SEPTEMBER2002 REVIEWDRAFT ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENT U.S.BORDERPATROL TUCSONANDYUMASECTORS ARIZONA IMMIGRATIONANDNATURALIZATIONSERVICE WASHINGTON,D.C. BW1 FOIA CBP 009584 REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT U.S. BORDER PATROL TUCSON AND YUMA SECTORS September 2002 Lead Agency: Immigration and Naturalization Service 425 I Street NW Washington, D.C. 20536 Responsible Official: (b) (6) INS Environmental Officer INS Facilities and Engineering Division (b) (6) Point of Contact: (b) (6) USACE-Fort Worth INS A/E Resource Center (b) (6) BW1 FOIA CBP 009585 ABSTRACT PROPOSED ACTION: This USBP proposes to expand its current operations/activities and complete ongoing infrastructure projects. In addition to those projects currently being constructed, this alternative would include (b) (5) (b) (5) PURPOSE AND NEED: The improvements that have been completed or are being proposed by INS and USBP are in an effort to enhance the USBP’s capability to gain, maintain and extend control of the U.S.-Mexico border. ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSED: (b) (5) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS: (b) (5) CONCLUSIONS: Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species, cultural resources sites, wetlands and other sensitive resources would be avoided to the extent practicable. Where impacts are unavoidable, mitigation measures to reduce or compensate for losses would be implemented and coordinated through the appropriate Federal and state resource agencies. No significant impacts to land use, soils, air quality, hazardous waste sites, or socioeconomic resources are expected. Implementation of best management practices and stormwater pollution prevention plans would be required, as appropriate, for construction activities to reduce any potential effects to soils, soil erosion, and water quality. Based upon the results of the PEIS and environmental design measures to be incorporated as part of the proposed action, it has been concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant impact on the environment. Programmatic EIS - Tucson/Yuma Sector Review Draft ii BW1 FOIA CBP 009586 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT U.S. BORDER PATROL ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE BORDER AREAS OF THE TUCSON AND YUMA SECTORS ARIZONA (X) Draft ( ) Final U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service Headquarters, Facilities and Engineering Division 425 I Street, NW (b) (6) Washington, DC 20536 Type of Action: ( X) Administrative ( ) Legislative PROPOSED ACTION: This Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) analyzes the potential for significant adverse or beneficial environmental impacts of the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) operations and proposed infrastructure within the Arizona border regions of the Tucson and Yuma Sectors, Arizona. The PEIS was prepared in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing NEPA, and Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Regulations for Implementing NEPA (28 CFR part 61). The proposed action is located along the international border between the United States and Mexico in Cochise, Santa Cruz, Pima and Yuma counties, Arizona. The scope of this PEIS covers the daily operations (i.e., ground and aerial patrols, maintenance of drag roads, lighting, remote video surveillance (RVS) systems, and checkpoint operations) within the Tucson and Yuma (Arizona portion) Sectors. The PEIS also addresses the potential effects of known or reasonably foreseeable infrastructure construction projects (i.e., fences, bridges, stations, and lighting). The PEIS describes the purpose and need, alternatives considered, existing conditions of the human and natural environment, the anticipated impacts that would result from implementation of the alternative, any design measures needed to reduce potential impacts, and cumulative impacts for the study area. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION: The overall need of the operations and infrastructure proposed by the USBP in this PEIS is to satisfy the USBP mission mandated by the U.S. Congress to gain, maintain, and extend control of the border to prevent the unlawful entry of persons into the United States. The purpose of the programs and improvements of the proposed action are to facilitate USBP law enforcement along the identified section of the U.S.-Mexico border, as mandated by Federal laws, by: Programmatic EIS –Tucson/Yuma Sector Review Draft iii BW1 FOIA CBP 009587 (1) Providing a safe, effective, and efficient working environment in which to accomplish the USBP mission. (2) Enhancing the effectiveness of the apprehension activities through the combined use of manpower, technology and infrastructure to increase deterrence. (3) Protecting sensitive resources, public and private lands, and U.S. citizens from illegal entrants and illegal activities. In addition to the purpose and need stated above, the proposed border infrastructure system has been planned in compliance with Title I, Subtitle A, Section 102, of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996. IIRIRA states that the Attorney General, in consultation with the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers, roads and other infrastructure deemed necessary in the vicinity of the U.S. border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high entry into the U.S. ALTERNATIVES: Four separate alternatives were considered in the PEIS that could satisfy all or portions of the purpose and need. The proposed action alternative (Alternative 1) analyzes potential impacts from the expansion of operations/activities and the completion of all on-going and proposed infrastructure construction projects. This is the preferred alternative. Alternative 2 emphasizes expanding the use of technology-based operations and infrastructure such as RVS, lighting, skywatch towers, and sensors over the traditional operations (e.g., patrols, road dragging, checkpoints). The only infrastructure that would be constructed under this alternative would be the technology-based structures. That is, no additional roads, fences, etc., would be constructed. Alternative 3 considers expanding operations/activities with no new construction of traditional infrastructure (i.e. fences, roads, etc.). Alternative 4 considers construction of additional infrastructure while maintaining the current level of operations/activities. NEPA also requires that the “No Action” alternative be analyzed in an EIS. The “No Action” alternative, as presented in this PEIS, would not allow for the expansion of USBP operations and would eliminate all proposed infrastructure construction. Each alternative carried forward for analysis is briefly described in the following paragraphs. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would consist of continuing the operations at the same level as they are currently. On-going infrastructure construction would be completed, but no new infrastructure construction would be initiated. Even though this alternative would reduce unavoidable impacts and irretrievable losses of resources, it would greatly hinder the USBP’s mission to gain and maintain control of the border. Alternative 1. Expand Operations and Infrastructure (Proposed Action) This alternative would allow the USBP to expand its current operations/activities and complete ongoing infrastructure projects. In addition to those projects currently being constructed, this alternative would include construction of several proposed infrastructure projects. Infrastructure projects that are currently planned include new or expanded station facilities, roads, fences, and vehicle barriers. This alternative would Programmatic EIS –Tucson/Yuma Sector Review Draft iv BW1 FOIA CBP 009588 also include construction or installation of technology-based structures such as RVS systems, stadium lighting, and ground sensors. Alternative 2. Expansion of Technology Based Infrastructure/Operations Only This alternative promotes the use of technology-based operations and infrastructure over traditional barrier type operations. This alternative would include expanding the use of RVS sites, remote-sensing systems, portable generator and stadium style lights, skywatch towers, sensors, and repeaters. Traditional operations would remain at current levels and no new traditional infrastructure (e.g., roads, fences, vehicle barriers, etc.) would be constructed. Alternative 3. Expansion of Traditional Operations without New Infrastructure Alternative 3 includes the expansion of current USBP operations (e.g., drag roads, checkpoints and aerial reconnaissance), but would not allow for construction of proposed infrastructure projects. Construction projects that have already been evaluated through the NEPA process and/or currently under construction would be completed. Alternative 4. This alternative would allow for the completion of current infrastructure projects and the construction of proposed infrastructure projects but would not allow for the expansion of USBP operations. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: This PEIS presents information on the existing conditions of the project area and analyzes potential impacts, in a programmatic sense, to the environment that could occur as a result of the proposed operational and construction activities. Resources, which are not expected to be affected by the Proposed Action, are not fully analyzed in this PEIS. Background information