Final PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL EL PASO SECTOR NEW MEXICO STATIONS Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs & Border Protection Office of Border Patrol Washington, D.C. October 2006 BW1 FOIA CBP 005617 BW1 FOIA CBP 005618 BW1 FOIA CBP 005619 BW1 FOIA CBP 005620 BW1 FOIA CBP 005621 BW1 FOIA CBP 005622 BW1 FOIA CBP 005623 BW1 FOIA CBP 005624 BW1 FOIA CBP 005625 BW1 FOIA CBP 005626 Final PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL EL PASO SECTOR NEW MEXICO STATIONS October 2006 Lead Agency: U.S. Customs & Border Protection Asset Management Division Portfolio Management Branch Room 3.4-D 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20229 Point of Contact: Mr. Charles McGregor U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fort Worth District 819 Taylor Street Room 3A14 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Fax: (817) 886-6499 BW1 FOIA CBP 005627 BW1 FOIA CBP 005628 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The Office of Border Patrol (OBP) is a law enforcement entity of the United States (U.S.) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The OBP’s priority mission is to prevent the entry of terrorists and their weapons of terrorism and to enforce the laws that protect the U.S. homeland by the detection, interdiction, and apprehension of those who attempt to illegally enter or smuggle any person or contraband across the sovereign borders of the U.S. During recent years, illegal aliens (IA) have cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars annually due directly to criminal activities, as well as the cost of apprehension, detention, and incarceration of criminals; and, indirectly in loss of property, illegal participation in government programs, and increased insurance costs. This Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will analyze the project alternatives and potential impacts to the human and natural environment from these alternatives. PURPOSE AND The purpose of the Proposed Action Alternative is to facilitate the NEED FOR THE OBP’s mission to gain, maintain and extend control of the U.S.- PROPOSED ACTION: Mexico border. The need for improving the OBP’s enforcement effectiveness is based upon increased border activity and its associated costs, the limited workforce available to secure the borders, the continued increase of IAs in remote areas, and the inadequacy of the existing tactical infrastructure (TI) system in the study corridor. The need for the Proposed Action Alternative is also to increase deterrence and apprehension of IAs; reduce crime along the border areas by enhancing the effectiveness of OBP agents in their daily operations; provide 24-hour operations through the use of technology as force multipliers; improve access to remote areas along the international border; secure the safety of OBP agents and U.S. residents; and improve the ability of OBP agents to rescue IAs in distress. PROPOSED ACTION: The Proposed Action Alternative involves improvements or construction of 316 miles of border access roads and patrol roads, 78 miles of drag roads, establishment of 160 miles of permanent vehicle barriers (PVB), 7 miles of permanent pedestrian barriers, installation of 30 miles of permanent lights and approximately 5 Remote Video Surveillance Systems (RVSS), and construction of ancillary structures (i.e., low water crossings and culverts). It is anticipated that the Proposed Action Alternative would be implemented over the next 5 to 10 years. El Paso Sector TI PEA iii Final New Mexico Stations BW1 FOIA CBP 005629 ALTERNATIVES Three alternatives were considered: The No Action Alternative CONSIDERED: (Alternative 1), the Proposed Action Alternative (Alternative 2), and the TI as in the Proposed Action with Cattle Fence PVBs Alternative (Alternative 3). Alternative 3 is the same as the Proposed Action Alternative except a barbed wire (or similar) cattle fence would be included in the design of the PVBs installed. Alternative 3 was developed to address concerns identified by landowners and ranchers with property adjacent to the study corridor. The No Action Alternative would preclude any construction activities; thus, illegal vehicle and pedestrian traffic would continue, if not increase, within the study corridor. ENVIRONMENTAL The total footprint of the Proposed Action Alternative is IMPACTS OF THE approximately 1,262 acres. Of this, approximately 373 acres is PROPOSED ACTION currently used to support the existing TI in the study corridor. The ALTERNATIVE: previously disturbed area consists of the existing border road, access roads, patrol roads, RVSS towers, fencing, lighting structures, and ancillary structures. Approximately 889 acres of soils, vegetation, wildlife habitat, and potential habitat for protected species would be permanently altered. Through the use of environmental design measures and due to the vast amounts of similar habitat surrounding the project corridor these impacts would be insignificant. As this is a programmatic document, the impact estimates are based on generic planning level assumptions. Future site-specific documents would more accurately assess specific impacts. Also, the potential exists for indirect adverse impacts to resources outside of the project corridor resulting from shifts in IA activity. However, these impacts are considered insignificant when compared to the No Action Alternative. Indirect beneficial impacts to land use, unique and sensitive areas, soils, air quality, cultural resources, protected species and their associated habitat, as well as vegetation would result from the implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. CONCLUSIONS: Based upon the results of the PEA and the environmental design measures to be implemented, the Proposed Action Alternative would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. As project-specific plans and funding are identified and committed, site-specific NEPA documents will be prepared and tiered from this document to more accurately assess impacts. El Paso Sector TI PEA iv Final New Mexico Stations BW1 FOIA CBP 005630 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................i 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1-1 1.1 STUDY CORRIDOR LOCATION ...................................................................................1-3 1.2 CBP HISTORY...............................................................................................................1-3 1.3 CBP STRATEGIC INTENT AND STRATEGIES............................................................1-3 1.4 JOINT TASK FORCE – NORTH MISSION....................................................................1-5 1.5 REGULATORY AUTHORITY.........................................................................................1-6 1.6 PURPOSE AND NEED ..................................................................................................1-6 1.8 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS........................................................................................1-10 1.9 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDANCE, STATUTES, AND REGULATIONS ..1-11 1.10 REPORT ORGANIZATION..........................................................................................1-11 2.0 ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................................2-1 2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...........................................................2-1 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE ............................................2-1 2.2.1 Lights..................................................................................................................2-7 2.2.2 Permanent Pedestrian Barriers ..........................................................................2-8 2.2.3 Permanent Vehicle Barriers (PVB).....................................................................2-9 2.2.4 Roads ...............................................................................................................2-10 2.2.5 Remote Video Surveillance Systems (RVSS) ..................................................2-12 2.3 ALTERNATIVE 3: TI AS IN PROPOSED ACTION WITH CATTLE FENCE PVBS ....2-13 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED...................................................2-14 2.5 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................2-15 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................3-1 3.1 LAND USE .....................................................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Santa Teresa Station..........................................................................................3-2 3.1.2 Deming Station...................................................................................................3-2 3.1.3 Lordsburg Station ...............................................................................................3-2 3.2 SOILS AND PRIME FARMLAND...................................................................................3-7 3.2.1 Santa Teresa Station..........................................................................................3-7 3.2.2