVE AREAS ...... 3-14 3.5.1 Rio Grande ...... 3-14 3.5.2 Fort Duncan...... 3-14 3.5.3 Eagle Pass Army Air Field...... 3-17 3.6 WATER RESOURCES ...... 3-17 3.6.1 Surface Water...... 3-17 3.6.2 Waters of the U.S. (WUS) and Wetlands...... 3-17

Eagle Pass Road EA v Final 3.6.3 Floodplains ...... 3-19 3.7 AIR QUALITY ...... 3-19 3.8 NOISE...... 3-23 3.9 AESTHETICS ...... 3-24 3.10 HAZARDOUS WASTES ...... 3-25 3.11 SOCIOECONOMICS ...... 3-25 3.11.1 Maverick County Population...... 3-25 3.11.2 Employment, Poverty levels, and Income...... 3-26 3.11.3 Housing ...... 3-27 3.11.4 Environmental Justice/Protection of Children from Health and Safety Risks ...3-27 3.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 3-28 3.12.1 Prehistoric Overview...... 3-28 3.12.1.1 Paleo-Indian Period ...... 3-29 3.12.1.2 Archaic Period ...... 3-29 3.12.1.3 Late Prehistoric Period ...... 3-30 3.12.1.4 Protohistoric and Historic Periods...... 3-31 3.12.1.5 Kickapoo History...... 3-31 3.12.1.6 Maverick County History...... 3-32 3.12.2 Previous Cultural Resources Surveys ...... 3-34 3.12.3 Current Investigations...... 3-34

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 4-1 4.1 LAND USE...... 4-2 4.1.1 No Action Alternative ...... 4-2 4.1.2 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 4-2 4.2 SOILS AND PRIME FARMLAND...... 4-3 4.2.1 No Action Alternative ...... 4-3 4.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 4-3 4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 4-4 4.3.1 Vegetation ...... 4-4 4.3.1.1 No Action Alternative ...... 4-4 4.3.1.2 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 4-4 4.3.2 Wildlife ...... 4-5 4.3.2.1 No Action Alternative ...... 4-5 4.3.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 4-6 4.4 PROTECTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT ...... 4-6 4.4.1 No Action Alternative ...... 4-7 4.4.2 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 4-7 4.5 UNIQUE AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS...... 4-8 4.5.1 No Action Alternative ...... 4-8 4.5.2 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 4-8 4.6 WATER RESOURCES ...... 4-8 4.6.1 Surface Water...... 4-9 4.6.1.1 No Action Alternative ...... 4-9 4.6.1.2 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 4-9 4.6.2 Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands ...... 4-10 4.6.2.1 No Action Alternative ...... 4-10 4.6.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 4-10 4.6.3 Floodplains ...... 4-10 4.6.3.1 No Action Alternative ...... 4-10 4.6.3.2 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 4-10

Eagle Pass Road EA vi Final 4.7 AIR QUALITY ...... 4-11 4.7.1 No Action Alternative ...... 4-11 4.7.2 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 4-11 4.8 NOISE...... 4-11 4.8.1 No Action Alternative ...... 4-12 4.8.2 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 4-12 4.9 AESTHETICS ...... 4-12 4.9.1 No Action Alternative ...... 4-12 4.9.2 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 4-12 4.10 HAZARDOUS WASTES ...... 4-13 4.10.1 No Action Alternative ...... 4-13 4.10.2 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 4-13 4.11 SOCIOECONOMICS ...... 4-13 4.11.1 No Action Alternative ...... 4-14 4.11.2 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 4-14 4.11.3 Environmental Justice/Protection of Children from Health and Safety Risks ...4-15 4.11.3.1 E.O. 12898...... 4-15 4.11.3.2 E.O. 13245...... 4-15 4.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 4-15 4.12.1 No Action Alternative ...... 4-16 4.12.2 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 4-16 4.13.1 No Action Alternative ...... 4-18 4.13.2 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 4-19 4.13.2.1 Soils and Water Quality ...... 4-19 4.13.2.2 Vegetation...... 4-19 4.13.2.3 Wildlife ...... 4-20 4.13.2.4 Protected Species...... 4-21 4.13.2.5 Unique and Sensitive Areas ...... 4-21 4.13.2.6 Air Quality ...... 4-21 4.13.2.7 Noise...... 4-22 4.13.2.8 Socioeconomics...... 4-22 4.13.2.9 Cultural Resources ...... 4-22

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN MEASURES...... 5-1 5.1 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ...... 5-1 5.2 SOILS ...... 5-2 5.3 VEGETATION...... 5-2 5.4 WILDLIFE ...... 5-3 5.5 PROTECTED AND SENSITIVE SPECIES...... 5-3 5.6 AIR QUALITY ...... 5-4 5.7 WATER RESOURCES ...... 5-4 5.8 NOISE...... 5-4 5.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 5-5

6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...... 6-1 6.1 AGENCY COORDINATION...... 6-1 6.2 PUBLIC REVIEW...... 6-1 6.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES...... 6-3

7.0 REFERENCES...... 7-1

Eagle Pass Road EA vii Final 8.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS ...... 8-1

9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 9-1

LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Applicable Environmental Statutes and Regulations ...... 1-8 Table 2-1. Alternative Matrix ...... 2-15 Table 2-2. Summary Matrix of Potential Impacts ...... 2-16 Table 3-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards ...... 3-23 Table 3-2. A-Weighted Scale (dBA) Sound Levels of Typical Noise Environments...... 3-24 Table 3-3. Prehistoric Periods...... 3-29

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map ...... 1-2 Figure 1-2. Property Location Map ...... 1-5 Figure 2-1. Project Area...... 2-3 Figure 2-2. Typical Cross Sections of Proposed Road ...... 2-7 Figure 2-3. Typical Cross Sections of Ornamental Security Fence ...... 2-11 Figure 2-4. Cross Section of Proposed Light Pole...... 2-13 Figure 3-1. Project Area Soils ...... 3-3 Figure 3-2. Project Area Vegetation...... 3-7 Figure 3-3. Unique and Sensitive Areas Map ...... 3-15 Figure 3-4. FEMA 100-year Floodplain...... 3-21

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph 1-1. Trails and Trash Left By IAs...... 1-6 Photograph 2-1. Existing Patrol Road...... 2-2 Photograph 2-2. Typical Ornamental Security Fence ...... 2-9 Photograph 3-1. Riparian Community...... 3-5 Photograph 3-2. Athletic Field...... 3-5 Photograph 3-3. Fort Duncan Municipal Park...... 3-9 Photograph 3-4. Gulf Coast jaguarundi ...... 3-11 Photograph 3-5. Ocelot...... 3-12 Photograph 3-6 Interior Least Tern...... 3-13 Photograph 3-7 Indigo Snake ...... 3-14 Photograph 3-8. Trash Left By IAs...... 3-24

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. State Protected Species Appendix B. Section 106 Concurrence Appendix C, Correspondence Appendix D. Revegetation and Planting Plan

Eagle Pass Road EA viii Final SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential impacts, beneficial and adverse, of the proposed Office of Border Patrol’s (OBP) Eagle Pass road and various infrastructures project in the City of Eagle Pass in Maverick County, Texas (Figure 1-1). The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and OBP propose improvements to existing patrol roads and construction of additional tactical infrastructure within the Del Rio Sector, Eagle Pass Station’s Area of Operation (AO) in an effort to enhance the OBP’s capability to gain, maintain, and extend control of the United States (U.S.)-Mexico border in areas between the Ports-of-Entry (POE). The proposed project has the following elements:

x Improvements to 1.3 miles of existing patrol roads along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande

x Construction of a pre-cast concrete patrol road bridge across Eagle Pass Creek and removal of an existing, damaged culvert crossing the creek

x Construction of 1.1 miles of a permanent decorative iron ornamental security fence along the eastern portion of the Eagle Pass Golf Course

x Installation of permanent lights along the bridge over Eagle Pass Creek and within various locations throughout the proposed project area

x Removal of giant cane, temporary bank stabilization, and revegetation of native species along 1.3 miles of the eastern bank of the Rio Grande

These improvements would enhance the OBP agents’ access and increase visibility within the project area, allowing agents to effectively and safely apprehend illegal aliens (IA), as well as rescue distressed IAs attempting to navigate the Rio Grande. Hereafter, all persons who attempt to illegally enter the U.S., including migrants, smugglers, or terrorists are referred to as IAs.

This EA is tiered from the 2001 Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Joint Task Force 6 (JTF-6) Activities along the U.S.-Mexico Border and the CBP 2004 Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Proposed Infrastructure Projects within the Office of Border Patrol, Del Rio Sector. Joint Task Forth-North (JTF-North), formerly JTF-6 is a cooperating agency on this EA. This EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for the implementation of the

Eagle Pass Road EA 1-1 Final Maverick County

277 TEXAS

57

Rio

Maverick County

Eagle Pass Project Location

277

Grande MEXICO

1:250,000

05102.5 Miles 07.5153.75 Kilometers

Sources: ESRI Base Map Figure 1-1: Vicinity Map

Date: April 2006

1-2 NEPA, and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and CBP procedures for implementing the NEPA (Management Directive 5100.1).

1.1 BACKGROUND

In 1924, Congress created the U.S. Border Patrol to serve as the law enforcement entity of the INS, which it did until November 25, 2002. With the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law [PL] 107-296), Congress transferred all INS responsibilities to the newly created DHS. The U.S. Border Patrol was renamed the OBP, and positioned within DHS’s CBP on March 1, 2003. The CBP also assumed many responsibilities and functions of other branches of the INS, as well as, those of the U.S. Customs Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

1.1.1 CBP Strategic Intent and Priorities The priority mission of the CBP is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the U.S. (CBP 2005). This important priority mission involves maintaining a diverse, multi-layered approach, which includes improving security at the international borders and POE, and extending the physical zone of security beyond the Nation’s physical borders, so that the U.S. borders are the last line of defense, not the first. As part of this mission, CBP will work to implement its National Border Patrol Strategy to identify and seize terrorists’ assets and funding sources, and enhance the support infrastructure to further develop targets and analyses.

In addition to carrying out its priority mission, the CBP must fulfill its traditional missions that include: controlling the sovereign borders of the U.S. by apprehending individuals attempting to enter the U.S. illegally; stemming the flow of illegal drugs and other contraband; protecting the Nation’s agriculture and economic interest from harmful pests and diseases; facilitating international trade; collecting import duties; and enforcing U.S. trade, immigration and other laws of the U.S. at and beyond the Nation’s borders (CBP 2003a).

1.1.2 OBP Strategic Intent and Priorities In the aftermath of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent formation of the DHS, the OBP has assumed a new priority anti-terrorism mission into its operational environment. The priority mission is to prevent the entry of terrorists and terrorist weapons into the U.S. while fulfilling the OBP’s traditional and very important mission of detecting, interdicting, and apprehending those

Eagle Pass Road EA 1-3 Final who attempt to illegally enter or smuggle any person or contraband across sovereign borders of the U.S. (CBP 2003b).

The principle objective of the OBP is to apply appropriate levels of personnel, intelligence, technology, and infrastructure resources to increase the level of operational effectiveness until the likelihood of apprehension is sufficient enough to be an effective deterrent in creating acceptable border-wide control. The intent is to produce a level of deterrence that conveys an absolute certainty of detection and apprehension.

1.1.3 Joint Task Force - North Military engineer units provided by JTF-North, as a cooperating agency, would complete actions proposed under the Proposed Action Alternative. JTF-North was activated in November 1989, by the Secretary of Defense to support Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to counter the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S. (JTF-North 2004). JTF-North’s mission statement articulates this counterdrug effort:

“JTF-North synchronizes and integrates Department of Defense operational, training and intelligence support to domestic law enforcement agency counterdrug efforts in the continental U.S. to reduce the availability of illegal drugs in the United States; and when directed, provides operational, training and intelligence support to domestic agencies’ efforts in combating terrorism.”

1.2 PROJECT AREA LOCATION

The project area is approximately 155 acres in size, is located within the city limits of Eagle Pass, Texas and is owned by the City of Eagle Pass. The Rio Grande defines the boundary to the west and a mix of residential and commercial properties are adjacent to the project area to the east within the City of Eagle Pass, Maverick County, Texas (Figure 1-2).

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of the proposed action is to provide enhanced operational capabilities, a safer working environment for the OBP agents, and to further facilitate the OBP’s mission to gain, maintain, and extend control of the U.S.-Mexico border. The construction of an ornamental security fence, improvements to existing patrol roads, the construction of a new bridge across Eagle Pass Creek, and the installation of permanent lights would enhance the OBP’s

Eagle Pass Road EA 1-4 Final TEXAS

(!

Location Map !(

Project Area

μ 1:24,000 0500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Feet 00.510.25 Miles

Sources: USGS 1:24,000 Quadrangle Portion of the Eagle Pass East Quadrangle Figure 1-2: Property Location Map

Date: May 2006 1-5 capabilities in the apprehension and deterrence of IAs. Permanent physical barriers are preferred for durability to vandalism and low maintenance requirements. Temporary physical barriers, in lieu of permanent barriers, would be difficult to defend, are easily vandalized or removed, and would require constant maintenance.

The IAs passing through border areas threaten public and private lands, historic structures, wildlife habitat, and water resources. Many sections of the international border have experienced a dramatic increase in IA traffic. This influx has left a maze of illegal foot trails across the landscape resulting in further damage to plant communities, destabilizing slopes, increasing runoff, and increasing sedimentation into aquatic systems such as Photograph 1-1. Trails and Trash Left by IAs the Rio Grande (Photograph 1-1). This increase in sediment erosion adversely impacts not only the water quality of the Rio Grande, but fishes, mussels, and other aquatic macro-invertebrates. Dealing with the detrimental effects of IAs is becoming an ever-increasing burden on Federal and state land managers, private landowners, as well as the OBP.

The ornamental security fence would deter, and therefore, reduce IA pedestrian traffic into the City of Eagle Pass. The existing patrol roads are segmented with no means of directly crossing Eagle Pass Creek. Other reaches have fallen into disrepair from over use, making some areas of the roads impassable during inclement weather. This situation has created an unsafe work environment for the OBP agents, has limited their ability to view the border and effectively deter and apprehend IAs. The proposed improvements would allow agents to effectively and safely apprehend IAs and improve response time for apprehending IAs and dealing with potential emergencies. The proposed installation of permanent lights along the banks of Eagle Pass Creek would improve the agents’ visibility of the natural corridor stemming from the Rio Grande across the golf course, north towards the city. Removing the giant cane and revegetating with native species along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande would decrease the amount of cover used by IAs after crossing the border and would increase the OBP agents’ line of sight towards the river.

Eagle Pass Road EA 1-6 Final The Proposed Action is multi-purpose and would address the need to: x Increase deterrence of IAs x Improve OBP response time x Improve the OBP agents’ line-of-sight to the Rio Grande x Enhance the safety of OBP agents and U.S. citizens x Provide improved access and visibility along the Rio Grande for rescue operations x Enhance OBP effectiveness x Create a permanent physical barrier between the golf course and the City of Eagle Pass that is aesthetically compatible with local uses x Allow for rapid response in emergencies x Improve border environment and deter crime in the surrounding area x Enhance public safety by curtailing the use of this area by narcotics traffickers x Replace non-native vegetation with native species to improve visibility and increase aesthetic values of the property for park visitors x Reduce IA foot traffic through the golf course

1.4 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

This EA is being prepared by the CBP and the OBP, in accordance with, but not limited to the NEPA; Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended; the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, as amended; Executive Order (EO) No. 11593, “Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment”; EO No. 11988, “Floodplain Management”; EO No. 11990, “Protection of Wetlands”; EO No. 13007, “Indian Sacred Sites”; EO No. 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks”; and EO No. 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice.” Table 1-1 summarizes the pertinent environmental requirements that guided the development of this EA.

1.5 REGULATORY AUTHORITY

The mission of the OBP includes the enforcement of the Immigrant and Nationality Act (INA) and the performance of a uniformed, Federal law enforcement agency with authority delegated by the U.S. Attorney General. The primary sources of authority granted to the OBP officers are the INA, found in Title 8 of the United States Code (8 U.S.C.), and other statutes relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens.

Eagle Pass Road EA 1-7 Final Table 1-1. Applicable Environmental Statutes and Regulations

Federal Statutes Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 Clean Air Act of 1955, as amended Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1972 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1980 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 Executive Orders, Memorandums, etc. Floodplain Management (EO No. 11988) of 1977 Protection of Wetlands (EO No. 11990) of 1977 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice to Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (EO No. 12898) of 1994 Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks (EO No. 13045) of 1997 Protection of Migratory Birds & Game Mammals (EO No. 11629) of 2001 Indian Sacred Sites (EO No. 13007) of 1996 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (EO No. 13175) of 2000 Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments (Presidential Memorandum) of 1994

The secondary sources of authority are administrative regulations implementing those statutes, primarily those found in Title 8 of the CFR, judicial decisions, and administrative decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals. In addition, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) mandated DHS to acquire or improve physical barriers, equipment and technology along the border; hire and train new agents for the border region; and develop effective border enforcement strategies.

Subject to constitutional limitations, OBP officers may exercise the authority granted to them in the INA. The statutory provisions related to enforcement authority are found in several sections of the U.S.C. such as, Sections 287(a-c), and 287(e) [8 U.S.C. § 1357(a,b,c,e)]; Section 235(a) [8 U.S.C. § 1225]; Sections 274(b and c) [8 U.S.C. § 1324(b,c)]; Section 274(a and c) [8 U.S.C. § 1324(a and c)] of the INA. Other statutory sources of authority are Title 18 of the U.S.C.; which has several provisions that specifically relate to enforcement of the immigration and nationality laws; 19 U.S.C. § 1401(i), relating to U.S. Customs Service cross-designation of INS officers; and 21 U.S.C. § 878, relating to Drug Enforcement Agency cross-designation of the DHS, formerly INS, officers.

Eagle Pass Road EA 1-8 Final SECTION 2.0 ALTERNATIVES 2.0 ALTERNATIVES

The alternatives considered in this EA are based on the project’s purpose and need, as defined in Section 1.3. The two alternatives evaluated in detail in this EA are the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative.

An additional alternative was considered but eliminated from further evaluation because it did not satisfy the purpose and need for the project. Adding caliche to the roads without realignment was considered but removed from further evaluation because it would not improve safety for OBP agents. Without realignment, line-of-sight would continue to be obstructed and increased speed during apprehension operations would be hazardous. A boat ramp was also considered for implementation, but removed from this EA because of constructability constraints. The following paragraphs describe each of the alternatives considered.

2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The No Action Alternative would preclude the installation of permanent lighting within the project area, the construction of the permanent ornamental security fence and patrol road bridge, improvements and maintenance to the existing patrol road, and invasive plant species removal and native revegetation along the Rio Grande. This alternative would continue to allow normal maintenance and operation requirements of the existing roads. However, the OBP’s response time for the apprehensions of IAs would be slowed/deterred due to the lack of infrastructure. Illegal pedestrian traffic and smuggling would also continue and potentially increase due to the lack of effectiveness from existing tactics and infrastructure. IAs would continue to damage and degrade habitat along and within the Rio Grande.

The No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the proposed project, but it will be carried forward for analysis, as required by the CEQ regulations for implementing the NEPA. The No Action Alternative describes the status quo in the absence of any action alternative.

Eagle Pass Road EA 2-1 Final 2.2 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The proposed project has the following elements:

x Improvements to 1.3 miles of existing patrol roads constructed by military units or private contractors along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande x Construction of a pre-cast concrete patrol road bridge across Eagle Pass Creek and removal of an existing, damaged culvert crossing the creek x Construction of 1.1 miles of a permanent decorative iron ornamental security fence along the eastern portion of the Eagle Pass Golf Course x Installation of permanent lights along Eagle Pass Creek and within various locations throughout the proposed project area x Removal of giant cane, temporary bank stabilization, and revegetation of native plant species along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande

The proposed project area extends along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande from the south side of the Camino Real International Bridge and POE, northward for 1.3 miles, to a point just north of the City of Eagle Pass’s Athletic Field (Figure 2-1).

2.2.1 Roads and Bridge The proposed road improvements (i.e., grading, widening, and adding caliche) and construction of a bridge across Eagle Pass Creek would enhance OBP agents’ ability to react to an illegal incursion, and thus, provide deterrence to illegal entry attempts. The proposed widening would permit multiple vehicle usage along the patrol roads, reducing the risk of collisions with other agents during detection or apprehension efforts. The proposed road improvements would also allow golfers to periodically utilize the patrol roads, when not heavily used by OBP, in addition to the existing golf cart paths within the golf course. Grading and adding caliche would reduce the need for vehicle maintenance and downtime associated with traveling over poor road conditions. Furthermore, these road improvements would reduce erosion and the number of road washouts, allowing OBP agents to utilize roads with less maintenance.

The OBP currently patrols the existing road for illegal activity (Photograph 2-1). The existing

Photograph 2-1. Existing Patrol Road Eagle Pass Road EA 2-2 Final Athletic Field

Existing Parking Lot

Athletic Field

Eagle Pass POE

S

.

A

d

a

m

s

S

t

r

e

e

k t e re C s as P e gl Ea

Fort Duncan Medical Complex

Golf Course

Project Boundary Proposed Fence Proposed Road Proposed Bridge Proposed Light

Staging Areas Camino Real International Bridge POE Temporary Impact Area 2-3 Proposed Native Plant Revegetation

1:4,800

0250 500 1,000 1,500 Feet 00.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 Miles

Sources: 2005 Aerial Photography and Road/Fence data from Baker Engineering. Figure 2-1: Project Area

Date: May 2006 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Eagle Pass Road EA 2-4 Final road is a natural, graded dirt surface that is uneven and highly eroded in some areas. The proposed improvements to the existing patrol road (approximately 1.3 miles) along the Rio Grande include widening it to a two-lane primary all-weather caliche patrol road. Two temporary staging areas would be utilized within the project area to store machinery and construction equipment (Figure 2-1). Upon completion, a regular maintenance schedule would be followed as part of this action.

Approximately 1.21 miles of the proposed roadway would be 18 feet wide with a 2-foot shoulder. The remaining 0.08 miles of proposed roadway would consist of two 6-foot wide lanes with a 2- foot shoulder. A 60-foot permanent easement for the entire length of the proposed road would be required for cut and fill operations and improvements to the existing roadway. In addition, a 15-foot temporary work easement on both sides of the proposed road would be required. These areas would be replanted with native grasses once the project is complete. The improved patrol road and access roads would also be topped with an aggregate surface and treated with a soil stabilizer or similar materials. Upon completion of the road improvements only a top shot (i.e., small quantity applied to the surface) of the soil stabilizer would be required at a rate anticipated not to exceed more than once per year for maintenance purposes to ensure the longevity of the roadways (accomplished using MD 5100.1 CATEX D3). This top shot would not require any ground disturbing activities and careful application of the stabilizer would ensure no material is spread outside of the road right-of-way (ROW). The aggregate materials to be used would be brought in or supplied from local sources. Adding an aggregate surface is required to reduce maintenance costs and improve driving conditions during inclement weather. Adding an aggregate surface would also reduce fugitive air particles created by OBP and private vehicles while traveling on unimproved roads. Typical sections of the proposed roads are presented in Figure 2-2.

As part of this alternative, the failed Eagle Pass Creek crossing would be replaced with a new roadway bridge and would be constructed to connect the existing patrol roads currently segmented by Eagle Pass Creek. The bridge would be approximately 65 feet long and 18 feet wide, built out of precast normal weight concrete box beams and constructed near the mouth of Eagle Pass Creek approximately 400 feet upstream of its confluence with the Rio Grande. The foundation would be constructed of drilled straight shaft piers. Drilled piers are recommended to support the structure within stable soils below the zone of seasonal moisture

Eagle Pass Road EA 2-5 Final THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Eagle Pass Road EA 2-6 Final 15' TEMPORARY PERMANENT 60' EASEMENT 15' TEMPORARY WORK EASEMENT WORK EASEMENT 30' 30' 18'-0" ROADWAY

7'-6" 2' 9' 9' 2' EXIST GRADE C AT CUTS L

EXIST GRADE PROFILE GRADE LINE AT CUTS FRENCH DRAIN STABILIZE SLOPES SEE DETAIL B SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS 1 2 MAX 3:1 BY OTHERS 6"-DIAM. PVC -1.00% MAX 3:1 SEE PLAN 3:1 3:1 SHEET CP7 6"

5 4 2 6 3 4 EXIST GRADE SILT FENCE RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - TYPICAL SECTION 1 AT FILLS EXIST GRADE NOTES: AT FILLS STA 00+00 TO STA 29+00 & STA 32+50.00 TO STA 57+70.00 8" AGGREGATE SURFACE 15' TEMPORARY PERMANENT 60' EASEMENT 15' TEMPORARY 1 COURSE (CALICHE) WORK EASEMENT 30' 30' WORK EASEMENT 2 4" AGGREGATE SURFACE 12'-0" ROADWAY COURSE (CALICHE) VARIES 7'-6" 2' 6' 6' 2' 3 7" ENGINEERED FILL 4 ENGINEERED FILL CL 5 STABILIZED DITCH OR PROFILE GRADE LINE STABILIZE SLOPES STABILIZED EMBANKMENT SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS STABILIZED SUB-GRADE. BY OTHERS 6 1 2 FOR TREATMENT OF 1.00% SILT FENCE EXISTING ASPHALT ROAD, MAX 3:1 3:1 3:1 SEE GENERAL NOTES. FROM STA 29+00 TO STA 29+50 2 TRANSITION FROM TYPICAL SECTION 1 4 3 4 TO TYPICAL SECTION 2. 5 6 FROM 32+50 & 33+00 RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - TYPICAL SECTION 2 TRANSITION FROM TYPICAL SECTION 2 STA 29+50 TO STA 30+72.19 & STA 31+61.85 TO STA 32+50.00 TO TYPICAL SECTION 1. FROM STA 30+72.19 TO STA 31+61.85 BRIDGED CROSSING, SEE SHEET S1 15' TEMPORARY PERMANENT 60' EASEMENT 15' TEMPORARY WORK EASEMENT WORK EASEMENT 30' 30'

VARIES 22'-0" ROADWAY VARIES FILL LIMITS FILL LIMITS OF CUT CL OF CUT PROFILE GRADE LINE LWC SEE SHEET S10 STABILIZE SLOPES SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS 6:1 -1.00% -1.00% CUT MAX 10:1 FILL 3:1

6 SILT FENCE

RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - TYPICAL SECTION 3 LOW WATER CROSSINGS Adapted from Michael Baker, Inc.

Figure 2-2: Typical Cross Sections of Proposed Road

September 2006

2-7 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Eagle Pass Road EA 2-8 Final variations and can withstand the change in water current velocities. The construction of the bridge would connect the existing patrol roads and would increase response time and allow OBP agents to more effectively apprehend IAs within the project area.

2.2.2 Low Water Crossings The construction of three low water crossings is proposed within the project area for those areas that are below the grade of the proposed roadway footprint. The low water crossings would consist of a paved area of concrete with a cut-off wall overlain atop the roadbed within the footprint of the proposed road. Riprap material would be placed adjacent to the cut-off wall to prevent erosion.

2.2.3 Ornamental Security Fence The proposed 1.1 miles of a 10-foot high ornamental security fence would run north/south within a 30-foot ROW along the eastern edge of the golf course in Eagle Pass from approximately 0.4 miles north of the Eagle Pass POE to the Camino Real International Bridge. The metal fence would be attached to square main posts (spaced approximately 33 feet apart) and intermediate I-beam posts Photograph 2-2. Typical Ornamental Security Fence (spaced approximately 100 inches apart) anchored in the ground with concrete. The main posts would be placed in concrete at 60 inches below grade and the intermediate posts would be placed in concrete at 36 inches below grade. A typical section of the proposed fence is presented in Figure 2-3 and Photograph 2-2. The fence would not cross Eagle Pass Creek and would contain five access gates. Although details of the design for this project have not been finalized, the security fencing design would be chosen so that the local aesthetic value is not diminished. The proposed fence would further deter IAs from attempting to enter Eagle Pass and surrounding community.

2.2.4 Permanent Lights Fifteen permanent lights would be placed at approximately 300 to 400 foot intervals along the ornamental security fence and on the eastern edge of the bridge crossing Eagle Pass Creek. The permanent lights would consist of six 1000-watt lights and would be anchored in the ground

Eagle Pass Road EA 2-9 Final THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Eagle Pass Road EA 2-10 Final 100"96" 96" 100" 100"

DETAIL #2 8" Square Post

1 34" x 4" "I" Beam Post

9" DETAIL #1 ELEVATION DETAIL 4

8" 8"

Filled with 6,000 lbs. psi Concrete, Vabrate for Consistancy (After Cables and Fasteners Installed)

10 12" 96"

3

1

6,000 # psi Concrete

2

3 14" (Typ)

1 IBEAMPOST PANEL DETAILS 2 IMPASSE RAIL 36" 36" 3 2 34" (GAUNTLET STYLE) STRONGHOLD PALE DETAIL 1 DETAIL 2

Adapted from Michael Baker, Inc.

Figure 2-3: Typical Cross Sections of Ornamental Security Fence

May 2006 2-11 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Eagle Pass Road EA 2-12 Final 1000W SPORTS LIGHTER (TYP OF 6)

37' POLE

40'

HANDHOLE WITH TAMPER-PROOF SCREWS PROVIDE FINISH TRIM GROUNDING TERMINAL COVER, OVER NUTS (OPPOSITE HANDHOLE) GALVANIZED STEEL NUTS, WASHERS, #4 CU AND J-BOLTS

TACKWELD NUTS TO 1" NON-SHRINKABLE GROUT ANCHOR BOLTS

4" 3'-0" #3 REBAR 2REQ'D

#3 REBAR AT 12" 36" INTERVALS A SECTION PROVIDE SMOOTH CONCRETE FINISH (NO VOIDS)

24" (MIN) 72" #5 REBAR UFER- 20' OF #6 Cu INSTALLED (MIN) 8REQ'D IN CONCRETE BASE

CONDUIT 4" 4" A

3" CL #3 REBAR 2REQ'D 3'-0" DIA. 4000 PSI CONCRETE POURED NEXT TO UNDISTURBED EARTH OR IN SONO TUBE DETAIL - TYPICAL LIGHT POLE W/ FIXTURES No Scale

Adapted from Michael Baker, Inc.

Figure 2-4: Cross Section of Proposed Light Pole

May 2006 2-13 in holes 6 feet deep and 3 feet in diameter filled with concrete and attached to 40-foot poles. A typical light pole section is shown in Figure 2-4. The lights have been designed to illuminate portions of the golf course and park without illuminating the vegetated riparian corridor of the Rio Grande. The installation of the permanent lights would increase the visibility within the project area that is not already illuminated by existing lights, increase the effectiveness of the OBP mission, and increase the safety of both the agents and IAs.

2.2.5 Vegetation Removal Currently, the dense stands of giant cane prevent a clear view to the Rio Grande and causes blind spots for remote video surveillance cameras along the river corridor. These blind spots allow IAs and drug smugglers an advantage for illegal entry. Under this alternative, approximately 9 acres of giant cane would be mechanically removed (bulldozed) and regrowth controlled by herbicide along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande for the entire length of the project area. Immediately following the removal of the giant cane, bank stabilization would be done utilizing biodegradable materials such as erosion control blankets. Revegetation of the corridor with native thorny-scrub habitat would occur along the entire length of the roadway, between the edge of the roadway and the Rio Grande (Figure 2-1). Temporary irrigation would be installed as part of the revegetation effort. Intensive maintenance and monitoring of all native plants installed within the corridor would be conducted for a period of five years. A copy of the revegetation and planting plan is contained in Appendix D.

2.3 SUMMARY

Both alternatives have been carried forward for detailed analysis. The No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose and need but is carried forward for comparison. The Proposed Action Alternative provides the means of enhancing the OBP’s capabilities along the border and increasing the safety of the OBP agents; therefore, it completely satisfies the project’s purpose and need as indicated in Table 2-1.

Eagle Pass Road EA 2-14 Final Table 2-1. Alternative Matrix

Proposed No Purpose and Need Action Action Alternative

Increase deterrence of IAs No Yes Improve OBP response time No Yes Improve the OBP agent’s line-of-sight to the Rio No Yes Grande Enhance the safety of OBP agents and U.S. No Yes citizens Provide improved access and visibility along the No Yes Rio Grande for rescue operations Enhance OBP effectiveness No Yes Create a permanent physical barrier between the golf course and the City of Eagle Pass that No Yes is aesthetically compatible with local uses Allow for rapid response by OBP in No Yes emergencies Improve border environment and deter crime in No Yes the surrounding area Enhance public safety by curtailing the use of No Yes the area by narcotics traffickers Improve visibility and increase aesthetic values No Yes of the property for Fort Duncan Park visitors Reduce IA foot through the golf course No Yes

Eagle Pass Road EA 2-15 Final al asRa A -6 Final 2-16 Eagle PassRoad EA Table 2-2. Summary Matrix of Potential Impacts

Affected Environment No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative Approximately 15 acres of open field would be converted to new roads Land Use No impacts. and associated infrastructure. The project area currently contains approximately 2.4 acres of unimproved roads. Approximately 15 acres of soils would be directly impacted from the implementation of the proposed project. Nine acres of soils would be directly impacted from new road improvements and 6 acres of soils No direct impacts. Impacts would occur from would be directly impacted from the installation of the ornamental Soils and Prime Farmlands continued illegal traffic and potential erosion security fence and permanent lights. Approximately 19 acres of soils from the use of illegal foot trails. would be temporarily disturbed from the Proposed Action Alternative. No prime or unique farmlands would be impacted. Beneficial impacts to soils would occur through increased deterrence and detection of IAs. Approximately 24 acres of vegetation would be directly impacted. Nine No direct impacts to vegetation, wildlife or acres would be temporarily impacted from the removal of giant cane wildlife habitat would occur. Illegal traffic along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande and 15 acres would be Biological Resources would indirectly impact vegetation permanently impacted from the construction of the proposed road and communities and wildlife. infrastructure in areas that have already been disturbed. Beneficial indirect impacts would occur from the reduction of IA traffic. Approximately 9 acres of potential habitat would be affected from the removal of giant cane along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande; however, these impacts would be short-term. Native Texas thorny- No direct impacts. Negative indirect impacts Protected Species and scrub species would be planted in these areas to provide travel could occur from IAs degrading potential Critical Habitat corridors for the Gulf Coast jaguarundi and the ocelot. Beneficial protected wildlife habitats. indirect impacts would occur from the reduction of IA traffic. Beneficial long-term impacts would occur by providing a more suitable habitat for protected species. No direct impacts. Negative indirect impacts Unique and Environmentally No direct impacts. Beneficial indirect impacts would occur from the could occur from IAs degrading these areas Sensitive Areas reduction of IA traffic. in the region. Short-term, insignificant degradation in local air quality during Air Quality No impacts. construction activities.

2-16 Table 2-2, continued al asRa A -7 Final 2-17 Eagle Pass RoadEA Affected Environment No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative Water Resources Approximately 0.07 acres of WUS would be permanently impacted from the construction of the bridge. Short-term and minor impacts Continued degradation to the water quality of would occur to Eagle Pass Creek from the placement of bridge the Rio Grande would occur from IAs abutments along the top banks. Short term water quality impacts could crossing the river. occur from erosion and sedimentation of soils along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande. However, these impacts are anticipated to be temporary. Temporary, insignificant increases in ambient noise levels during Noise No impacts. construction activities. The Proposed Action Alternative would impact an archaeological site observed near the northern boundary of the project area. The Section 106 process is underway and would be completed prior to No impacts. construction. If the site is eligible for the NRHP, then a mitigation plan Cultural Resources would be developed in consultation with the THC and executed prior to construction. No direct impacts. Indirect impacts could No direct impacts. Beneficial indirect impacts would occur from the occur from IA traffic north of the border Socioeconomics reduction of IA traffic and decreased crime rate. forcing the displacement of minority or low- income families. The decreased aesthetic value of the project Beneficial impacts would occur from the implementation of this project Aesthetics area would continue from the deposition of from the reduced amount of garbage and trash left by IAs within the trash and garbage. project area. Solid waste and household type garbage No direct or adverse affects would occur. However, beneficial indirect Solid and Hazardous would continue to litter the landscape within impacts would occur from the decreased amount of solid waste and Materials the project area. garbage disposal within the project area.

2-17 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Eagle Pass Road EA 2-18 Final SECTION 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This section of the EA describes the natural and human environment that exists within the project area. Only those parameters that have the potential to be affected by the Proposed Action Alternative are described, as per CEQ guidance (40 CFR 1501.7 (3)). Topics limited in scope due to the lack of effect of the proposed action on the resource or the absence of the resource within the project area are not discussed in this document. Therefore, resources such as transportation, utilities, groundwater, geology, and climate are not addressed for the following reasons:

x Transportation—the project would not require any public road closures or affect other modes of public transportation. Transport of materials and equipment would occur primarily along the existing border roads, where the general public typically does not travel. x Utilities—no utilities (e.g., sewer, transmission lines, etc.) would be negatively affected by the proposed action. Additional transmission lines would be installed to support the operation of the proposed permanent lights; however, negligible amounts of energy would be required for the proposed project. x Groundwater—the proposed project would not affect groundwater resources of the region. x Geology—Construction equipment and activities would result in negligible and localized effects to geological features. x Climate—the project would not affect or be affected by the climate.

3.1 LAND USE

The project area is located along the Rio Grande extending south of the El Camino Real International Bridge and POE to 0.4 miles north of the Eagle Pass POE in Eagle Pass, Texas. The majority of the project area is developed for recreational use as a golf course and athletic fields. Riparian areas exist along the Rio Grande west of the existing patrol roads and Eagle Pass Creek traverses the project area with its confluence to the Rio Grande. Urban developed areas exist adjacent to the eastern project boundary within the city limits of Eagle Pass (see Figure 2-1).

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-1 Final 3.2 SOILS

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for Maverick County, Texas (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 1977) was reviewed to determine general soil types present within the proposed project area. The project area contains only one general soil association, the Lagloria-Laredo, which is briefly described below.

The Lagloria-Laredo association contains four soil types, the Copita sandy clay loam with 1 to 3 percent slopes, the Lagloria very fine sandy loam, with 0 to 3 percent slopes, the Rio Grande very fine sandy loam and the Zalla very fine sandy loam. A small area of the Copita soil type is located near the northern boundary of the project area. These soils consist of moderately deep, nearly level to gently sloping loamy soils found on uplands (USDA 1977). The Lagloria sandy loam is present within the southeastern portion of the project area and is typically characterized by deep, nearly level to gently sloping soils on stream terraces (USDA 1977). Additionally, the Lagloria soils are well drained, with slow to medium runoff and moderate permeability. The main uses of this soil include irrigated crops (USDA 1977). The Rio Grande and Zalla very fine sandy loam soils are located on the floodplains of the Rio Grande and have similar characteristics as the Lagloria soils; both are well drained with slow runoff and moderate permeability. However, the Rio Grande and Zalla soils are prone to occasional flooding. The Rio Grande soils are also mainly used for rangeland and wildlife habitat (USDA 1977) (Figure 3- 1).

3.2.1 Prime Farmlands Prime farmlands are protected under the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1980 and 1995 (FPPA). The FPPA’s purpose is to minimize the extent to which Federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. As required by section 1541(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 4202(b), Federal agencies are (a) to use the criteria to identify and take into account the adverse effects of their programs on the preservation of farmland, (b) to consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that could lessen adverse effects, and (c) to ensure that their programs, to the extent practicable, are compatible with state and units of local government and private programs and policies to protect farmland.

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-2 Final Project Boundary

Proposed Project Footprint

COPITA SANDY CLAY LOAM, 1-3 % SLOPES LAGLORIA VERY FINE SANDY LOAM, 0-1 % SLOPES LAGLORIA VERY FINE SANDY LOAM, 1-3 % SLOPES 3-3 RIO GRANDE AND ZALLA SOILS, FREQUENTLY FLOODED WATER

1:4,700

0250 500 1,000 1,500 Feet 00.10.20.30.05 Miles

Sources: SSURGO Soil data from NRCS. 2005 Aerial Photography and Road/Fence data from Baker Engineering. Figure 3-1: Project Area Soils

Date: May 2006 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-4 Final Prime farmlands are those farmlands that have the best combinations of physical and chemical properties to be able to produce fiber, feed, or food, and are available for these uses. Prime farmlands in Texas are classified as Prime Farmland Code 4 soils, or soils that are only considered prime farmland with proper irrigation. Unique farmland is defined as land other than prime farmland that is used for producing specific high-value food and fiber crops. Potential prime farmland is present along the U.S.-Mexico border and has recently been mapped by NRCS within Maverick County; however, according to the NRCS, no prime or unique farmland soils exist without proper irrigation in the project area. The project area is not irrigated for agriculture; and therefore, these soils are not considered prime farmland soils.

3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.3.1 Vegetation The project area borders the Rio Grande and is composed of a riparian community and urban- developed vegetation (Figure 3-2).

3.3.1.1 Riparian Community The riparian community found in the project area is dominated by giant cane along the banks and undeveloped natural floodplains of the Rio Grande (Photograph 3-1). Giant cane, a native of eastern Asia, was introduced as an erosion control agent along rivers and ditches (Bell 2002). Giant cane is listed by the Photograph 3-1. Riparian Community Department of Agriculture in Texas as a noxious plant (USDA 2004). The species has become highly invasive, colonizing vast areas of riparian zones and replacing native vegetation along the Rio Grande and its tributaries.

3.3.1.2 Urban-Developed Area Urban areas were observed within the project area and continuing east into the City of Eagle Pass. The project area encompasses all or portions of a city-owned golf course and athletic park. The athletic fields are open maintained grassy areas with no trees (Photograph 3-2).

Photograph 3-2. Athletic Field Eagle Pass Road EA 3-5 Final THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-6 Final Project Boundary

Proposed Project Footprint

Giant Cane

3-7 Urban Developed

1:4,700

0250 500 1,000 1,500 Feet 00.10.20.30.05 Miles

Sources: Vegetation data from GSRC. 2005 Aerial Photography and Road/Fence data from Baker Engineering. Figure 3-2: Project Area Vegetation

Date: May 2006 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-8 Final The golf course is also maintained grassy areas with a low density of trees. The density of trees increases as the golf course ends at the Fort Duncan Municipal Park (Photograph 3-3). The dominant tree species observed were honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa).

3.3.2 Fish and Wildlife Resources 3.3.2.1 Texas Wildlife Photograph 3-3. Fort Duncan Municipal The project area is located within the South Park Texas Brush Country (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department [TPWD] 2001). Common species of amphibians in the region include spadefoot toads (Scaphiopus spp.), chorus frogs (Pseudacris spp.), true toads (Bufo spp.), and true frogs (Rana spp.). Common snakes include rat snakes (Elaphe spp.), water snakes (Nerodia spp.), western diamondback rattlesnakes (Crotalus atrox), and Texas coral snakes (Micrurus fulvius tener). During March 6 surveys, numerous red-eared sliders (Trachemys scripta elegans) were observed in Eagle Pass Creek. Other common turtles in the region included eastern river cooter (Pseudemys concinna), ornate box turtle (Terrapene ornata), yellow mud turtle (Kinosternon flavescens), Texas tortoise (Gopherus berlandieri), smooth softshell (Apalone mutica), and spiny softshell (A. spinifera).

Fish species likely to occur in the Rio Grande near the project area are alligator gar (Lepisosteus spatula), thread-fin shad (Dorosoma petenense), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), bullhead minnow (Pimephales vigilax), striped bass (Roccus saxatilus), and Rio Grande perch (Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum) (Howeth and Rosales 2006). Fish surveys were not conducted in the Rio Grande or Eagle Pass Creek during March 2006 surveys.

Mammal species likely to occur within or near the project area include coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) (Davis and Schmidley 1997). No mammal species were observed during March 2006 surveys.

Bird species observed within the project area during March 2006 surveys included great kiskadee (Pitangus sulphuratus), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), great-tailed grackle

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-9 Final (Quiscalus mexicanus), Chihuahuan raven (Corvus cryptoleucus), rock dove (Columba livia), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). Also observed was the Vermilion flycatcher (Pyrocephalus rubinus), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), golden- fronted woodpecker (Melanerpes aurifrons), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), pyrrhuloxia (Cardinalis sinuatus), chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus). Gadwalls (Anas strepera) and mottled ducks (Anas fulvigula) were also observed in the Rio Grande.

3.4 PROTECTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT

The ESA was enacted to provide a program for the preservation of endangered and threatened species and to provide protection for the ecosystems upon which these species depend for their survival. All Federal agencies are required to implement protection programs for designated species and to use their authorities to further the purposes of the act. Responsibility for the identification of a threatened or endangered species and development of any potential recovery plan lies with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce.

The USFWS is the primary agency responsible for implementing the ESA, and is responsible for birds and other terrestrial and freshwater species. The USFWS’s responsibilities under the ESA include: (1) the identification of threatened and endangered species; (2) the identification of critical habitats for listed species; (3) implementation of research on, and recovery efforts for, these species; and (4) consultation with other Federal agencies concerning measures to avoid harm to listed species.

An endangered species is a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is a species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Proposed species are those that have been formally submitted to Congress for official listing as threatened or endangered. Species may be considered endangered or threatened when any of the five following criteria occurs: (1) current/imminent destruction, modification, or curtailment of their habitat or range; (2) overuse of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-10 Final educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) other natural or human-induced factors affect continued existence. In addition, the USFWS has identified species that are candidates for listing as a result of identified threats to their continued existence. The candidate designation includes those species for which the USFWS has sufficient information to support proposals to list as endangered or threatened under the ESA. However, proposed rules have not yet been issued because such actions are precluded at present by other listing activity.

3.4.1 Federal Two Federally endangered species, the Gulf Coast jaguarundi (Felis yaguarondi) and ocelot (Leopardus pardalis), have the potential to occur within Maverick County (USFWS 2006) but were not observed during March 2006 surveys.

3.4.1.1 Gulf Coast Jaguarundi Little information is known about the Gulf Coast jaguarundi (Campbell 2003) (Photograph 3-4). They are thought to inhabit dense, thorny-scrub thickets in southern Texas, spending most of their time hunting on the ground for birds, reptiles, and small mammals. Counties where the Gulf Coast jaguarundi have been documented during the past 30 years are Cameron and Willacy in southern Texas. Population estimates are unknown at this time Photograph 3-4. Gulf Coast jaguarundi (TPWD 2005). There are no recent records for © BigCat Rescue the Gulf coast jaguarundi in Maverick County.

Although the dense riparian area along the western boundary the project area does not consist of thorny-scrub species, it may still provide potential habitat for this species. As the project area lies adjacent to densely populated portions of the City of Eagle Pass, the riparian habitat may be used as a corridor for the species to travel through to less disturbed habitat.

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-11 Final 3.4.1.2 Ocelot In Texas, the ocelot (Photograph 3-5) tends to inhabit areas of dense mixed brush species (Campbell 2003). Canopy cover and density of shrubs are important considerations in identifying suitable habitat. Historic records indicate that the ocelot occurred throughout southern Texas. Loss of habitat has been the contributing factor to the ocelot’s decline

(TPWD 2005). It is currently restricted to Photograph 3-5. Ocelot habitat in Cameron, Duval, Hidalgo, Jim © USFWS Tom Smylie Wells, Kennedy, Kleberg, Live Oak, McMullen, Nueces, San Patricio, Starr, Willacy, and Zapata counties (Campbell 2003). Estimates for ocelot population in 1995 numbered only 80 to 120 individuals in Texas, most known to occur at or near Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge (TPWD 2005). Maverick County is considered to be the most northern extent of the range for the ocelot (USFWS 1990a) and there are no recent occurrences in the County.

Dense riparian areas along the western boundary of the project area may be considered suitable habitat for this species. As the project area lies adjacent to the City of Eagle Pass, the riparian habitat may only be used as a corridor for the species to travel through to less disturbed habitat.

3.4.2 Critical Habitat The ESA also calls for the conservation of what is termed Critical Habitat, the areas of land, water, and air space that an endangered species needs for survival. Critical habitat also includes such things as food and water, breeding sites, cover or shelter, and sufficient habitat area to provide for normal population growth and behavior. One of the primary threats to many species is the destruction or modification of essential habitat by uncontrolled land and water development. Currently there is no critical habitat designated for any species within Maverick County.

3.4.3 State The TPWD maintains lists of threatened and endangered species in Texas. This list includes flora and fauna whose occurrence in Texas is or may be in jeopardy, or with known or perceived

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-12 Final threats or population declines. These species are not necessarily the same as those protected by the Federal government under the ESA. A list of those species can be found in Appendix A.

A total of 16 state-threatened species and five state-endangered species have the potential to occur within Maverick County (TPWD 2005). Of those 21 species, four species have the potential to occur on or near the project area. Those species are the interior least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos), Gulf Coast jaguarundi, ocelot, and the indigo snake (Drymarchon corais). Although two state sensitive fish species, the blue sucker (Cycleptus elongatus) and Rio Grande darter (Etheostoma grahami) have the potential to occur within the Rio Grande basin, Eagle Pass Creek does not offer suitable habitat for these species. The Gulf Coast jaguarundi and ocelot were discussed in Section 3.4.1 and potential habitat occurs for the cats in the riparian vegetation along the western boundary of the project area. The interior least tern and indigo snake are discussed below. No state listed species were observed during March 2006 field surveys.

3.4.3.1 Interior Least Tern The interior population of the least tern (Photograph 3- 6) is listed as both a Federal and State endangered species; however, the USFWS does not recognize the least tern as potentially occurring in Maverick County (USFWS 1990b). Historically, interior least terns nested within the Rio Grande system on lakes and reservoirs (USFWS 1990b). Typically, nests are located in shallow depressions on level ground, sandy or gravelly beaches, and on banks of rivers or lakes. Photograph 3-6. Interior Least Tern Areas with sparse or no vegetation are preferred. © USFWS

Current distribution of the interior least tern in the Rio Grande system is restricted to Zapata, Webb, and Val Verde counties (Campbell 2003). The western portion of the project area is the eastern bank of the Rio Grande. However, the riparian vegetation was dense, and no sandbars or other nesting areas for interior least terns were identified during March 2006 field surveys.

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-13 Final 3.4.3.2 Indigo Snake The indigo snake (Photograph 3-7) occurs in dense riparian areas in southern Texas thornbrush habitat (TPWD 2005). The indigo snake has also been known to occur in suburban areas, grassy plains and coastal sandhills. The snake requires moist microhabitats, such as rodent burrows for shelters. The indigo snake occurs in most counties in southern Texas. The dense riparian areas near the Rio Grande could be potential habitat for the indigo snake.

3.5 UNIQUE AND SENSITIVE AREAS

Photograph 3-7. Indigo Snake 3.5.1 Rio Grande © Utah’s Hogle Zoo The Rio Grande is classified as an American Heritage River (Figure 3-3). It is the Nation’s second longest river and provides a 1,285-mile border between Texas and Mexico. President Clinton enacted EO 13061 (American Heritage Rivers) (62 FR 48445) on September 11, 1997. This EO has three objectives: “natural resource and environmental protection, economic revitalization, and historic and cultural preservation” of American Heritage Rivers. The Rio Grande was designated an American Heritage River in August 1998, and keystone projects to benefit communities along the Rio Grande were proposed in 2002 (National Park Service [NPS] 2006, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 2002a).

The Rio Grande has been designated a Wild and Scenic River for over 250 miles in New Mexico and Texas. The NPS administers the 196-mile section located in Texas that is designated as Wild and Scenic (NPS 2006). The upper 69-miles section of the river corridor flows through Big Bend National Park; the remaining Wild and Scenic River corridor flows to the Terrell/Val Verde County line. The section of the Rio Grande within the project area has not been designated a Wild and Scenic River.

3.5.2 Fort Duncan Fort Duncan was established on March 27, 1849, by Captain Sidney Burbank of the First United States Infantry, and it is now maintained by the City of Eagle Pass as a public park (Handbook

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-14 Final TEXAS

Eagle Pass Army Air Field

Location Map

Rio Gr

ande

Project Location Fort Duncan 3-15

μ 1:100,000

02.557.51.25 Kilometers

02461 Miles

Sources: USGS 1:100,000 Quadrangle Figure 3-3: Unique and Sensitive Areas Map

Date: May 2006 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-16 Final of Texas Online 2001a) (Figure 3-3). It was named after Mexican War hero, James Duncan. The fort protected early merchants and traders from border frontier outlaws and Indian attacks (Handbook of Texas Online 2001a). The fort was used during the Civil War as an important customs point for Confederate cotton and munitions trade with Mexico, during World War I as a training facility, and World War II as an officers’ club for officers stationed at nearby Eagle Pass Army Air Field. Fort Duncan was listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1971 (Handbook of Texas Online 2001a).

3.5.3 Eagle Pass Army Air Field Eagle Pass Army Air Field is approximately 10 miles north of Eagle Pass in Maverick County, Texas (Figure 3-3). It served as an advanced single-engine flying school during World War II (Handbook of Texas Online 2001b). By April 1945, all flight training at the field was discontinued (Handbook of Texas Online 2001b).

During the Eisenhower administration, an early-warning radar station was built on the site. It was later closed, and since then the facility has been used for county housing (Handbook of Texas Online 2001b).

3.6 WATER RESOURCES

3.6.1 Surface Water Because the majority of Maverick County is not underlain with an aquifer, the Rio Grande is the sole source of drinking water for Eagle Pass, El Indio, and the surrounding communities within Maverick County (EPA 2005). Current issues affecting the water quality of the Rio Grande include bacteria and pathogens from municipal point source discharges and from sources outside of the state jurisdiction or borders (i.e., Mexico) (EPA 2002b). The designated use for the reach of the Rio Grande bordering Maverick County is assessed as “not supporting” fish, shellfish, and wildlife protection and propagation (EPA 2002b). The largest water storage bodies within the south-central Texas region are the Falcon Lake and Amistad Reservoir, located 174 miles south and 67 miles north, respectively, of Eagle Pass.

3.6.2 Waters of the U.S. (WUS) and Wetlands Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 (P.L. 95-217) authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), to issue permits for

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-17 Final the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the US (WUS), including wetlands. Two major goals of the CWA are 1) to prohibit the discharge of pollutants into WUS, and 2) to improve water quality levels to a safe level for recreation and wildlife and fisheries purposes. WUS (Section 328.3[2] of the CWA) are those waters used in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to ebb and flow of tide, and all interstate waters including interstate wetlands. WUS are further defined as all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, or impoundments of waters, tributaries of waters, and territorial seas. Jurisdictional boundaries for WUS are defined in the field as the ordinary high water mark which is that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural lines impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. Wetlands are those areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions ([USACE 1987).

Activities that result in the dredging or filling of jurisdictional WUS, including wetlands, are regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. The USACE has established Nationwide Permits (NWP) to efficiently authorize common activities, which do not significantly impact WUS. The USACE has the responsibility to authorize permitting under a NWP, or to require an Individual Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires state water quality certification; therefore, letters of certification from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) would be required before a NWP could be issued and construction can begin.

The Rio Grande and Eagle Pass Creek, which traverses the project area, are classified as jurisdictional WUS. There are no jurisdictional wetlands within the project area. The Rio Grande is a resource shared by the U.S. and Mexico. The use of this water resource is regulated by international treaty, and managed by the U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC). Coordination with the USIBWC would be required for activities that occur along the Rio Grande.

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-18 Final 3.6.3 Floodplains According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the areas adjacent to the Rio Grande lie within Zone A (FEMA 2005). Zone A is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1-percent annual chance floodplains that are determined in the Flood Insurance Study by approximate methods of analysis. Because detailed hydraulic analyses are not performed for such areas, no Base Flood Elevations or depths are shown within this zone (FEMA 2004). Floodplains within the project area can be seen in Figure 3-4.

3.7 AIR QUALITY

The EPA established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), for specific pollutants determined to be of concern with respect to the health and welfare of the general public. The EPA defines ambient air quality in 40 CFR 50 as "that portion of the atmosphere, external to and 24-hour averaging periods) are established for pollutants contributing to acute health effects, while long-term standards (annual averages) are established for pollutants contributing to long-term health effects. The NAAQS are included in Table 3-1. Areas that do not meet these standards are called non-attainment areas; areas that meet both primary and secondary standards are known as attainment areas.

The EPA requires each state to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that sets forth how the Clean Air Act (CAA) provisions will be implemented within that state. The SIP is the primary means for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the measures needed to attain and maintain compliance with the NAAQS within each state. To provide consistency in different state programs and ensure that a state program complies with the requirements of the CAA and EPA, the EPA must approve the SIP. The purpose of the SIP is twofold. First, it must provide a strategy that will result in the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Second, it must demonstrate that progress is being made in attaining the standards in each non-attainment area.

Texas is located in the EPA’s Air Quality Region 6. The TCEQ is the state agency responsible for permitting, remediation, and registration. At this time, Texas does not have state ambient air quality standards; and thus, uses the NAAQS. Maverick County is currently in attainment for all criteria pollutants (EPA 2006).

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-19 Final THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-20 Final Project Boundary

Proposed Project Footprint 3-21

FEMA 100 year Floodplain

1:4,700

0250 500 1,000 1,500 Feet 00.10.20.30.05 Miles

Sources: Floodplain data from FEMA Eagle Pass, TX #489471-0004. 2005 Aerial Photography and Road/Fence data Figure 3-4: FEMA 100 Year Floodplain from Baker Engineering. Date: May 2006 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-22 Final Table 3-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards

POLLUTANT STANDARD VALUE STANDARD TYPE Carbon Monoxide 8-hour average 9 ppm (10mg/m3)* Primary 1-hour average 35 ppm (40mg/m3)* Primary Nitrogen Dioxide Annual arithmetic mean 0.053 ppm (100P/m3)* Primary and Secondary Ozone 8-hour average 0.08 ppm (157Pg/m3)* Primary and Secondary Lead Quarterly average 1.5 Pg/m3 Primary and Secondary Particulate<10 micrometers Annual arithmetic mean 50 Pg/m3 Primary and Secondary 24-hour average 150 Pg/m3 Primary and Secondary Particulate<2.5 micrometers Annual arithmetic mean 15 Pg/m3 Primary and Secondary Sulfur Dioxide Annual average mean 0.03 ppm (80Pg/m3)* Primary 24-hour average 0.14 ppm (365Pg/m3)* Primary 3-hour average 0.50 ppm (1300Pg/m3)* Secondary Source: EPA 2006. Legend: ppm = parts per million mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter of air Pg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter of air *Parenthetical value is an approximate equivalent concentration.

3.8 NOISE

The three common classifications of noise are: (1) general audible noise that is heard by humans; (2) special noise, such as sonic booms and artillery blasts that can have a sound pressure or shock component; and (3) noise-induced vibration also typically caused by sonic booms and artillery blasts involving noise levels that can cause physical movement (i.e., vibration) and even possible damage to natural and man-made structures such as buildings and cultural resource structures. At the proposed project area, most noise sources are not distinguishable over great distances during weekday daylight hours due to the amount of ambient noise present.

Audible noise typically is measured in A-weighted sound pressure levels expressed in decibels. The A-scale de-emphasizes the low and high frequency portions of the sound spectrum and provides a good approximation of the response of the average human ear. On the A-scale, zero decibels represents the average least perceptible sound, such as gentle breathing, and 120

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-23 Final decibels represents the intensity at which the eardrum may rupture, such as a jet engine at open throttle (Table 3-2) (National Research Council 1977). Sensitive receptors within 1 mile of the proposed project area include residential subdivisions, golf course and athletic fields, Fort Duncan Municipal Park, and primary and secondary schools.

Table 3-2. A-Weighted Scale (dBA) Sound Levels of Typical Noise Environments

DBA Overall Level Noise Environment Uncomfortably Loud 120 Military jet takeoff at 50 ft (32 times as loud as 70 dBA) Very loud 100 Jet flyover at 1,000 ft (8 times as loud as 70 dBA) Down Town with some construction activity Loud Propeller plane flyover at 1,000 ft 80 (2 times as loud as 70 dBA) High urban ambient sound Diesel truck 40 mph at 50 ft Freeway at 50 ft from pavement edge 70 Moderately loud Vacuum cleaner (indoor) Old urban residential area Relatively quiet 60 Air condition unit at 10 ft (1/2 as loud as 70 dBA) Dishwasher at 10 ft (in door) Quiet Large transformers 50 (1/4 as loud as 70 dBA) Small private office (in door) Very quiet Bird calls 40 (1/8 as loud as 70 dBA) Lowest limit of urban ambient sound Extremely quiet 10 Just audible (1/64 as loud as 70 dBA) 0 Threshold of hearing

Source: Wyle Research Corporation 1992.

3.9 AESTHETICS

Aesthetic resources consist of the natural and man- made landscape features that appear indigenous to the area and give a particular environment its visual characteristics. In general, the project area is developed for recreational use with a moderate aesthetic appeal. The golf course is landscaped and manicured, and the athletic fields in the northern portion of the project area are mowed regularly. The western portion of the project area is dominated by giant cane along the banks of the Rio Grande and trash left by IAs (Photograph 3-8) is Photograph 3-8. Trash Left By IAs

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-24 Final scattered throughout which detracts from the aesthetic quality of the overall area. Both residential and business areas border the project area to the east. In addition, two elevated roadways and a railroad bridge traverse the project area.

3.10 HAZARDOUS WASTES

Hazardous wastes are regulated in Texas by a combination of mandated laws promulgated by the EPA, the TCEQ, and regional Councils of Government (COG). A search was conducted on the EPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). CERCLIS contains information on hazardous waste sites, potential hazardous waste sites, and remedial activities, including sites that are on the National Priorities List (NPL) or being considered for the NPL. There were no sites found within the project area. Other than those associated with routine construction operations, no solid or hazardous wastes are expected to be encountered within the project area.

According to a Phase I Environmental Assessment that was conducted in December 2005, no known or suspected toxic and/or hazardous materials are located within the proposed project area.

3.11 SOCIOECONOMICS

3.11.1 Maverick County Population The region of influence (ROI) for the proposed action is Maverick County. Maverick County is one of 254 counties in Texas, and part of the Eagle Pass Metropolitan Statistical Area. Its 2003 population of 49,873 ranked it 58th in the state (Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA] 2004).

In Maverick County, the total estimated population in 2000 was 47,297. This is an increase of 23 percent over the 1990 population of 36,378. The 2000 racial mix is comprised mainly of Caucasians (97 percent) and people reporting to be some race other than African Americans, Asian and Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, Eskimos (3 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The population density of Maverick County is 37 people per square mile. The 2000 population of the City of Eagle Pass is 41,829, which comprises 88 percent of the total population of Maverick County (U.S. Census Bureau 2000).

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-25 Final 3.11.2 Employment, Poverty levels, and Income The total number of jobs in Maverick County in 2003 was 16,766, an increase of 33 percent over the 1993 number of jobs (11,251). In 2003, non-farm employment accounted for 94 percent of the jobs in the county (BEA 2004). Under non-farm employment, private employment provided 73 percent of the jobs and government and government enterprises provided 27 percent of the jobs (BEA 2004). The leading industries in private employment were services, retail trade, and transportation and public utilities (BEA 2004). The 2002 unemployment rate for Maverick County was 15.2 percent and the unemployment rate for the City of Eagle Pass was 17.1 percent (Real Estate Center 2004).

Per capita personal income (PCPI) is calculated as the personal income of the residents of a given area divided by the resident population of that same area using the Census Bureau’s annual midyear population estimates. In 2003 Maverick County had a PCPI of $12,774. This PCPI ranked 253rd in the state and was 44 percent of the state average ($29,074), and 41 percent of the national average ($31,472). The 2003 PCPI reflected an increase of 4 percent from 2002. The 2002-2003 state change was 1.2 percent and the national change was 2.2 percent. In 1993 the PCPI of Maverick was $8,093 and ranked 253rd in the state. The 1993- 2003 average annual growth rate of PCPI was 4.7 percent. The average annual growth rate for the state was 4.1 percent and for the Nation was 4.0 percent.

Total personal income (TPI) of an area is the income that is received by, or on behalf of, all the individuals who live in that area. In 2003 Maverick County had a TPI of approximately $6.4 million. This TPI ranked 94th in the state and accounted for 0.1 percent of the state total. In 1993 the TPI of Maverick County was approximately $3.3 million and ranked 102nd in the state. The 2003 TPI reflected an increase of 6.3 percent from 2002. The 2002-2003 state change was 3.0 percent and the national change was 3.2 percent. The 1993-2003 average annual growth rate of TPI was 6.7 percent. The average annual growth rate for the state was 6.1 percent and for the U.S. was 5.1 percent (BEA 2004).

The median household income for Maverick County, based on 2000 model estimates, is $21,232 which is significantly lower than the median household income of the State of Texas ($39,927) and the Nation ($41,994). Approximately 32 percent of the population of Maverick County lives below poverty level based on the 1997 model. This is significantly higher than the estimated 12 percent of the total population of Texas and the estimated 9.2 percent of the Nation, which live below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau 2004).

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-26 Final 3.11.3 Housing A total of 14,889 housing units existed in Maverick County according to the 2000 Census, which accounted for less than 1 percent of the total housing units in the State of Texas. Of the housing units located within Maverick County, 88 percent (13,089) are occupied while 12 percent (1,800) are vacant. The homeownership rate in 2000 was 47.1 percent. A total of 676 housing units were authorized by building permits in 2002. Housing density in Maverick County was 11.6 housing units per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2004).

3.11.4 Environmental Justice/Protection of Children from Health and Safety Risks The fair treatment of all races has been assuming an increasingly prominent role in environmental legislation and implementation of environmental statutes. In February 1994, President Clinton signed EO No. 12898 titled, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. This action requires all federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effect of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations.

The potential for Environmental Justice issues exists in Maverick County. The county has a high percentage of population of Hispanic origin (95 percent), which is a minority population. In addition Maverick County PCPI and median household income are significantly lower than that of the State of Texas and the Nation. As a result, there are also a high percentage of low- income populations within the county.

EO 13045 requires each Federal agency “to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children”; and “ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health risks or safety risks.” This EO was prompted by the recognition that children, still undergoing physiological growth and development, are more sensitive to adverse environmental health and safety risks than adults.

Persons under 5 years of age comprise 10 percent of the total population of Maverick County, and persons under 18 years of age comprise 36.9 percent of the total populations of Maverick County. These percentages are higher than those for the state (7.8 percent and 28.2 percent) and the Nation (6.8 percent and 25.7 percent). This coupled with the fact that the project takes place within the City of Eagle Pass, where the largest percentage of the total population of

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-27 Final Maverick County resides, creates the potential for issues regarding health and safety risks to children.

3.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, requires Federal agencies to identify and assess the effects of their undertakings on cultural properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. Federal agencies must consult with the appropriate state and local officials, Indian tribes, applicants for Federal assistance, and members of the public and consider their views and concerns about historic preservation issues. The ACHP is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as it deems necessary to govern the implementation of Section 106 in its entirety. Those regulations are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations as 36 CFR Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.”

3.12.1 Prehistoric Overview The prehistory of the Rio Grande Plain and Delta areas is based on the general chronological framework of the South Texas Plains region and can be broken down into five temporal periods (Black 1989). It is important to note that the general chronological framework of south Texas is closely affiliated with that of the adjacent region of central Texas. On a general level, many cultural trends spanned across both regions, usually beginning several hundred years earlier in central Texas.

Temporal periods are principally defined by the presence of diagnostic projectile points, but are intended to represent more generalized developmental facies based on subsistence practices, settlement patterns, technology, environment, etc. within the Rio Grande Plain. It is important to note, however, that the chronological framework for these areas is very cursory and that very little supporting data, outside of diagnostic artifacts, are available for any one period. Many of the diagnostic artifacts dating to a particular period often are found in mixed association with materials from other periods. Furthermore, the radiometric dating of any one period has been tenuous at best.

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-28 Final Table 3-3. Prehistoric Periods Paleo-Indian 9200 – 6000 B.C. Early Archaic 6000 – 2500 B.C. Middle Archaic 2500 - 400 B.C. Late Archaic 400 B.C. - A.D. 800 Late Prehistoric A.D. 800 – 1600

3.12.1.1 Paleo-Indian Period On a general level, the Paleo-Indian period represents the first comparatively well-documented settlement of the New World by aboriginal peoples of Eurasian decent, who crossed the Bering Land Bridge during the close of the Pleistocene epoch (ca. 11,500 B.P. [Before Present]) (Taylor 2004). The Paleo-Indian period in south Texas is defined by the presence of basally ground, lanceolate projectile points. Subsistence activities are presumed to have heavily relied on large game hunted by small nomadic bands of 20 to 30 people.

3.12.1.2 Archaic Period Wendy Lopez, Associates (WLA) conducted a survey and testing project in Maverick County in 2000 and an excellent overview of the three Archaic Periods can be found in the report of that investigation (USACE 2001). At the time of the 2000 survey and testing project, only one well- stratified site in Maverick County had been excavated near Eagle Pass at the Seco Mine (Uecker 1994). Although many of the sites in the area are large, they often consist of diffuse scatters of lithic material from several different periods that have been generically listed as “Archaic”. WLA attributed this to a pattern of many short-term occupations in the past with shallow deposition of artifacts that had now deflated over time with erosion (USACE 2001).

As a general cultural pattern, the Early Archaic period represents the beginnings of an adjustment, coinciding with the onset of the Holocene Epoch, from former Paleo-Indian settlement/subsistence patterns of high mobility, partially or largely reliant on large migratory game, to a more localized hunting and gathering strategy based on a wider spectrum of plants and animals. The range of faunal material recovered from Early Archaic contexts in south Texas supports this type of adaptation, and includes freshwater mussels, land snails, turtle bones, and freshwater drum bones (Black 1989). Early Archaic populations in the region remained in small bands and were still quite mobile.

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-29 Final The Middle Archaic period represents a continuation of the general Archaic lifestyle of broad- based hunting and gathering, in addition to an increase in population growth and expansion, which can be seen throughout Texas. The presence of grinding slabs and manos, as well as burned rock features interpreted as roasting or baking hearths (Hall et al. 1986), may also indicate that peoples of the Middle Archaic period developed an increased dependence on plant resources. Land snails, freshwater mussels, deer, and other mammals also were exploited during this period (Black 1989).

The Late Archaic period is considered to be a continuation of population expansion and growth experienced during the Middle Archaic. For example, the number of known Late Archaic sites in south Texas is greater than the number of known Middle Archaic sites, and this is seen as a natural progression of increasing population growth (Black 1989). The proliferation of cemeteries during the Late Archaic period is seen as further evidence of population growth and territoriality in the region. The presence of marine shell at inland cemeteries and chert on the coastal sites suggests that even with the onset of restricted territories, contacts, and even more formal kinds of exchange, continued between various inland and coastal groups in south Texas.

The Late Archaic subsistence economy in the Rio Grande Plain area is interpreted as retaining an emphasis on the acquisition of plant resources. The specialized roasting hearths, first seen in the Middle Archaic, occur in greater numbers during the Late Archaic period. Steele's (1986) suggestion that Late Archaic populations were increasing their reliance on the exploitation of small animals is also seen as further proof that there was a greater reliance on plant utilization rather than on large to medium-sized game.

3.12.1.3 Late Prehistoric Period The Late Prehistoric period is marked by the introduction of new technologies in concert with a continuation of population growth in the region. The bow and arrow are introduced throughout south Texas sometime after A.D. 800 but before A.D. 1200 (Black 1989). With the onset of the bow and arrow, and perhaps more importantly, the introduction of ceramics, old subsistence practices of the Archaic disappear from the archeological record. Bone-tempered pottery appears at inland sites sometime before A.D. 1000 (Hall et al. 1986) and is associated with the Austin (ca. A.D. 800-1350) and Toyah (A.D. 1350-1528) horizons (Black 1989).

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-30 Final The Austin horizon started several hundred years earlier in central Texas and then spread further into south Texas as a result of either population movements or the transference of culture traits (Black 1989). Although the subsistence economy was still heavily dependent on gathering a variety of plant foods, hunting seems to have increased in importance during the Austin horizon in both regions, as indicated by an increased ratio of projectile points to other tools, and by an increased frequency of deer bones (Black 1989).

The Toyah horizon is characterized by contracting stem arrow points as well as an increase in the amount of bone-tempered ceramics in association with small endscrapers, and diamond- shaped, beveled knives. Overall, there appears to have been a dramatic shift in the economy towards a greater emphasis on the procurement of large mammals associated with the Toyah horizon, which coincided with the influx of bison in both central and south Texas. Like the Austin, the Toyah horizon seems to begin a little earlier in central Texas and then spreads further south into the interior portion of south Texas (Black 1989). Hunting attained equal or greater importance compared to gathering.

3.12.1.4 Protohistoric and Historic Periods During the 2000 survey, WLA determined that there were no protohistoric or historic sites within the project area (USACE 2001). Identified Native peoples who used the area include Caohuiltecans, Jumanos, Lipan Apache, and some other groups that are simply ambiguously referred to as Indian (Hester 1989). Currently, the Kickapoo Reservation is located in Maverick County in Eagle Pass (USACE 1999).

3.12.1.5 Kickapoo History The Kickapoo are an Alogonquin-speaking people who settled in present-day Wisconsin and Illinois. The 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries were marked by foreign invasions into their tribal heartland by the French, British, and finally, the Americans. Then, as today, the Kickapoo were resolute in their refusal to submit to outside cultures. Their skilled and fierce warriors engaged in a protracted military effort to resist the advancing tide of settlement. Ultimately, the Kickapoo acceded and were forced to relinquish their homelands (Gibson 1963).

One band eventually went south to Texas, in the vicinity of Eagle Pass. Complex hostilities developed and the Kickapoo sided at various times with the U.S., the Republic of Texas, and Mexico. Finally, due largely to conflicts with non-Indian residents of Texas, the band migrated

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-31 Final still further south, below the U.S.-Mexico border. This band is variously referred to as the “Texas Band of Kickapoo,” the “Eagle Pass Kickapoo,” the “Traditional Kickapoo,” or the “Mexican Kickapoo” (Gibson 1963).

In the mid-19th century the band negotiated an agreement with Mexico for a land base and hunting grounds near Nacimiento, Mexico. Some Kickapoo from Kansas joined their fellow tribal members in Mexico.

In 1883, a reservation of approximately 200,000 acres was established by President Arthur in Oklahoma for the Kickapoo. In 1891 an agreement was negotiated that purported to provide for 80 acre allotments from the Oklahoma reservation for individual Kickapoo; all other tribal lands would be opened for settlements by non-Indians. Although over 60 percent of the tribe disavowed the agreement, Congress enacted it into a law in 1893 and surplus tribal land was opened for settlement through a major land rush in 1895 (Gibson 1963).

During the early 20th century, the Kickapoo kept their ties alive in spite of being dispersed in Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas. The communities visited back and forth. There was a considerable amount of intermarriage among the bands. The Kickapoo continued to live year- round at Nacimiento during the first several decades of the 20th Century. In the 1940s, there was a long and severe drought and with Nacimiento no longer capable of providing a viable homeland, the Kickapoo were forced to migrate again and return to Eagle Pass, Texas (Gibson 1963).

Since World War II, the Kickapoo have resided for the greater part of the time in Eagle Pass. They use their land at Nacimiento primarily for religious ceremonies. Eagle Pass itself has religious significance to the Kickapoo because several tribal burial sites are located in the area.

3.12.1.6 Maverick County History The earliest record of Anglo settlement in the area of Maverick County occurred in the spring of 1834. Although direct trade with Texas was forbidden by the Mexican government following the Texas Revolution, Mexican villages near the Rio Grande continued an underground trade with San Antonio by using the Pacuache Crossing of the Rio Grande and a smuggler's trail immediately north of the Camino Real. On March 27, 1849, Capt. Sidney Burbank established

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-32 Final Fort Duncan, previously known as Camp Eagle Pass, on a site 2 miles north of the fort at Adjuntos Pass (Pingenot 1971).

San Antonio merchant James Campbell established a trading post at Eagle Pass and was soon joined by William Leslie Cazneau, who moved to the border to speculate in lands. Cazneau and San Antonio banker John Twohig, who owned much of the land in future Maverick County along the Rio Grande and who at one time, leased the property of Fort Duncan to the Federal government, laid out a plan of Eagle Pass in 1850. Around 1850 Cazneau started ranching on land that had previously been the upper portion of the Rivas grant. Cazneau was joined at his ranch in the spring of 1850 by his wife, Cora Montgomery (Montgomery 1966 [1852]).

The community that grew up around Fort Duncan acquired the county's first post office in 1851. Eagle Pass' regional isolation was significantly altered with the establishment of a stage line from San Antonio in 1851. During the decade before the Civil War, the area was a haven for outlaws, slave hunters, and other disreputable people (Pingenot 1971).

The abandonment of Fort Duncan during the Civil War enabled the Indian population to gain control of the region; both American and Mexican inhabitants suffered tremendous loss of life and property. Following the war, the Black Seminole Scouts were organized at Fort Duncan to aid in the control of the Indians. The last Indian raid in the county occurred in 1877. After the Civil War, Eagle Pass continued as a garrison town and focal point for trade with Mexico and as a center for stock raising and ranching. The main line of the Galveston, Harrisburg and San Antonio Railway was extended west from San Antonio around 1880, after which a 35-mile branch line was constructed by the Rio Grande and Pecos Railway south to Eagle Pass from Spofford in 1882. This rail line connected with the Mexican Railway in Piedras Negras and greatly enhanced the region's international trade potential (Pingenot 1971).

Although the county was established in 1856, it was not until September 4, 1871, that it was officially organized. The historic Maverick County Courthouse was declared a Texas historic landmark in September 1971. Places of interest included the Fort Duncan Museum in Eagle Pass and the Eagle Pass Auxiliary Air Field in Quemado. The only NRHP (National Register of Historic Places) listed property near the project area is historic Fort Duncan in Eagle Pass (Pingenot 1971; USACE 2001).

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-33 Final 3.12.2 Previous Cultural Resources Surveys Many portions of Maverick County in southwestern Texas have been examined through archeological surveys and small testing projects, the most recent being in 1999 and 2000. The Eagle Pass area has been a focus of much of this work related to cultural resource management needs of local development. However, a sophisticated understanding of cultural history, ecological adaptations, and archeological site formation are underdeveloped. The accumulation of survey data and limited excavations in the general area has not addressed the difficulty of interpreting sites that appear to represent very short term visits by small groups of people during the last 9,000 years (USACE 2001).

Controlled stratigraphic information is available from nearby areas in Maverick County (Vierra 1998) and northeastern Mexico (Nance 1992). A summary of pertinent work in Maverick County and the Eagle Pass area is provided by Uecker (1994). Survey and testing have been performed adjacent to the proposed project area. A summary of sites north of Eagle Pass in the Seco Mine area (Uecker 1994) consists of dense surface scatters and shallow subsurface deposits. Evidence of Paleo-Indian occupation was scant. Only a single site was identified as Late Prehistoric, and two 19th-20th century historic sites are tabulated from the Seco Mine area. Clearly the consensus is that the majority of identifiable archeological occupations span the Early-Late Archaic (~8000-1000 B.P.) time periods. It should be noted that, as with better studied areas of North America, some “Archaic” lifeways persisted until late prehistoric times (Frison 1978). Fort Duncan (41MV2) and the Maverick County Courthouse (THC Reference Number: 80004141), within Eagle Pass, are the only places in Maverick County currently listed in the NRHP (Davis and Jones 1993; Mercado-Allinger et al. 1996; Potter 1990).

Archeological surveys have been performed in 11 areas within 1 mile of the two international border bridges connecting the City of Eagle Pass to the City of Piedras Negras, Mexico. From these surveys, seven archaeological sites were recorded. These sites are 41MV2, 41MV53, 41MV55, 41MV56, 41MV65, 41MV66, and 41MV237. These seven sites are located within 1 mile of the fence and lighting project corridor.

3.12.3 Current Investigations GSRC conducted a cultural resources survey of a proposed fence, patrol road, and lighting construction area for the OBP in Eagle Pass, Maverick County, Texas on March 13 and 14, 2006. The cultural resources survey consisted of a pedestrian survey of the entire 155-acre

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-34 Final project area and the excavation of three backhoe trenches in the area north of the Eagle Pass POE international bridge. The backhoe trenching was determined to be necessary because of the depths of the alluvial soil deposits encountered during previous surveys near, or adjacent to, the project area. The Right-of-Way (ROW) for the fence and lighting consisted of a 2-foot wide by 1700-foot long area. The three trenches in the project area were excavated to a depth of approximately 6 feet and the excavated soil was screened for cultural material. The surface was highly disturbed due to the proximity of the project area to downtown Eagle Pass and the activities in the athletic field over time.

No significant cultural resources were located during the pedestrian survey. However, there was a limestone footing from a large residence built in the middle of the 19th century that was revealed during the excavation of one of the backhoe trenches. This site has been given a temporary Trinomial number, 41MVS1. The NRHP eligibility of 41MVS1 could not be determined from the trenching alone. Given the depth of the foundation and the narrow width of the project corridor, it is not anticipated to be impacted from the fence construction. However, no adverse impacts would occur, because archaeological monitoring would occur during the construction of the light poles and the main posts of the fence near 41MVS1. Section 106 concurrence has been granted by the THC under the condition that a qualified archeologist be present during construction within the vicinity of the one site that was observed near the northern boundary of the project area. Any adverse impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-35 Final THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Eagle Pass Road EA 3-36 Final SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section of the EA addresses potential impacts associated with the implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative or alternatives outlined in Section 2.0. Impacts to the human and natural environment can be characterized as beneficial or adverse and can be direct or indirect based upon the result of the action. Direct impacts are those effects that are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place (40 CFR 1508.8[a]). Indirect impacts are those effects that are caused by the action and are later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR 1508.8[b]). The effects can be temporary, short in duration (short-term), long lasting (long-term), or permanent. For purposes of this EA, temporary effects are defined as those that would last for the duration of the construction period; short-term impacts would last from the completion of construction to 3 years. Long-term impacts are defined as those impacts that would occur up to 10 years after construction, while permanent impacts indicate an irretrievable loss or alteration.

Impacts can vary in magnitude from a slight to a total change in the environment. The impact analysis presented in this EA is based upon existing regulatory standards, scientific and environmental knowledge and best professional opinions. The impacts on each resource are described as significant, moderate, minor (minimal), insignificant or no impact. Significant impacts are those effects that would result in substantial changes to the environment (as defined by 40 CFR 1500-1508). All impacts described are adverse unless otherwise noted. Additionally, a quantitative impact analysis was used to describe potential impacts when data were available for the given resource (e.g., vegetation).

For the purposes of this EA, a 60-foot wide right-of-way (ROW) was used for road improvements. The roadway and adjacent shoulders would be 30 feet wide. A temporary easement of 15 feet on both sides of the road would be necessary during construction. Ornamental security fencing and permanent lighting structures would be constructed within a 30-foot ROW.

The footprint of the permanent components of the Proposed Action total 15 acres. This includes approximately 6 acres for the fence and permanent lights ROW and 9 acres from the road improvements. However, of the 9 acres required for road improvements 2.4 acres are currently being used as either a patrol road or golf cart path.

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-1 Final The footprint of the temporary impacts from the construction of the Proposed Action totals 19 acres. This includes 10 acres for the temporary easement for the road improvements and 9 acres of disturbance from giant cane removal and revegetation.

4.1 LAND USE

The significance threshold established for land use is: x The action is inconsistent with adopted land use plans.

4.1.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not directly affect land use. However, under the No Action Alternative illegal vehicle and foot traffic would continue to impact land use within the project area. Without improved efficiency and effectiveness provided by infrastructure improvements, problems attributable to IA activity would continue to affect the recreational areas. Furthermore, riparian vegetation along the Rio Grande would continue to be degraded by illegal traffic.

4.1.2 Proposed Action Alternative The implementation of the Proposed Action would not reach the threshold of significance because the majority of the project area is developed, the OBP’s operations in the project area would not change, and land uses would not be permanently altered. The Proposed Action Alternative would permanently impact approximately 15 acres of existing developed land used in connection with the City of Eagle Pass golf course and parkland, but would not permanently impact their operation. The existing patrol road covers approximately 2.4 acres of property adjacent to the golf course. The adjacent developed recreational and urban areas would not be directly impacted by the Proposed Action Alternative because those areas are already disturbed with existing structures such as chain link fences and permanent lights. Temporary impacts within the project area would include a construction easement along the roadway and two staging areas, but these areas would return to existing land uses following the completion of construction.

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-2 Final 4.2 SOILS AND PRIME FARMLAND

The significance threshold established for soils is: x The action results in severe soil erosion or sedimentation. x The action results in the loss of biological productivity of rare soils. x The action results in the loss or degradation of prime or unique farmlands.

4.2.1 No Action Alternative The implementation of the No Action Alternative would not result in direct impacts to soils; however, the OBP would not be as effective in detecting or apprehending IAs. Illegal vehicle and foot traffic would continue at its current level or increase. The continuation of illegal traffic and consequent enforcement activities has the potential of impacting soils (i.e., erosion, compaction) in the project area. Soils within the project area are extremely susceptible to erosion due in part to their high sand content and alluvial nature. The existing road would continue to degrade as OBP vehicles patrol, adding to existing erosion problems. Continued soil disturbance by illegal traffic as a result of new illegal trails would disturb new areas and ultimately increase soil erosion by wind and water throughout the project area.

4.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative Ground disturbance would be necessary to implement the Proposed Action Alternative and would directly impact approximately 15 acres of Lagloria-Laredo association soils within the project area. Approximately 9 acres of Lagloria-Laredo soils would be impacted by road improvements and 6 acres would be impacted by the installation of ornamental security fencing and permanent lighting structures. Approximately 2.4 acres of Rio Grande and Zalla soils are contained in the existing road bed.

The two 15-foot wide construction easements on each side of the proposed road would temporarily impact an additional 10 acres of Rio Grande and Zalla soils through compaction and erosion, and approximately 9 acres of Rio Grande and Zalla soils would be temporarily disturbed from the removal of giant cane and the use of staging areas. Environmental design measures presented in Section 5.0 would alleviate potential erosion and sedimentation problems during construction. Also, no prime farmlands would be impacted by the proposed construction as no soils within the project corridor are considered prime farmlands. Therefore, due the combination of environmental design measures to minimize erosion and sedimentation

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-3 Final possibilities, lack of rare soils, and because of the abundance of similar soils adjacent to the project corridor, no significant impacts would occur to soils.

Beneficial impacts are expected from the bank stabilization and revegetation of the riparian area, installation of permanent lighting, and construction of ornamental security fencing. With the replacement of the dense stand of giant cane with lower growing native scrub and native tree species and the installation of permanent lighting, the field of vision for OBP surveillance would increase. Increased surveillance capabilities would improve OBP detection and apprehension efforts and thus, increase deterrence, reducing IA impacts to soils.

The Proposed Action Alternative would substantially reduce illegal traffic and associated indirect impacts. The reduction in illegal traffic would alleviate compaction and erosion caused by foot traffic.

4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3.1 Vegetation The significance of any degradation or loss of natural vegetation is a function of the local and regional abundance of impacted vegetation types, the effect of degradation on ecological processes, and the sensitivity of the impacted vegetation type to disturbance. Significance thresholds established for vegetation resources are: x The action results in the permanent loss or degradation of sensitive or rare plant communities. x The action affects ecological processes, population size, population connectivity, migration, or individual fecundity to the extent that long-term viability of any native species becomes threatened would be significant.

4.3.1.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed infrastructure would not be installed; thus, no direct impacts to vegetation within the project area are anticipated. However, under this alternative, OBP effectiveness would be reduced because the giant cane would continue to obstruct visibility of the Rio Grande and Mexico from the patrol road.

4.3.1.2 Proposed Action Alternative No rare or sensitive plant species would be impacted as a result of the Proposed Action. Furthermore, no native vegetation would be disturbed or lost. The implementation of the

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-4 Final Proposed Action Alternative would remove 9 acres of giant cane and permanently impact 15 acres of turf grass and landscape vegetation (i.e., athletic fields and golf course). There would be 18 acres of temporary impacts to previously disturbed landscape vegetation from staging areas, grading activities, and temporary construction easements. Permanent and temporary impacts to vegetation would be minimized to the extent practicable through avoidance, minimization, and rehabilitation as discussed in Section 5.3 of this document. Although the direct impacts would permanently remove 24 acres of vegetation, the impacted vegetation communities and their associated plant species are either common throughout south Texas or are highly invasive, non-native species. The turf grass in areas associated with the golf course and park would be rehabilitated or replanted following construction.

The removal of 9 acres of giant cane would be beneficial because the non-native giant cane would be replaced with native riparian vegetation. The giant cane removal and revegetation concept plan is located in Appendix D. The replanted area would be monitored for a 5-year period to assure native species survival and the control of non-native plant species. Revegetation with native species would be beneficial by protecting the natural diversity of the regional biological communities. Native vegetation would also allow for greater visibility for OBP agents patrolling the area and after vegetation maturity, thorny-scrub vegetation would help to impede IA foot traffic.

4.3.2 Wildlife Significance thresholds established for wildlife resources are: x The action causes the loss of a substantial number of individuals of any native animal species that could affect abundance or diversity of that species beyond normal viability. x The action results in the permanent loss or degradation of sensitive or rare habitat for animal species.

4.3.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct impacts to wildlife species and there would be no loss or alteration of habitat because no construction would occur. However, with the implementation of the No Action Alternative, habitat supporting fish and wildlife would continue to be degraded from IAs using and creating trails through the riparian zones and crossing the Rio Grande.

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-5 Final 4.3.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative Although the Proposed Action Alternative would permanently impact 9 acres of riparian habitat, giant cane is a non-native invasive plant species and is not considered preferred habitat for native wildlife species. Additionally, the giant cane would be replaced with native vegetation that would have a greater wildlife value. The removal of the giant cane would cause minor, temporary and short-term impacts to wildlife species that utilize the cane habitat while phased revegetation occurs; however, the replacement of giant cane with native plant species would have a net beneficial impact to wildlife in the area and would not cause a permanent loss or degradation of any sensitive or rare habitat within the project area. In addition, the Proposed Action Alternative is unlikely to cause the loss of substantial number of animals due to the fact that the majority of the project area is already disturbed from the development of the adjacent golf course and athletic fields.

Proposed lighting would be designed so that the riparian corridor is not illuminated and, therefore, would not disrupt wildlife activities. The installation of the ornamental security fence would not impact wildlife because it would be constructed in areas that have been previously disturbed, located adjacent to developed areas of the City of Eagle Pass and would not cross Eagle Pass Creek. The loss of some trees within the golf course from fence construction may occur, but mesquite trees are common and abundant regionally and would not create a loss of wildlife habitat.

Temporary indirect impacts to aquatic species within Eagle Pass Creek and the Rio Grande could occur from erosion and sedimentation; however, the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in Section 5.3 and bank stabilization measures associated with the revegetation effort would ensure that there would not be a significant loss of individuals or degradation of sensitive or rare habitats along Eagle Pass Creek and the Rio Grande.

4.4 PROTECTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT

An impact on protected species would be considered significant if project construction or operation would: x The action results in an adverse modification of designated or proposed critical habitat for one or more listed species. x The action causes adverse impacts on Federal species which cannot be minimized through conservation measures.

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-6 Final x The action results in direct or indirect impacts on candidate or sensitive species populations, or habitat, that would contribute to or result in the Federal or state listing of the species (e.g., by substantially reducing species numbers, or by resulting in the permanent loss of habitat essential for the continued existence of a species).

4.4.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct impacts to protected species. However, with the implementation of the No Action Alternative, giant cane would continue to be trampled and destroyed from IAs using and creating illegal trails after crossing the Rio Grande. Although the giant cane is not considered ideal wildlife habitat, it could potentially be used as a migration corridor for the Gulf Coast jaguarundi and ocelot. These species have not been observed in Maverick County recently, but the area may be historic foraging territory.

4.4.2 Proposed Action Alternative The Proposed Action Alternative would remove 9 acres of giant cane along the banks of the Rio Grande that could potentially be used as a cat migration corridor. However, this vegetation does not provide high quality habitat for foraging, it is present in a very narrow corridor along the Rio Grande, and is adjacent to developed areas. In addition, areas where cane is removed would be replaced with native thorny-scrub plant species. Native thorny-scrub restoration is one of the preferred habitat improvement methods for the ocelot and jaguarundi in such places as the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge. There could be temporary and short-term impacts to the cats, if they occur, while the phased revegetation occurs. Other environmental design measures, such as removing the giant cane in a manner that would not cause a discontinuous corridor that parallels the Rio Grande, would be implemented (see Chapter 5) to further reduce impacts. Due to the lack of documented sightings of these species in Maverick County, the phased approach to removing cane, the limited amount of cane that will be removed, and the long-term improvements to the habitat, these impacts may affect, but not likely to adversely affect the Gulf Coast jaguarundi or ocelot.

Proposed lighting would not illuminate the riparian corridor and, therefore, would not disrupt potential cat migration activities. The ornamental security fence would be located adjacent to urban areas and outside of potential cat migration areas. Furthermore, the fence would not cross Eagle Pass Creek.

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-7 Final Although the interior least tern is known to inhabit areas along the Rio Grande in Maverick County, no suitable habitat was observed within the project area during the March 2006 surveys. Therefore, the Proposed Action Alternative is expected to have no affect on this species.

4.5 UNIQUE AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS

The significance thresholds established for unique and environmentally sensitive areas are: x The action is inconsistent with adopted management plans. x The action causes the permanent loss of the characteristics that make an area unique or sensitive.

4.5.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no direct impacts would occur to unique and sensitive areas within the project area because the proposed infrastructure would not be constructed. However, indirect impacts would occur to the Rio Grande and the grounds of Fort Duncan from continued IA crossings.

4.5.2 Proposed Action Alternative No adverse direct or indirect impacts would occur to unique and environmentally sensitive areas from the Proposed Action Alternative. With the implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, creation and maintenance of the proposed infrastructure would have beneficial impacts by improving public access and restricting IA damage to natural areas along the Rio Grande and to Fort Duncan are not illuminated. Improved OBP access and visibility would reduce IA impacts to this area including illegal trails, litter, and erosion.

The installation of permanent lights would illuminate the areas immediately surrounding the ornamental security fence. The lights would be angled to ensure that areas near the Rio Grande and Fort Duncan are not illuminated. Noise increases due to construction activities would also be temporary with no long-term significant impacts.

4.6 WATER RESOURCES

The significance thresholds for water resources are: x The action substantially alters existing drainage patterns of the site or area.

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-8 Final x The action results in a permanent loss of a wetland or wetland function that can not be compensated. x The action violates any Federal or state water quality standards.

4.6.1 Surface Water 4.6.1.1 No Action Alternative No direct impacts to surface waters within the region would occur upon implementation of this alternative. However, illegal foot traffic could continue at the current rate or potentially increase, resulting in potential impacts to surface waters in the region. IA foot traffic disturbs the bed and banks of rivers and streams, causing erosion and sedimentation during rain events. Erosion and sedimentation can alter stream flow and affect water quality.

4.6.1.2 Proposed Action Alternative Temporary indirect impacts to water quality from sedimentation and erosion of the Rio Grande would occur during the removal of giant cane. Impacts associated with the removal of the giant cane would be minimized through the use of BMPs and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

The Proposed Action Alternative would not result in severe erosion or sedimentation, nor would it substantially alter existing drainage patterns, or result in a violation of any Federal or state water quality standards. Water needed for construction purposes of the Proposed Action Alternative would be obtained from the local municipal water supply or would be pumped directly from the Rio Grande. Water needed for the proposed project construction would be temporary and would not significantly impact local water supplies. No significant adverse impacts to surface water resources, as a result of this alternative, are expected.

Indirect adverse impacts to surface waters resulting from the potential shift of illegal traffic in order to avoid the proposed infrastructure are difficult to quantify. The types and quantities of surface waters that would be impacted are not known at this time, as the direction in which any potential shift in IA traffic would occur is totally at the discretion of the IAs. However, these indirect impacts to surface waters would be in the form of erosion and sedimentation.

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-9 Final 4.6.2 Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands 4.6.2.1 No Action Alternative Implementing the No Action Alternative would not directly impact WUS or wetlands, because no construction activities would occur. However, illegal foot traffic would continue and potentially increase resulting in further degradation of WUS and wetlands within the region. Consequently, there is the potential for indirect, impacts including erosion and sedimentation to WUS and wetlands due to illegal foot traffic through the area.

4.6.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative The Proposed Action Alternative would have minimal permanent impacts to approximately 0.07 acres of Eagle Pass Creek from the construction and placement of the abutments for the new bridge along the banks of Eagle Pass Creek. The proposed bridge would be supported by piers drilled in the upper banks of the creek for support and rip rap would be placed to protect the side slopes along the creek bed. WUS would be directly impacted from the construction of the concrete bridge across Eagle Pass Creek. Because the impacts of the proposed project fall below the threshold of 0.10 acre, a pre-construction notice (PCN) under Nationwide Permit 14 – Linear Transportation Crossings would not be required by the USACE – Fort Worth Regulatory Branch. However, the Proposed Action Alternative would require the submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity under the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (PDES) to TCEQ prior to construction activities. No potential jurisdictional wetlands were observed within the project area. The removal of the failed concrete crossing would provide a long-term beneficial impact to Eagle Pass Creek by reducing restricted flow caused by the debris.

4.6.3 Floodplains 4.6.3.1 No Action Alternative No direct impacts to the Rio Grande floodplain would occur under the No Action Alternative because no construction activities would take place.

4.6.3.2 Proposed Action Alternative The Proposed Action Alternative would occur within the Rio Grande floodplain. Coordination with the USIBWC and a floodplain permit would be obtained from the City of Eagle Pass prior to construction. The building of structures (i.e., fence) within the floodplain would not result in adverse impacts because the Proposed Action Alternative would not significantly alter the

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-10 Final function of the floodplain. Coordination with the USIBWC on floodplain issues associated with the design would be completed prior to construction. The Proposed Action Alternative would not result in increased flood durations, heights, or frequency. All construction activities would be in accordance with EO No. 11988, Floodplain Management.

4.7 AIR QUALITY

The significance threshold established for air quality is: x The action causes or contributes to a violation of Federal or state ambient air quality standards.

4.7.1 No Action Alternative Continuation of existing OBP patrol and maintenance regimes would not have additional direct impacts to air quality. However, without the proposed road and infrastructure project, additional patrol activities would become increasingly necessary, which could create increased amounts of fugitive dust or hydrocarbon emissions within the area. The magnitude of these impacts would depend upon several variables including number of vehicle trips, climatic conditions, and soil types. The increased OBP patrol activities could cause increased impacts to air quality as compared to the Proposed Action Alternative.

4.7.2 Proposed Action Alternative Emissions from construction equipment would cause a minor, temporary increase in air emission within the project area; however, a decrease in air emissions are expected once construction is completed because of the improved road surfaces throughout the project area. Fugitive dust generated during construction would be minimized by applying water or other wetting solutions to control fugitive dust emissions; however, emissions within the project area are expected to be well below the de minimus thresholds. The area is in attainment and an air conformity analysis is not necessary. Therefore, the implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would not result in the violation of Federal or state ambient quality standards.

4.8 NOISE

The significance threshold established for this analysis for noise is: x The action results in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-11 Final 4.8.1 No Action Alternative There would be no additional impacts, beneficial or adverse, to noise levels within the proposed project area.

4.8.2 Proposed Action Alternative Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would result in a temporary increase in noise levels during construction activities. OBP patrol and maintenance operations following construction would be at a slightly higher level as compared to that of the No Action Alternative because of the increased traffic on the improved roads and because of the addition of infrastructure within the project area. Beneficial impacts to noise from the Proposed Action Alternative could occur as ambient noise levels potentially decrease with the reduction in illegal traffic and subsequent OBP apprehension operations.

4.9 AESTHETICS

The significance threshold established for aesthetics is: x The action substantially and permanently degrades the existing visual character or quality of the region.

4.9.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not directly affect aesthetics. However, illegal vehicle and foot traffic would continue to impact aesthetic resources within the project area through litter and vandalism in urban, recreational (e.g., public golf course), and riparian areas.

4.9.2 Proposed Action Alternative The ornamental security fence and lighting would potentially detract from the aesthetic resources of the project area. However, the fence would be decorative to minimize aesthetic impacts to recreational areas. The installation of additional permanent lights within the western portion of the corridor would not adversely impact aesthetics because existing lights throughout the golf course and street lights located along the eastern boundary of the project area currently illuminate the majority of those areas. Vegetation management would temporarily impact aesthetics immediately following the removal of giant cane and the planting of native thorny- scrub vegetation. However, this impact is temporary because the native vegetation would mature rapidly.

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-12 Final Indirectly, the Proposed Action Alternative would provide protection for aesthetic resources in the project area. Direct beneficial impacts are expected from the revegetation of the riparian area, installation of permanent lighting, and construction of ornamental security fencing. The Proposed Action Alternative would substantially reduce illegal traffic and associated indirect impacts within developed recreational areas, urban areas, and riparian vegetation along the Rio Grande. The reduction in illegal traffic would alleviate litter, vandalism, and other associated crimes in adjacent urban and recreational areas.

4.10 HAZARDOUS WASTES

The significance threshold established for hazardous waste is: x The action results in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

4.10.1 No Action Alternative No direct impacts would occur as a result of the No Action Alternative as no construction activities would take place.

4.10.2 Proposed Action Alternative The potential exists for petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL) storage at the temporary staging areas in order to maintain and refuel construction equipment; however, these activities would include primary and secondary containment measures. Clean-up materials (e.g., oil mops) would also be maintained at the site to allow immediate action in case an accidental spill occurs. Drip pans would be provided for stationary equipment to capture any POL that is accidentally spilled during maintenance activities or leaks from the equipment. In addition, a Spill Prevention, Containment and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP) would be in place prior to the start of construction and all personnel would be briefed on the implementation and responsibilities of this plan; therefore, the Proposed Action Alternative would not result in a significant hazard to the public or environment regarding the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

4.11 SOCIOECONOMICS

The significance threshold for socioeconomics is: x The action causes a substantial permanent population increase or reduction in local income.

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-13 Final x The action causes the vacancy rate for temporary housing to fall, requiring relocation of existing people, construction of replacement housing elsewhere, or destruction of housing or businesses. x The action increases the short or long-term demand for public services in excess of existing and projected capacities. x The action results in any racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group bearing a disproportionate share of adverse project effects.

4.11.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the number of IAs crossing the project area would continue at the current rate or possibly increase. As a result, illegal traffic and the crimes and social costs associated with illegal crossings would continue or increase. This could result in long-term, indirect socioeconomic impacts across the region.

4.11.2 Proposed Action Alternative During construction there would be a temporary but insignificant increase in population from the addition of construction crews in the area. No housing units or businesses are located within the footprint of the Proposed Action Alternative, so no displacement of existing people, houses, or businesses would be anticipated. Construction crews would likely stay at hotels within the City of Eagle Pass. As a result, no additional demand for housing would be anticipated during construction. The proposed project would not require any substantial additional demands on public services during or after construction.

The Proposed Action Alternative would have a direct short-term beneficial impact to the income for the local area resulting from the purchase of building materials, such as fuel and cement, for the construction of the roads. This would result in a moderate, short-term beneficial impact to income. However, a reduction in IAs in the region as a result of increased deterrence would reduce the local purchases of some goods and services.

An indirect result of the Proposed Action Alternative is the potential for illegal foot traffic shifting to areas with less infrastructure; however, it is unknown where IAs would choose to cross the U.S.-Mexico border. Social costs, such as property damage, car theft, violent crime, drug treatment and rehabilitation, and entitlement programs on a regional and national level would potentially be reduced as the effectiveness of the OBP to gain and maintain the border reduces

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-14 Final illegal immigration. Overall, social and economic resources would experience beneficial, long term, impacts with a reduction in illegal activities.

4.11.3 Environmental Justice/Protection of Children from Health and Safety Risks 4.11.3.1 E.O. 12898 Maverick County has a high percentage of people claiming Hispanic origin, a large percentage of people in poverty, and a relatively low PCPI compared to the State of Texas and the Nation as a whole. However, there would be no increases in population and no adverse effects to minority and low-income families as a result of the proposed action. The project site is located in a developed area near residential structures; however, the Proposed Action Alternative would not displace low-income or minority populations because the property is currently owned by the City of Eagle Pass. Thus, no significant impacts to housing or minority populations would occur if the Proposed Action Alternative were chosen. Benefits to the region’s population would occur regardless of race and/or income level from increased detection, deterrence, and interdiction of IAs and illegal drug smuggling activities.

4.11.3.2 E.O. 13245 The proposed project area is located adjacent to a residential area and Fort Duncan Municipal Park; therefore, increasing the chances of children to be within the vicinity of the project area and therefore, increasing the potential impacts to children. However, the actions proposed in this EA would not result in disproportionately high or adverse environmental health or safety impacts to children (EO 13045). Decreased traffic of IAs, as a result of the proposed fence and lights, would tend to increase the safety of children in the surrounding neighborhoods. As a whole, increased detection, deterrence and interdiction of IAs, and illegal drug trafficking in the area would result in a safer environment for children.

4.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES

The significance thresholds established for cultural resources are: x The action is inconsistent with adopted management plans. x The action causes the permanent loss of prehistoric and/or historic information.

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-15 Final 4.12.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative could directly affect cultural resources. Illegal foot traffic would have the potential to impact known and unknown cultural resources within the project area.

4.12.2 Proposed Action Alternative The construction of the ornamental security fence and lighting would potentially impact cultural resources in the vicinity of the backhoe trench area where the historic foundation was discovered. Section 106 concurrence has been granted by the THC under the condition that a qualified archeologist be present during construction in the area (See Appendix B). Such monitoring efforts would ensure that any adverse impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Indirectly, the Proposed Action Alternative would provide protection for potential undiscovered cultural resources in the project area. Beneficial impacts are expected from the installation of permanent lighting, and the construction of ornamental security fencing. The Proposed Action Alternative would substantially reduce illegal traffic and associated indirect impacts within the developed recreational, urban, and commercial areas along the Rio Grande.

4.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The assessment of cumulative impacts is addressed in NEPA by its reference to interrelations of all components of the natural environment. According to 40 CFR 1508.7, a cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. In order to evaluate cumulative impacts, the previous actions undertaken at the proposed project location and previous actions within the vicinity were reviewed.

Effects include: (a) Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place, and (b) Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems (40 CFR 1508.8).

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-16 Final This section of the EA addresses the potential cumulative impacts associated with the implementation of the alternatives outlined in Chapter 2.0 and other projects/programs that are planned for the region. The following paragraphs present a general discussion regarding cumulative effects that would be expected, irrespective of the alternative selected.

In 2001, the INS and JTF-6 PEIS assessed the potential cumulative impacts associated with past and future OBP projects for the entire Southwestern border and is herein incorporated by reference. In summary, the PEIS stated that 1,148 acres of disturbance had occurred throughout Texas and estimated that in total, 4,121 acres would be disturbed by 2004. The actual area impacted by the OBP projects has not approached this estimate. While the PEIS projected a much greater amount of infrastructure to be constructed, the lack of completed projects does not reflect that the current and future need for infrastructure has diminished. On the contrary, the need is even greater than it was in 2001. For example many of the previous road projects that were conducted were not designed to withstand heavy storms and did not necessarily focus efforts along the Rio Grande, which now is of primary concern.

Future projects are being planned by the OBP throughout the Del Rio Sector. One specific project that is still in the testing phase is the unmanned aerial vehicle. These remotely piloted aircraft would be used as high altitude (9,500 feet above mean sea level or higher) surveillance platforms to provide 24 hour search and rescue and apprehension assistance for OBP.

A Programmatic EA was completed in February 2005 for the Del Rio Sector that involved: x the proposed construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of up to 40 RVS systems, x improvements to and or construction of up to 134 miles of all-weather roads, 25 miles of drag roads, x installation of fiber optic-based communication systems and underground utilities along the 134 miles of all-weather roads and construction of as many as 18 fiber optic regeneration stations with micro-wave antennae, x establishment of barrier fences, x installation of permanent lights (as many as 30) and up to 25 boat ramps (with lighting), 10 observation points, and x construction of one helipad and improvements to one helipad, ancillary structures (i.e., low water crossings, access gates, and bridge structures to accompany the road construction).

TXDOT is currently conducting two roadway improvement projects within Maverick County: x The extension of Second Street to Veteran’s Boulevard to U.S. Highway 57, Eagle Pass, Texas, and x The rehabilitation of U.S. Highway 277, Maverick County, Texas.

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-17 Final Future roadway projects proposed by TXDOT within Maverick County include: x The rehabilitation of U.S. Highway 277; x The repair/replacement of bridge rails on Farm to Market Road (FM) 1021; x The replacement of a bridge and its approaches on U.S. Highway 277 at Canyon Grande Creek; x The construction of an interchange at SL 480 and U.S. Highway 277 east of Eagle Pass; x The upgrade to the Eagle Pass International Bridge to a four lane divided facility from FM 1021 to U.S. Highway 277; x The construction of a 44-foot rural section east of the U.S. Highway 277/ U.S. Highway 57 junction; and x The construction of a two-lane undivided highway from U.S. Highway 277 to FM 1021.

All of these projects are entirely within existing TXDOT road ROWs and, therefore, have few additional impacts.

The following assessment of potential cumulative impacts is based upon the information provided from the previously listed, past, ongoing and future projects.

4.13.1 No Action Alternative Because the No Action Alternative does not include development of any kind, it would not contribute to direct cumulative impacts resulting from other recently completed or future projects the OBP and other agencies and organizations intend on implementing. However, illegal traffic would continue to breach the border within the City of Eagle Pass and surrounding areas, damaging vegetation, and, thereby causing potential synergistic impacts to wildlife.

Long-term indirect cumulative effects, including habitat degradation and loss, loss of soils from erosion, reduction in water quality in the Rio Grande from increased bank erosion and sedimentation, have occurred and would continue to occur in the area’s natural habitats. However, these effects are difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. Reductions in habitat have undoubtedly created inter- and intra-species competition for available food and shelter and, eventually, slight reductions in some wildlife populations. Currently used and newly created illegal trails from the banks of the Rio Grande would increase the potential for wind and water erosion of local soils. However, most of the impacted habitats and soils are common regionally; therefore, the cumulative indirect effects are minor. Increased sedimentation in the Rio Grande from bank erosion would be a minor cumulative effect. According to USIBWC (2003), the main

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-18 Final water quality concerns are salinity, bacteria, and nutrients from agricultural run-off and urban waste water.

Many positive cumulative impacts have also been realized through OBP activities. Infrastructure components have had cumulative positive impacts on socioeconomic resources within the border area and the nation through reductions in illegal drug smuggling activities. Additional knowledge regarding numerous threatened or endangered species’ locations, distribution, and life requisites have been obtained through surveys and monitoring efforts associated with OBP actions. Also, many other OBP activities have provided information on new cultural resources considered potentially eligible for NRHP listing.

4.13.2 Proposed Action Alternative 4.13.2.1 Soils and Water Quality A SWPPP would be prepared to ensure water quality is not affected by construction. The removal of the cane and the construction of the patrol road bridge would require the submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity under the Texas PDES. the Increased permeable surfaces, leading to increased water runoff during storm events will be a minor cumulative impact.

Soil and water resources would be impacted during and immediately after infrastructure construction. However, none of these resources would be expected to incur significant cumulative adverse impacts. Due to the relatively small size of the area of soil disturbance when compared to the entire study area and region as a whole, the totality of the proposed projects would not cumulatively affect soil or water resources within the region.

Soils that are denuded during construction activities would be vulnerable to erosion. However, these areas would quickly be re-vegetated or covered in order to prevent erosion. Improvement of existing roads and construction of new roads would occur in areas previously disturbed, where practical. Also, proper drainage structures and other ancillary structures would be used to help minimize erosion of soils and improve flow of water resources.

4.13.2.2 Vegetation The primary cumulative effect from past and future projects is the permanent loss of vegetation. Along the entire U.S.-Mexico border in Texas, a total of about 1,148 acres of vegetation,

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-19 Final comprised mostly of south Texas brushland communities, have been removed by OBP road, fence, and other construction activities (INS 2001). The construction of bridges, the golf course and other recreational facilities, as well as IA traffic, has greatly reduced the cover of giant cane in the project area. The proposed revegetation of the Rio Grande riparian corridor in the project area would protect and preserve this sensitive habitat from further loss providing a beneficial cumulative impact.

Cumulative impacts to local flora are primarily limited to the removal of vegetation from previous projects and areas planned for future construction. Impacts to flora generally occur over an extended period and area. The net loss of vegetation can have some adverse impact on fauna in the immediate area if the loss of habitat used for foraging, roosting, and breeding occurs. Impacts to vegetation from this and other future OBP projects are typically limited to previously disturbed or altered ROWs along existing roads and newly constructed roads. Therefore, due to the already disturbed nature of the proposed construction areas and the vast quantity of similar habitats, there would be insignificant cumulative impacts to vegetation.

4.13.2.3 Wildlife The implementation of past projects has caused indirect long-term moderate cumulative impacts to wildlife. However, the level of these effects, both beneficial and adverse, are difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. Reductions in habitat have undoubtedly created inter- and intra-species competition for available food and shelter and, eventually, slight reductions in some wildlife populations.

Rangeland is the habitat type most likely to be impacted by projects, regionally. Wildlife populations would be affected directly by reductions in the available habitat and indirectly by minor reductions in prey base, increased competition within remaining habitat, and by human disturbances. However, this project would occur within city limits and would not reduce the quality or quantity of rangeland regionally.

Wildlife populations would also be affected directly by habitat fragmentation. However, habitat fragmentation has already regionally occurred with the establishment and growth of cities along the Rio Grande and throughout the south Texas Brush Country. Eagle Pass has had a population growth of 23 percent in the last 10 years. Development of new bridges and the golf course has reduced wildlife habitat substantially in the Rio Grande riparian corridor. This

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-20 Final population increase has led to regional land use conversion of rangeland to urban development. The proposed project would not add to direct cumulative fragmentation of wildlife habitat, as the project area is already currently disturbed from urban growth and native habitat restoration and protection is proposed.

4.13.2.4 Protected Species Coordination with the USFWS and TPWD will continue during the implementation of the proposed project to ensure that protected species are not adversely impacted. Past OBP projects in the region have been mitigated to reduce adverse impacts to Federally protected species or their habitats. Past and future projects are also likely to have a number of beneficial effects to Federal and state protected species. Limited surveys have been conducted in the past for occurrences of protected species in the project area, as the majority of the project is located on private lands with limited access. Infrastructure projects such as the Proposed Action Alternative have and would continue to provide added security and monitoring of the area thus potentially reducing impacts associated from IA traffic. This project area would be revegetated with native plant species and protected in perpetuity by the OBP providing a beneficial cumulative impact to protected species.

4.13.2.5 Unique and Sensitive Areas The OBP is authorized and mandated by the Congress to enter any lands within 25 miles of the border during the pursuit of IAs. Consequently, when IAs attempt to enter the U.S. through sensitive areas, the OBP agents must attempt to apprehend them. Close coordination and approval from the appropriate Federal and state agencies (TPWD, USFWS, SHPO, and USIBWC) would continue to be required for any construction activity potentially affecting any unique or sensitive areas (i.e., Rio Grande, Fort Duncan) to ensure adverse effects would be avoided or substantially reduced.

4.13.2.6 Air Quality Vehicles and heavy equipment have produced air emissions from construction projects; however, these have not resulted in significant cumulative impacts due to the short duration of the activities, the dispersion capabilities of the region, and the remote locations of most of the operations. Additionally, Maverick County is in attainment for all criteria pollutants and the implementation of the proposed action would not cause an additional adverse impact to local air quality.

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-21 Final 4.13.2.7 Noise Planning of construction activities would need to be coordinated with public agencies to reduce any long-term noise disturbance to the local community. Cumulative noise levels of construction activities within the region are not expected to significantly affect receptors because all of the proposed projects are expected to be short-term.

4.13.2.8 Socioeconomics Direct beneficial cumulative impacts on socioeconomics would be expected. Cumulative indirect effects to socioeconomic resources (e.g., purchase of supplies) would be beneficial, but insignificant. Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would allow the OBP to more efficiently and effectively detect, deter and apprehend IAs, thereby reducing social costs associated with property damages, violent crimes, drug treatment and rehabilitation, and entitlement programs.

4.13.2.9 Cultural Resources All future Federal projects, including the Proposed Action, would be subject to Section 106 compliance as Federally mandated in the NHPA and outlined in this document. Section 106 concurrence has been granted by the THC under the condition that a qualified archeologist be present during construction in the area. Any adverse impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

As a result, no significant cumulative adverse impacts are anticipated from this and other projects. In addition, all other Federal projects, projects that utilize Federal funding or require Federal permits are required to be in Section 106 compliance. Given the lack of required documentation of these projects, it is impossible to estimate the impacts to cultural resources that may have or would occur.

Past and future projects would also likely have a number of beneficial effects to cultural resources. Limited surveys have been conducted in the past for occurrences of cultural resources in the ROI. The predominance of information regarding archaeological site distribution and location of known sites in the area are limited to surveys conducted in support of Federal projects in the area.

Eagle Pass Road EA 4-22 Final SECTION 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN MEASURES 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN MEASURES

This chapter describes those measures that would be implemented to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts to the human and natural environment. Many of these measures have been incorporated as standard operating procedures by the OBP on past projects. Environmental design measures are presented for each resource category that would be potentially affected. It should be emphasized that these are general mitigation measures that would be coordinated through the appropriate agencies and land managers or administrators, as required.

It is the OBP’s policy to reduce impacts through the sequence of avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and finally, compensation. Mitigation varies and includes activities such as restoration of habitat in other areas, acquisition of lands, implementation of BMPs, and would be coordinated with the USFWS and other appropriate Federal and state resource agencies.

5.1 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

BMPs would be implemented as standard operating procedures during all construction activities. These BMPs would include proper handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous and regulated materials. To minimize potential impacts from hazardous and regulated materials, all fuels, waste oils, and solvents would be collected and stored in tanks or drums within a secondary containment system that consists of an impervious floor and bermed sidewalls capable of containing the volume of the largest container stored therein. The refueling of machinery would be completed following accepted guidelines, and all vehicles would have drip pans during storage to contain minor spills and drips. Although it would be unlikely for a major spill to occur, any spill of 5 gallons or more would be contained immediately within an earthen dike, and the application of an absorbent (e.g., granular, pillow, sock, etc.) would be used to absorb and contain the spill. Any spill of 5 gallons or more of a hazardous or regulated substance would be reported immediately to on-site environmental personnel who would notify appropriate Federal and state agencies. A SPCCP would be in place prior to the start of construction and all personnel would be briefed on the implementation and responsibilities of this plan.

Eagle Pass Road EA 5-1 Final All waste oil and solvents would be recycled. All non-recyclable hazardous and regulated wastes would be collected, characterized, labeled, stored, transported, and disposed of in accordance with all Federal, state, and local regulations, including proper waste manifesting procedures.

Solid waste receptacles would be maintained at staging areas. Non-hazardous solid waste (trash and waste construction materials) would be collected and deposited in on-site receptacles. Solid waste would be collected and disposed of by a local waste disposal contractor.

5.2 SOILS

Vehicular traffic associated with the construction activities and operational support activities would remain on established roads to the maximum extent practicable. Rehabilitation would include re-vegetating of the disturbed area to reduce erosion while allowing the area to naturally vegetate. In addition, erosion control measures such as hay bales dikes, silt screens, or similar erosion control techniques would be utilized and appropriate BMPs, as required by the SWPPP, would be implemented before, during, and after construction activities. Any excess soils not used during construction of the proposed infrastructure should be hauled from the site and disposed of properly.

5.3 VEGETATION

Erosion control tools such as silt fencing, rice straw mulch, and biodegradable geotextile mats would be placed in areas assessed to be erosion risks (i.e., Rio Grande bank line). A mix of native grass seeds would be immediately hydromulched onto freshly disced soils in the project area to provide cover and reduce erosion. No hay or straw bales containing non-native invasive seeds would be used.

The removal of giant cane would be done in phases (upstream to downstream, over a period of 2 to 3 years) and in a manner that would not cause a discontinuous corridor that parallels the Rio Grande. Containerized native plants of sufficient size (e.g., 1-gallon and 5-gallon containers) to begin to provide habitat functions within 3 years would be immediately planted in the revegetation site following cane removal and bank stabilization. The OBP shall make

Eagle Pass Road EA 5-2 Final modifications to spacing and location of individual plants after evaluating specific site characteristics and plant species requirements (i.e., field fit). The OBP would be required to follow an irrigation, maintenance, and monitoring schedule to ensure a minimal survival rate of 80 percent. The revegetated area would require approximately 430 gallons of water per acre per week (gal/acre/week) during Year 1 and approximately 320 gal/acre/week (640 gallons per acre every two weeks) during Year 2. A conceptual plan describing these activities is included as Appendix D.

Disturbances to vegetation in temporary impact areas would be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation would include re-vegetating or the distribution of organic materials over the disturbed area to reduce erosion while allowing the area to naturally vegetate.

5.4 WILDLIFE

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act requires that Federal agencies coordinate with the USFWS if a construction activity would result in the take of a migratory bird. If construction activities would result in the take of a migratory bird, then coordination with the USFWS and TPWD would be conducted prior to construction activities. A mitigation measure that would be considered is to schedule all construction activities outside migratory bird nesting season (typically March 1 through September 1). Bird surveys would not be required if construction activities occur outside of the nesting season. If construction activities can not be scheduled outside of the nesting season then bird surveys would be required prior to construction. Additional mitigation measures would include BMPs, as described previously, during construction to minimize or prevent impacts to wildlife and their habitats.

5.5 PROTECTED AND SENSITIVE SPECIES

Potential migratory habitat for the Gulf coast jaguarundi and ocelot is present within the riparian area along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande. Construction activities would impact this area through the removal of giant cane; but, the area would be revegetated with native Texas species such as sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), Mexican ash (Fraxinus berlandieriana), Texas persimmon (Diospyros texana), catclaw (Acacia gregii), spiny hackberry (Celtis pallida), soapbush (Guaiacum angustifolium), and retama (Parkinsonia aculeate). As mentioned earlier, the removal of giant cane would be completed in phases and in a manner that would not cause

Eagle Pass Road EA 5-3 Final a discontinuous travel corridor for the cats along the Rio Grande. A conceptual revegetation and planting plan is presented in Appendix D. Close coordination with the USFWS would continue to be conducted to ensure that impacts to this area are minimal and that adequate compensation measures are adhered to. Section 7 concurrence has been granted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the condition that adequate compensation from the removal of giant cane be conducted within the project area (Appendix D).

5.6 AIR QUALITY

Standard construction BMPs such as routine watering of the patrol, drag, and access roads would be used to control fugitive dust during the construction phases of the proposed project. Additionally, all construction equipment and vehicles would be required to be kept in good operating condition to minimize exhaust emissions.

5.7 WATER RESOURCES

The proposed construction activities would require a SWPPP, which would be prepared and submitted to the EPA, as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process. The SWPPP would identify BMPs that would be implemented before, during, and after construction.

Potential jurisdictional WUS are expected to be affected, so early coordination by OBP and USACE Fort Worth District, Regulatory Branch and TCEQ would be initiated. The submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity under the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (PDES) to TCEQ would be required prior to construction activities. Mitigation and compensation measures would be implemented, as appropriate, through the process to ensure no net loss of WUS.

5.8 NOISE

Standard noise attenuation equipment, such as mufflers, must be used on all construction equipment and vehicles and must be maintained in good operating condition, free from leaks and holes. During construction, noise impacts would be anticipated at local human receptors. As required by Occupational Safety and Health Administration, hearing protection would be worn by employees working in environments with continuous noise levels of eight hours per day

Eagle Pass Road EA 5-4 Final above 90 dBA. Because of the increased noise sensitivity during quiet hours, time limits on on- site construction activities are warranted for use of heavy equipment. On-site activities would be restricted to daylight hours 7 days a week or at the military unit’s discretion, except in emergency situations. Implementation of these measures would reduce the noise impacts.

5.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES

All construction would be kept within previously surveyed areas. If any cultural material were discovered during the construction efforts, then all activities would halt until a qualified archeologist assesses the cultural remains.

Eagle Pass Road EA 5-5 Final THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Eagle Pass Road EA 5-6 Final SECTION 6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

6.1 AGENCY COORDINATION

This chapter discusses consultation and coordination that has occurred during preparation of this document. Included are contacts that were made during the development of the action alternatives and writing of the EA. Formal and informal coordination were conducted with the following agencies:

x U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) x Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) x Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) x U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) x U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) x Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) x Texas Historical Commission (THC) x Native American Nation (i.e., Kickapoo) x City of Eagle Pass

6.2 PUBLIC REVIEW

The Final EA will be distributed for public review for a period of 30 days, beginning on 11 January 2007, which is the day the Notice of Availability (NOA) will be published in The Eagle Pass News Gram and The Del Rio News Herald local newspapers. A copy of the NOA that will be published is presented in Exhibit 6-1. All correspondence sent or received during the preparation of this EA is included in Appendix C.

Eagle Pass Road EA 6-1 Final Exhibit 6-1. NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT For the Eagle Pass Road and Various Infrastructures Project Del Rio Sector, Office of Border Patrol, Maverick County, Texas

The public is hereby notified of the availability of the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the construction, maintenance, and use of all weather roads, an ornamental security fence, and permanent lighting within the Eagle Pass golf course and athletic fields, Office of Border Patrol (OBP) Del Rio Sector, Eagle Pass Station, Eagle Pass, Texas. The Final EA will be available for review at the Eagle Pass Public Library – 589 Main Street, Eagle Pass, Texas, 78852, (830) 773-2516. It will also be available for review and downloading from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District’s Internet web page at the following url address: http://aerc.swf.usace.army.mil/.

For additional information contact Mr. Glenn Bixler, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Resources Branch, P.O. Box 17300, Fort Worth, Texas 76102; Fax (817) 886- 6499.

Eagle Pass Road EA 6-2 Final 6.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Two comment letters from USIBWC and USFWS were received during the public review of the draft EA. Responses to comments follow the letters.

Eagle Pass Road EA 6-3 Final Comment #1

Comment #2

Comment#3

Eagle Pass Road EA 6-4 Final Response to USIBWC Comments:

Comments are bracketed and numbered on the USIBWC comment letter and are not repeated here.

Response to Comment #1 – Mr. Carlos Pena, Jr. will be lead and future correspondence will be sent to him.

Response to Comment #2 – Mr. Brieten will be contacted before implementation of the project.

Response to Comment #3 – The proponent will address the hydraulics issues during the completion of engineering designs for the proposed project.

Eagle Pass Road EA 6-5 Final Eagle Pass Road EA 6-6 Final Eagle Pass Road EA 6-7 Final Comment 1

Eagle Pass Road EA 6-8 Final Comment 2

Comment 3

Comment 4

Eagle Pass Road EA 6-9 Final Response to USFWS Comments:

Comments are bracketed and numbered on the USIBWC comment letter and are not repeated here.

Response to Comment #1 – Comment noted. However, we feel that the quality of the habitat that will be provided by the Proposed Action Alternative is greater than the existing giant cane habitat.

Response to Comment #2 – Line 6 of paragraph 5 in the Executive Summary was changed to read, “The impacts from the proposed action may affect, but not likely to adversely affect these species and would be compensated by replacing the giant cane with native Texas thorny-scrub plant species to provide travel corridors.”

The last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 4.4.2 was changed to read, “Due to the lack of documented sightings of these species in Maverick County, the phased approach to removing cane, the limited amount of cane that will be removed, and the long-term improvements to the habitat, these impacts may affect, but not likely to adversely affect the Gulf Coast jaguarundi or ocelot.”

Response to Comment #3 – The word “mitigation” was changed to “compensation” throughout the document.

Response to Comment #4 - A paragraph was added at the end of Section 4.4.2 to read, “Although the interior least tern is known to inhabit areas along the Rio Grande in Maverick County, no suitable habitat was observed within the project area during the March 2006 surveys. Therefore, the Proposed Action Alternative is expected to have no affect on this species.”

Eagle Pass Road EA 6-10 Final SECTION 7.0 REFERENCES 7.0 REFERENCES

Bell, Gary P. 2002. Ecology and Management of Arundo donax and Approaches to Riparian Habitat Restoration in Southern California. The Nature Conservancy of New Mexico, 212 E. Marcy Street, Suite 200, Sante Fe, New Mexico.

Black, S.L. 1989. South Texas Plains. In From the Gulf to the Rio Grande: Human Adaptation in Central, South, and Lower Pecos Texas, edited by T.R. Hester, S.L. Black, D.G. Steele, B.W. Olive, A.A. Fox, K.J. Reinhard, and L.C. Bement. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 33. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. (BEA). 2004. Internet URL: http://www.bea.gov.

Campbell, Linda. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Animals of Texas: Their Life History and Mangement. Texas Parks and Wildlife; Wildlife Division, Austin, Texas. Revised 2003.

Davis, Michael W. and James T. Jones. 1993. Expanded Archaeological Assessments at the Proposed Site for the New International Bridge at Eagle Pass, Maverick County, Texas. Hicks & Company, Inc., Austin.

Davis, William B. and David J. Schmidly. 1997. Mammals of Texas: On-line Edition. Copyright 1997. Texas Tech University.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2004. Flood hazard Mapping Frequently Asked Questions: Flood Hazard Zone Designations. Internet URL: http://www.fema.gov/fhm/fq_gen13.shtm. Last accessed: November 10, 2005.

FEMA. 2005. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Maverick County, Texas, Community Panel Number 480470 0001A, Panel 4. October 4, 2005.

Fox, D. and H. Whitsett. 1979. An Archaeological Reconnaissance at Eagle Pass, Maverick County, Texas. Texas Department of Water Resources, Austin.

Frison, George C. 1978. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press, New York.

Gibson, A.M. 1963. The Kickapoos, Lords of the Middle Border. University of Oklahoma Press.

Hall, G.D., T.R. Hester, and S.L. Black. 1986. The Prehistoric Sites at Choke Canyon Reservoir, Southern Texas: Results of Phase II Archaeological Investigations. Choke Canyon Series 10. Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio.

Handbook of Texas Online. 2001a. sub verbo "FORT DUNCAN," Internet URL: http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/FF/qbf17.html. Last accessed: November 10, 2005.

Handbook of Texas Online. 2001b. sub verbo “EAGLE PASS ARMY AIR FIELD” Internet URL: http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/EE/qbe1.html. Last accessed: November 10, 2005.

Eagle Pass Road EA 7-1 Final Hester, T.R. 1989. Historic Native American Populations. In From the Gulf to the Rio Grande: Human Adaptation in Central, South, and Lower Pecos Texas, edited by T.R. Hester, S.L. Black, D.G. Steele, B.W. Olive, A.A. Fox, K.J. Reinhard, and L.C. Bement. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 33. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.

Howeth, Whitney and Randy Rosales. 2006. Natural Resources: Fish of Amistad National Recreational Area. Internet URL: http://www.nps.gov/amis/fishlist.htm Date Accessed: April 3, 2006.

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). 2001. Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Immigration and Naturalization Service and Joint Task Force-Six (JTF-6) Activities on the Southwest U.S./ Mexican Border U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, Fort Worth, Texas, June 2001.

Joint Task Force (JTF) – North. 2004. Joint Task Force North History. Internet URL: http://www.jtf6.northcom.mil/subpages/history.html.

Mercado-Allinger, Patricia A., Nancy A. Kenmotsu, and Timothy K. Perttula. 1996. Archaeology in the Central and Southern Planning Region, Texas: A Planning Document. Office of the State Archaeologist, Special Report No 35. Division of Antiquities Protection, Cultural Resource Management Report 7. Texas Historic Commission, Austin.

Montgomery, Cora. 1966. Eagle Pass, or Life on the Border. New York: Putnam, 1852; rpt., Austin: Pemberton Press.

Nance, C. Roger. 1992. The Archaeology of La Calsada: A Rockshelter in the Sierra Madre Oriental, Mexico. University of Texas Press, Austin.

National Park Service (NPS). 2006. Big Bend National Park. Internet URL: http://www.nps.gov/bibe/home.htm. Last accessed: March 23, 2006.

National Research Council. 1977. Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements On Noise. Prepared by the Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics, Assembly of Behavior and Social Sciences. Office of Naval Research, Contract No. N00014. Washington, D.C.

Pingenot, Ben E. 1971. Historical Highlights of Eagle Pass and Maverick County. Eagle Pass Chamber of Commerce. Eagle Pass, Texas.

Potter, D.R. 1990. Archaeological Survey of Property for the Proposed Eagle Pass International Bridge, Maverick County, Texas. Archaeological Survey Report, No. 200. Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio.

Real Estate Center. 2004. Mays Business School, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. Maverick County Reference.

Steele, D.G. 1986. Appendix V. Analysis of Vertebrate Faunal Remains from 41LK201, Live Oak County, Texas. In Archaeological Investigations at 41LK201, Choke Canyon Reservoir, Southern Texas, by C.L. Highly. Choke Canyon Series 11. Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio.

Eagle Pass Road EA 7-2 Final Taylor, Colin F. 2004. The American Indian. Salamander Books LTD. London.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 2001. Natural Regions of Texas. Map. Produced by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2001. Internet URL: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_mp_e0100_1070s_08.pdf. Last accessed: March 21, 2006.

TPWD. 2005. Annotated County Lists of Rare Species: Maverick County. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Last Revision: June 2, 2005.

Uecker, Herbert G. 1994. The Dos Republicas Project: Phase II Archaeological Investigations at a Proposed Coal Strip Mine, Maverick County, Texas. Archaeological Survey Report, No. 215. Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1987. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. January 1987.

USACE. 1999. Environmental Baseline Document in Support of 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, Texas.

USACE. 2001. Archaeological Survey and Testing Along the Rio Grande Terraces Near Eagle Pass and El Indio, Maverick County, Texas. Prepared by Wendy Lopez and Associates, USACE Fort Worth District, Texas.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Internet URL: http://www.census.gov/.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. Internet URL: http://www.census.gov/.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 2003a. Performance and Annual Report: Fiscal Year 2003.

CBP. 2003b. U.S. Office of Border Patrol Overview. Internet URL: http://www.customs.gov/xp/cgov/enforcement/border_patrol/overview.xml. Last accessed: April 2, 2005.

CBP. 2005. Priority Mission and Responsibility. Internet URL: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/about/mission/cbp.xml. Last accessed: March 2, 2005.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2004. Texas State Noxious Weeds. Internet URL: http://plants.usda.gov/cgi_bin/state_noxious.cgi?statefips=48. Last accessed March 10, 2004.

USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1977. Soil Survey of Maverick County, Texas.

Eagle Pass Road EA 7-3 Final U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002a. EPA’s American Heritage Rivers Executive Order 13061. Internet URL: http://www.epa.gov/rivers/eo13061.html

EPA. 2002b. National Assessment Database: 305(b) Lists/Assessment Unit Information 2002. Internet URL: http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/enviro.wcontrol?p_id305b=TX2304_03. Last accessed: November 9, 2005.

EPA. 2005. Cooperative Environmental Management: Good Neighbor Environmental Board 2005 Eagle Pass Meeting Minutes. Internet URL: http://www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb/minutes/eagle_pass_minutes205.htm. Last accessed: November 9, 2005.

EPA. 2006. Green Book: Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Internet URL: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/. Last accessed: March 23, 2006.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990a. Listed Cats of Texas and Arizona (With Emphasis on The Ocelot). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 137 pp.

USFWS. 1990b. Recovery Plan for the Interior Population of the Least Tern (Sterna antillarum). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota. 90 pp.

USFWS. 2006. Endangered Species List: Maverick County. USFWS Southwest Region 2. Internet URL: http://www.fws.gov/ifw2es/EndangeredSpecies/lists/. Last accessed: March 21, 2006.

U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC). 2003. The Boundary Marker – Clean Rivers Program Releases Report On Rio Grande Water Quality. Fall 2003.

Wyle Research Corporation. 1992. Noise Measurement and Assessment Methodologies.

Eagle Pass Road EA 7-4 Final SECTION 8.0 ACRONYMS 8.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AO Area of Operation APE Area of Potential Effect BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practices CAA Clean Air Act CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments CBP Customs and Border Protection CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWA Clean Water Act dB Decibel dBA A-weighted decibels DHS Department of Homeland Security DNL Day-Night average sound Level EA Environmental Assessment EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FM Farm-to-Market Road FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1980 and 1995 FR Federal Regulation IA Illegal Alien IIRIRA Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act INA Immigrant Nationality Act INS Immigration and Naturalization Service JTF-6 Joint Task Force - 6 JTF-N Joint Task Force - North NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NPL National Priority List NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NOA Notice of Availability NOI Notice of Intent NPS National Park Service NWP Nationwide Wetland Permit OBP Office of Border Patrol OHW Ordinary High Water PCN Pre-Construction Notification PCPI Per Capita Personal Income PDES Pollutant Discharge System PEIS Programmatic Environmental Statement

Eagle Pass Road EA 8-1 Final POE Port-Of-Entry POL Petroleum, oil and lubricants ROI Region of Influence ROW Right-of-Way SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SIP State Implementation Plan SPCCP Spill Prevention, Containment and Countermeasures Plan SWANCC Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality THC Texas Historical Commission TPI Total Personal Income TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department TXDOT Texas Department of Transportation U.S. United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S.C. United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USIBWC United Section, International Boundary and Water Commission USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WLA Wendy Lopez and Associates WUS Waters of the U.S.

Eagle Pass Road EA 8-2 Final SECTION 9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Eagle Pass Road EA 9-1 Final 9-1 Eagle PassRoad EA

9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Name Agency/Organization Discipline/Expertise Experience Role In Preparing EA U.S. Department of Homeland Environmental 22 years, EIS/EAs for Federal Kevin Feeney Program Manager Security, Headquarters Planning projects U.S. Department of Homeland Environmental 25 years NEPA and related Mark Gable Project Manager Security – Administrative Center Planning studies Environmental 7 years NEPA and related Glenn Bixler USACE, Ft. Worth District Project Manager Planning studies 10 years Professional EA review and Section 106 Nancy Parrish USACE, Ft. Worth District Archaeology Archaeologist coordination David Alford Gulf South Research Corporation GIS/Graphics 5 years GIS analysis GIS and graphics 30 years NEPA and related Chris Ingram Gulf South Research Corporation Biology/Ecology EA review studies 17 years NEPA and related Suna Adam Knaus Gulf South Research Corporation Biology/Ecology EA review studies 15 years, natural resources and Eric Webb, Ph.D. Gulf South Research Corporation Ecology/Wetlands EA technical review NEPA studies 12 years of NEPA and related Project Manager, EA review, Brady Turk Gulf South Research Corporation Wildlife/Ecology environmental studies field survey

Joanna Cezniak Gulf South Research Corporation Wildlife/Ecology 8 years, natural resources EA preparation, field survey

4 years NEPA and related Aaron Caldwell Gulf South Research Corporation Wildlife/Ecology EA preparation environmental studies 5 years of archaeological Cultural Resources Survey Carl Welch Gulf South Research Corporation Archaeology experience Report Author

9-1 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Eagle Pass Road EA 9-2 Final APPENDIX A STATE PROTECTED SPECIES

APPENDIX B SECTION 106 CONCURRENCE

APPENDIX C CORRESPONDENCE

APPENDIX D REVEGETATION AND PLANTING PLAN Eagle Pass Road and Various Infrastructures Project Revegetation Plan

Site Design The riparian corridor between the patrol road and the Rio Grande would be planted with native shrubs and trees and a native grass mix in an effort to create acacia-thorn woodland and hackberry riparian habitats typical of south Texas. Due to immigration enforcement activities that may occur on the site, tree cover would be less than that found in typical habitats within the region. It is assumed that there is an adequate water source to support these species because of the revegetation site’s proximity to the Rio Grande and the current site dominance by giant cane (Arrundo donax).

To create the native association, the area would be planted with native trees and shrubs and hydromulched with a native grass seed mix. Before planting and hydromulching, the invasive giant cane would be eradicated from the site by either physical removal of roots and shoots or herbicide treatments.

The order of events for construction of the revegetation project is as follows: x Remove giant cane through herbicide application or physical removal; x Stabilize streambank as prescribed by project engineer; x Install a temporary drip irrigation system or provide for water trucks; x Plant trees and shrubs at their planned spacings; x Apply hydromulch mix of native grasses; and, x Monitor success and plant as necessary.

Site Preparation Detailed plans and specifications would be prepared and a site survey would be conducted before site preparation.

Soil Amendments. The proposed revegetation site is underlain by the Lagloria-Laredo association. The Lagloria-Laredo association contains two soil types, the Lagloria very fine sandy loam, with 1 to 3 percent slopes and the Rio Grande very fine sandy loam. The Lagloria soils are well drained; with slow to medium runoff and moderate permeability. The main uses of this soil include irrigated crops (USDA 1977). The Rio Grande very fine sandy loam is located on the floodplains of the Rio Grande and has similar characteristics as the Lagloria soils; both are well drained with slow runoff and moderate permeability. However, the Rio Grande soils are prone to occasional flooding. The Rio Grande soils are also mainly used for rangeland and wildlife habitat (USDA 1977).

It is anticipated that soil amendments would not be necessary for revegetation success, as the soils currently at the project site supports grasses and shrubs.

Exotic Species Eradication. The removal of giant cane would be necessary to achieve the project’s goals and objectives. The combined use of herbicide, such as Aquamaster®, which is approved for aquatic settings, and physical plant removal would be necessary to eradicate non-native species from the site. Giant cane plants would be removed entirely (including the roots) and chipped or removed from the site. Herbicide would be applied to any resprouts. In areas near the water line where physical removal is impossible, giant cane would be cut and herbicide immediately applied to the stems. Herbicide would also be applied to any resprouts.

Immediately following the eradication of non-native species, native trees and shrubs would be planted and native grasses would be hydromulched. Areas covered in native trees or shrubs would be seeded by hand. It is anticipated that non-native invasive plant removal would take one to two years of active management.

Erosion Controls. Erosion control tools such as silt fencing, rice straw mulch, and biodegradable geotextile mats would be placed in areas assessed to be erosion risks (i.e., Rio Grande bank line). A mix of native grass seeds would be hydromulched onto freshly disced soils in the project area. No hay or straw bales containing non-native invasive seeds would be used.

Planting Plan Containerized plants would be planted in the revegetation site following cane removal and bank stabilization. Species to be planted, the proportion to which they are to be planted, and their spacing are summarized in Table 1. The OBP would make modifications to spacing and location of individual plants after evaluating specific site characteristics and plant species requirements (i.e., field fit). Typical plans for plant spacing for each tree and shrub species are included as Figure 1.

Table 1. Native Woody Species Specifications

Approximate Approximate Percent Container Common Name Scientific Name On-center Proportion of Size Spacing Trees or Shrubs Trees Sugarberry Celtis laevigata 100 ft 50 Treepot Fraxinus Mexican ash 100 ft 50 Treepot berlandieriana Shrubs Texas Diospyros texana 15 ft 20 Treepot persimmon Catclaw Acacia greggii 15 ft 20 Treepot Spiny Hackberry Celtis ehrenbergiana 15 ft 20 Treepot Guaiacum Soapbush 15 ft 20 Treepot angustifolium Retama Parkinsonia aculeata 15 ft 20 Treepot

Plant Procurement. Native trees, shrubs, and seeds would come from a local commercial vender. Tree and shrub species would consist of the species listed in Table 1. A grass seed mix of equal parts buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides), hairy grama (Bouteloua hir), and matted grama (B. simplex) would be seeded throughout the revegetation area at a rate of 10 pounds per acre. All containerized plants would come from propagules collected in South Texas. If local sources do not yield sufficient numbers of propagules additional plants may be collected from local sources and grown in a contracted nursery.

Plant Installation Methods. Although Table 1 provides the recommended spacing for containerized plantings, the OBP would determine spacing and location of individual plants after evaluating site characteristics and plant species requirements. All containerized plants would be planted during the winter (approximately 1 November through 15 February). Containerized plants would be installed so their root crowns would be at or slightly above the soil surface and irrigated immediately following planting. Approximately 0.25 acres mn mn k _ &3 /" G k _

/" G k _ &3 /" G

_ &3 /" G k _ &3 100 ft G k _ &3 /" G k

15 ft &3 /" G 15 ft k _ &3 /"

k _ &3 /" G k _

mn 100 ft mn &3 /" G k _ /" G

mn Sugarberry "/ Te xa s Pe rsi mmon Note: Shrubs are spaced on-center 15 ft, Mexican Ash and trees are spaced on-center 100 ft. mn %2 Soapbush 5Shrubspeciesand2treespeciesare Retama planned as listed in the document on k _ Spiny Hackberry Table 1. Tree spacing was offset 5 ft G Catclaw from shrub spacing to lessen overlap.

Figure 1: Typical Spacing Layout

May 2006 Hydromulching is a quick and inexpensive way to plant grass seeds and would be used to plant the grass understory described earlier in this plan. Hydromulching would consist of a blend of a variety of grass seeds mixed with water, biodegradable fiber, and fertilizer that are then sprayed over exposed soils. A mix with 50 percent organic fertilizer would be used, because the nutrients persist longer. Green wood cellulose fiber is added to hold in heat and moisture, as well as to help prevent erosion. The site would be irrigated once or twice daily during the one to three weeks it takes for the seeds to germinate.

Temporary Irrigation The hydromulched seeds would require irrigation during Year 1. The site would be irrigated once or twice daily during the one to three weeks it takes for the seeds to germinate. A commercially available lawn sprinkler would be used to irrigate grass seeds, but it would be removed after three weeks, if germination is successful.

In Year 1, the tree and shrub plantings would be watered twice a day for the first month following planting, and then twice weekly from March to September. The site would be irrigated every other week in Year 2 from March to September. In Year 3, little irrigation (no more than once per month) would be required and would be at the discretion of the restoration site manager. The irrigation schedule may be modified to ensure vigorous plant growth during the summer months and times of drought. The trees and shrubs should receive 2 gallons of water per week during Year 1 and 3 gallons of water every other week in Year 2. The revegetation would require approximately 430 gallons of water per acre per week (gal/acre/week) during Year 1 and approximately 320 gal/acre/week (640 gallons per acre every two weeks) during Year 2.

The irrigation system would be properly maintained during the 3-year establishment period and perhaps longer if subsequent replanting is required. The system would be maintained in proper and full working order as part of regular maintenance. Given the proximity of the site to a developed urban area, it is possible that damage to plants and the irrigation system would occur. The maintenance contract would include a provision that the irrigation system would be continuously checked and kept in working order during the establishment period. Non-native Plant Species Control. Non-native, invasive plant species within the revegetation area would be removed by hand during the 3-year establishment period. No herbicides would be used in the revegetation site during the maintenance period, unless applied by a licensed contractor supervised by a qualified botanist or restoration biologist familiar with the flora of the area.

Monitoring Schedule. The OBP would be required to monitor the survival of the plants within the revegetated area through Year 5 to ensure a minimum survival rate of 80 percent. This would be accomplished by conducting periodic inspections (every 6 months) of the trees and shrubs to determine the number of dead plants per species. If the survival rate falls below 80 percent for a certain species, plants would be replaced and monitored to ensure that the proposed survival rate is accomplished.

MONITORING PLAN

Adaptive management of giant cane eradication and revegetation would improve the likelihood of success. Monitoring is an integral part of adaptive management. If the OBP implemented the revegetation project in phases, then the different phases would be monitored on separate timelines. As built plans for each phase would need to be submitted separately and monitoring reports would need to be submitted based on the year of implementation of each phase.

Introduction Monitoring of the revegetation by a qualified restoration biologist would provide data for adaptive management of the revegetation and giant cane eradication. Attainment of the performance criteria outlined below would indicate that the revegetation is meeting the long-term habitat goals with little chance of failure.

The revegetation area would be monitored over a 5-year period to calculate trend characteristics and provide feedback to the maintenance program. Trend characteristics would be used to assess growth rates toward the final success criteria. By the final year of monitoring the habitat would be established sufficiently well to determine if the long- term goals would eventually be achieved with little chance of failure. The results of the final year of monitoring would be compared to the final success criteria to determine if the revegetation goals have been met. If the final success criteria have not been met then monitoring results would be evaluated, the revegetation plan revised accordingly, and the monitoring would be continued until the final success criteria are achieved.

Final Success Criteria When all final success criteria have been met or exceeded the revegetation would be considered complete. If all final success criteria have not been met at the end of the 5- year monitoring period, the OBP would undertake the necessary actions to correct the problems and continue the monitoring until the final success criteria were met or exceeded.

The OBP would consider the revegetation successful when sampling data demonstrate that all of the following success criteria have been met or exceeded:

1) Minimum 80 percent plant survival, 2) Minimum average canopy coverage of tree-shrub species exceeds 10 percent, 3) Minimum of two years after all irrigation has been stopped criteria 1 and 2 are met, and 4) Minimum 80 percent native ground cover with no more than 20 percent of the cover being non-native species.

Interim Success Criteria The OBP would utilize the following interim success criteria to help ensure that the final success criteria would be met or exceeded by the end of the five-year monitoring period. Tree and shrub density, height and canopy cover would be monitored during years 1, 2, and 5. In Year 5, the final tree and shrub density would meet the final success criteria. Ground cover would be monitored during years 1, 2, and 5. During years 1 and 2 interim success criteria are 30 percent and 50 percent plant cover, respectively, with no more than 15 percent of the cover as invasive herbaceous species. The interim success criteria would be used to assess plant health and vigor and guide revegetation site management. Monitoring Methods As-Built Plans would be developed within 12 weeks following the completion of giant cane eradication and native species planting. As-built plans are the plans indicating the actual completed design of the project. The as-built plans would incorporate any significant changes from the designs and specifications for the site. Changes in numbers or species of plants installed, planting locations, and additional hardscape features would be included in the as-built plans. These plans would set the baseline from which further site analysis, maintenance, and monitoring would be conducted.

Interim Success Criteria would be developed based on the final as-built plans. Sample site selection and sample data collected would be developed to provide feedback for adaptive management.

Sample Site Selection. For monitoring purposes, the OBP would establish permanent sample plots. Sample plots would have a diameter of 15 ft and would be randomly located within the revegetation area so that a minimum of 10 percent of the revegetation area is represented in the sampling. Sample plots would not overlap.

The position of sample plots for quantitative analysis would be demarcated with rebar posts and an aluminum identification tag. The sample plot positions would also be recorded using a global positioning system receiver. The entire site would be qualitatively assessed to gage the performance of areas outside the plots. Visual reconnaissance would be used together with data collected in the plots to achieve a more complete assessment of the site. Key indicators to observe would be clusters of mortality, bank erosion, stunted growth, fire, vandalism (including damage caused by illegal alien foot traffic), sedimentation, or changes in channel configuration.

Tree and Shrub Density would be determined by counting all live trees and shrubs including natural regeneration within the sample plots. The tree and shrub density (stems per acre) would be determined by species. Tree and shrub density would be assessed in years 1, 2, and 5 and potentially longer if tree and shrub density success criteria have not been met. Ground Cover would be determined using the sample plots. Quadrat sampling would be used for calculating percent cover for grasses. In each of the permanent sample plots, four 4-ft2 quadrats would be sampled using ocular estimates. The quadrats would be taken 3 ft from the plot center in each cardinal direction. Ocular estimates of percent ground cover would be calculated by species for each site.

Photo-documentation of the sites would be conducted from a number of fixed locations decided upon in Year 1 monitoring. Photographs would be taken from the locations during assessment in all years and 12 weeks after native species planting. Photographs would also be taken of any events that may impact the restoration effort, such as fire, vandalism (including damage caused by illegal alien foot traffic), or flood.

Management Recommendations would be included in each monitoring report, and managers would implement adaptive management where needed to assure that Interim Success Criteria and Final Success Criteria were met. The monitoring report would also include information and recommendations concerning significant site performance and condition changes that occur. These changes include significant acts of vandalism (including damage caused by illegal alien foot traffic), irrigation system problems, or any condition that may inhibit restoration efforts.

Monitoring Implementation

Sampling Schedule for Revegetation Vegetation sampling would be conducted at the revegetation site between July and September of each monitoring year. Table 2 shows the years in which each monitoring task would be conducted.

Monitoring A qualified restoration biologist would monitor the revegetation construction to ensure that the revegetation would be installed as described in this plan. Weekly site visits would be made during the months when the irrigation system was operating to assure proper function of the system. Table 2. Sampling and Report Schedule

12 Weeks After Monitoring Task Revegetation Year 1 Year 2 Year 5 Implementation As-built plans X Tree and shrub density X X X Percent ground cover X X X Photo- documentation X X X X X: indicates that performance criteria are applicable that year.

Revegetation Plan Conclusion Monitoring would be conducted for at least 5 years at the revegetation site. After the final year of the monitoring period, a final report would be prepared to establish whether the revegetation has achieved the success criteria. If the revegetation site has met the success criteria, then adaptive management of the revegetation is complete. The site would remain a Natural Area Open Space.

Data Analysis Data analysis would be conducted no later than 6 weeks following field data collection. Minimizing delay between data collection and analysis provides an opportunity to return to the site and verify any discrepancies in the data before significant changes occur on the site. Data analysis would be conducted using standard statistical computer applications and geographic information systems. Data input would be spot-checked and the project manager would carefully review the results. The yearly monitoring results would be compared to previous results to evaluate site progress.

Monitoring Procedure Adjustments It is anticipated that the monitoring program may need occasional adjustments to remain accurate, complete, and feasible. The monitoring biologist would review the protocol and results of the monitoring program following each year of monitoring. Adjustments to monitoring procedures or schedule may be required as the site changes over time, or if logistical problems render a procedure unduly difficult to conduct. Such adjustments would be suggested by the monitoring biologist and implemented by OBP maintenance staff or contractors.

Monitoring-Maintenance Linkage The results of monitoring would be conveyed by the OBP to any party that may be operating and maintaining the revegetation site for them. Annual reports would be provided to all parties associated with the site’s maintenance. In addition, if the OBP monitoring crews notice significant problems related to the site’s maintenance and performance, verbal reporting to the USACE project manager would be initiated to facilitate remediation.

Contingency Measures If Interim Success Criteria were not achieved for any portion of the revegetation in any year, the OBP would prepare an analysis of the cause(s) of failure and develop a remedial action plan. The remedial actions plan would be implemented by the OBP to improve the probability of revegetation success.