Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE
OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
FOR THE
U.S. Border Patrol Marfa Sector, Texas
MARCH
2008 MARCH 2008
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CBP U.S. Customs and Border FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act
Protection
FY fiscal year
CEQ Council on Environmental
GLO General Land Office
Quality
hp horsepower
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
IBWC International Boundary and
CM&R Construction Mitigation and
Water Commission
Restoration
JD Jurisdictional Determination
CO carbon monoxide
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
CO2 carbon dioxide
MD Management Directive
CRS Congressional Research
Service mg/L Milligrams per liter
CWA Clean Water Act mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
CY calendar year MMTCE million metric tons of carbon
equivalent
dBA A-weighted decibels
MSL mean sea level
DHS U.S. Department of Homeland
Security NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
EA Environmental Assessment
NADB North American Development
EIS Environmental Impact
Bank
Statement
NAGPRA Native American Graves
EO Executive Order
Protection and Repatriation
Act
14 Proposed Action: The Proposed Action includes the construction, operation and
15 maintenance, of tactical infrastructure to include primary pedestrian fencing,
16 patrol and access roads, and lights along approximately 11 miles of the
17 U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP Marfa Sector, Texas. The
18 Proposed Action would be implemented in three discrete sections. The three
19 sections would be approximately 2.9, 3.3, and 4.6 miles in length.
8 You may submit comments to CBP by contacting the SBI Tactical Infrastructure
9 Program Office. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following
10 methods:
16 Privacy Notice
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION,
AND MAINTENANCE
OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
U.S. BORDER PATROL MARFA SECTOR, TEXAS
MARCH 2008
This document printed on paper that contains at least 30 percent postconsumer fiber.
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 INTRODUCTION
3 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border
4 Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) proposes to construct, operate, and
5 maintain approximately 11 miles of tactical infrastructure, including three discrete
6 sections of primary pedestrian fence and associated patrol roads, access roads,
7 and lights along the U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP Marfa Sector,
8 Texas.
9 The mission of CBP is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering
10 the United States, while also facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel. In
11 supporting CBP’s mission, USBP is charged with establishing and maintaining
12 effective control of the border of the United States. USBP’s mission strategy
13 consists of five main objectives:
1 border activity typically occurs in areas that are remote and not easily accessed
2 by USBP agents, near POEs where concentrated populations might live on either
3 side of the border, or in places that have quick access to U.S. transportation
4 routes.
5 The Proposed Action would provide USBP agents with the tools necessary to
6 strengthen their control of the U.S. borders between POEs in the USBP Marfa
7 Sector. The Proposed Action would help to deter illegal cross-border activities
8 within the USBP Marfa Sector by improving enforcement, preventing terrorists
9 and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, reducing the flow of illegal
10 drugs and other contraband, and enhancing response time, while providing a
11 safer work environment for USBP agents.
12 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
13 CBP notified relevant Federal, state, and local agencies of the Proposed Action
14 and requested input regarding environmental concerns they might have. As part
15 of the NEPA process, CBP coordinated with the U.S. Environmental Protection
16 Agency (USEPA); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); Texas State Historic
17 Preservation Office (SHPO); and other Federal, state, and local agencies. Input
18 from agency responses has been incorporated into the analysis of potential
19 environmental impacts.
26 During the 30-day public review and comment period for the Draft EA, CBP
27 received approximately 135 comment submissions by fax, by email, through the
28 project-specific Web site (www.BorderFenceNEPA.com), and by mail from the
29 public, Federal and state agencies, Federal, state, and local elected officials,
30 stakeholder organizations, and businesses (see Appendix D of the EA).
31 COOPERATING AGENCIES
32 The USIBWC, the USACE-Albuquerque District, and the U.S. Department of the
33 Interior (USFWS) as cooperating agencies have decisionmaking authority for
34 components of the Proposed Action and intend for this EA to fulfill their
35 requirements for compliance with NEPA. The CEQ regulations implementing
36 NEPA instruct agencies to combine environmental documents in compliance with
37 NEPA to reduce duplication and paperwork (40 CFR 1506.4).
13 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
14 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
15 Under the No Action Alternative, proposed tactical infrastructure would not be
16 built and there would be no change in fencing, access roads, or other facilities
17 along the U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations
18 within USBP Marfa Sector. The USBP Marfa Sector would continue to use
19 agents and technology to identify illegal cross-border activity, and deploy agents
20 to make apprehensions. Although USBP agents would continue to patrol the
21 U.S./Mexico international border within the USBP Marfa Sector and make
22 apprehensions, their response time and success rate in apprehensions would
23 continue to be impeded. The No Action Alternative is no longer an efficient use
24 of USBP resources and would not meet future USBP mission or operational
25 needs. However, inclusion of the No Action Alternative is prescribed by the CEQ
26 regulations and will be carried forward for analysis in the EA. The No Action
27 Alternative also serves as a baseline against which to evaluate the impacts of the
28 Proposed Action.
1 the other sections. CBP has identified these areas where a fence would
2 contribute significantly to its priority homeland security mission.
10 This alternative would also include construction and maintenance of access and
11 patrol roads. The lighting and patrol roads would be between the primary and
12 secondary pedestrian fences. The design of the tactical infrastructure for this
13 alternative would be similar to that of Alternative 2.
18
Rd
Lasc a
Ne w Me xico
Rd Pacific
Diablo
Ocean
Pe
Hudspeth
c
County o s
Ri v
e
Texas r
10
Presidio
Fort Sierra County
10 de
Proposed Tactical an
Hancock Blanca
Gr
Infrastructure
U n i t e d
io
Locations
R
Ra
nc
S t a t e s Mex ico
h
R
ad
o
19
2 Rd
an
Cow
Rd
as s
P
an
u i tm
Q
Texas
L-1
R
i
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
M e x i c o
0 1.5 3 6
Scale
Projection: Albers
USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic
North American Datum of 1983
Ne w Me xico
Pacific
Ocean
P
Hudspeth e
c
County os
Riv
e
Texas r
U n i t e d Presidio
County
de
Proposed Tactical an
Gr
Infrastructure
io
Locations
S t a t e s
R
67
F ar
m
To
Mex ico
Ma r k
et
R
oa
d
1 70
Texas
dra
Presidio P ie
sa
Ca
L-1B
Big Bend
Ranch
State Park
L-1A
R i o G r
a
M e x i c o n
d
e
Parks
0 1.5 3 6
Scale
Projection: Albers
USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic
North American Datum of 1983
Alternative 3:
Alternative 1: No Alternative 2:
Resource Area Secure Fence Act
Action Alternative Proposed Action
Alignment
Air Quality No tactical Emissions would Emissions would
infrastructure would result in major short- result in impacts
be constructed and and long-term similar to, but
USBP operations adverse impacts. greater than, the
would remain impacts described
unchanged. No under Alternative 2.
impacts would be
expected.
Noise No tactical Noise from Noise from
infrastructure would construction construction
be constructed and equipment and equipment and
USBP operations increased traffic increased traffic
would remain would result in would result in
unchanged. No short-term moderate adverse impacts
impacts would be to major adverse similar to, but
expected. impacts. slightly greater than,
the impacts
described under
Alternative 2.
Land Use Long-term minor to Land use changes Land use changes
major adverse and incompatibilities and incompatibilities
impacts would be would result in long- would result in
expected. term minor to major adverse impacts
adverse and similar to, but
beneficial impacts. slightly greater than,
the impacts
described under
Alternative 2.
Geology and Continuation in Grading and Grading and
Soils cross-border violator contouring would contouring would
traffic. Long-term result in short- and result in adverse
minor continuing long-term minor impacts similar to,
adverse impacts adverse impacts. but slightly greater
expected due to than, the impacts
compaction. described under
Alternative 2.
Alternative 3:
Alternative 1: No Alternative 2:
Resource Area Secure Fence Act
Action Alternative Proposed Action
Alignment
Hydrology and Long-term minor Grading and Grading and
Groundwater adverse impacts contouring would contouring would
would be expected. result in short- and result in adverse
long-term negligible impacts similar to,
adverse impacts on but slightly greater
hydrology and than, the impacts
groundwater. described under
Short-term, minor Alternative 2.
adverse impacts on
groundwater would
be expected.
Surface Waters Long-term minor Increased Increased
and Waters of the adverse impacts impervious surface impervious surface
United States would be expected. and runoff potential and runoff potential
would result in would result in
short- and long-term impacts that would
negligible adverse be similar to, but
impacts on surface slightly greater than,
waters and the impacts
wetlands. described under
Alternative 2.
Floodplains No tactical Construction Construction
infrastructure would activities would activities would
be constructed and result in short- and result in adverse
USBP operations long-term minor impacts similar to,
would remain adverse impacts. but slightly greater
unchanged. No than, the impacts
impacts would be described under
expected. Alternative 2.
Vegetative Continuation in Disturbance and Disturbance and
Resources cross-border violator clearing would result clearing would result
traffic would be in short- and long- in adverse and
expected. term minor adverse beneficial impacts
Vegetation would and minor beneficial similar to, but
continue to be impacts. slightly greater than,
trampled. Long- the impacts
term negligible to described under
moderate adverse Alternative 2.
impacts would be
expected.
Alternative 3:
Alternative 1: No Alternative 2:
Resource Area Secure Fence Act
Action Alternative Proposed Action
Alignment
Wildlife and Continuation in Habitat conversion Habitat conversion
Aquatic cross-border violator and fragmentation and fragmentation
Resources traffic would be would result in would result in
expected. Minor short- and long-term adverse and
long-term adverse moderate adverse beneficial impacts
impacts would be and minor beneficial similar to, but
expected. impacts. slightly greater than,
the impacts
described under
Alternative 2.
Threatened and Continuation in Loss of potential Loss of potential
Endangered cross-border activity habitat, habitat,
Species would result in long- fragmentation, and fragmentation, and
term minor to elevated noise elevated noise
moderate adverse would result in would result in
impacts. short- and long-term adverse impacts
minor adverse similar to, but
impacts. slightly greater than,
the impacts
described under
Alternative 2.
Protection of habitat
provided by the
fence would result in
long-term minor
beneficial impacts.
Cultural, Historic, No tactical Long-term Impacts would be
and infrastructure would potentially major similar to the
Archaeological be constructed and adverse impacts impacts described
Resources USBP operations would be expected. under Alternative 2.
would remain
unchanged. Long-
term minor adverse
impacts would
continue to be
expected from
continued cross-
border activity.
Aesthetics and No tactical Visual interruption Visual interruption
Visual Resources infrastructure would would result in would result in
be constructed and short- and long-term adverse impacts
USBP operations minor to major similar to, but
would remain adverse impacts. slightly greater than,
unchanged. No the impacts
impacts would be described under
expected. Alternative 2.
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
ES-9
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
Alternative 3:
Alternative 1: No Alternative 2:
Resource Area Secure Fence Act
Action Alternative Proposed Action
Alignment
Socioeconomic Continuation in Construction Construction
Resources, cross-border violator activities, increased activities, increased
Environmental traffic would be employment, and employment, and
Justice, and expected. Long- new income would new income would
Protection of term minor to major have direct and result in adverse
Children adverse impacts on indirect short-term and beneficial
safety would be minor beneficial impacts similar to,
expected. impacts. Minor but slightly greater
adverse effects on than, the impacts
minorities and low- described under
income populations Alternative 2.
would be expected.
Utilities and No new impacts Short-term Impacts would be
Infrastructure would be expected. negligible to minor similar to, but
adverse impacts slightly greater than,
would be expected. the impacts
described under
Alternative 2.
Roadways and No new impacts Short-term minor Impacts would be
Traffic would be expected. adverse impacts similar to, but
would be expected. slightly greater than,
the impacts
described under
Alternative 2.
1
2 CBP would follow design criteria to reduce adverse environmental impacts and
3 would implement mitigation measures to further reduce or offset adverse
4 environmental impacts to the extent possible. Design criteria to reduce adverse
5 environmental impacts include avoiding physical disturbance and construction of
6 solid barriers in wetlands/riparian areas and streambeds, consulting with Federal
7 and state agencies and other stakeholders to avoid or minimize adverse
8 environmental impacts, and developing appropriate Best Management Practices
9 (BMPs) to protect natural and cultural resources to the extent possible. BMPs
10 would include implementation of a Construction Mitigation and Restoration
11 (CM&R) Plan; Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan; Dust
12 Control Plan; and Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Cultural Resources.
1 FIGURES
2 ES-1. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure................................................................ 5
3 ES-2. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure................................................................ 6
4 1-1. General Location of Proposed Tactical Infrastructure ....................................................... 1-2
5 1-2. General Location of Proposed Tactical Infrastructure ....................................................... 1-3
6 2-1. Location of Section L-1 Tactical Infrastructure .................................................................. 2-3
7 2-2. Location of Sections L-1A and L-1B Tactical Infrastructure .............................................. 2-4
8 2-3. Fence schematic for L-1 ................................................................................................... 2-7
9 2-4. Fence schematic for L-1A and L-1B ................................................................................. 2-8
10 2-5. Schematic of Proposed Project Corridor – Alternative 2 ................................................... 2-9
11 2-6. Schematic of Proposed Project Corridor – Alternative 3 ................................................. 2-11
12 3.2-1. Common Noise Levels.................................................................................................... 3-12
13 3.12-1. Photograph View of Typical Rural Land Unit (Section L-1) ............................................. 3-67
14 3.12-2. Photograph View of Presidio (Section L-1B)................................................................... 3-68
15 3.12-3. Schematic Showing Visibility of Fencing at Various Distances ....................................... 3-69
16 3.12-4. Typical Views Towards Proposed Construction Corridor, Section L-1 ............................ 3-75
17 3.12-5. Typical Views Towards Proposed Project Corridor, Sections L-1A and L-1B ................. 3-76
18
19
20 TABLES
21 ES-1. Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts by Alternative ..................................... ES-7
22 1-1. Major Permits, Approvals, and Interagency Coordination ................................................. 1-7
23 2-1. Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Sections for USBP Marfa Sector ................................... 2-5
24 2-2. Comparison of Action Alternatives .................................................................................. 2-13
25 3.1-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards............................................................................ 3-3
26 3.1-2. Estimates of Total Proposed Construction Emissions from Alternative 2 in Tons Per
27 Year .................................................................................................................................. 3-6
28 3.1-3. Estimates of Total Proposed Construction Emissions from Alternative 3 in Tons Per
29 Year .................................................................................................................................. 3-9
30 3.2-1. Noise Levels for Construction Equipment ....................................................................... 3-11
31 3.3-1. Communities Potentially Affected by Alternative 2.......................................................... 3-18
32 3.6-1: Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States and Acreages within the Project
33 Assessment Areas in Marfa Sections L-1, L-1A, and L-1B ............................................. 3-33
34 3.8-1. Plant Species Observed in Sections L-1, L-1A, and L-1B............................................... 3-41
35 3.9-1. Light Source Intensity ..................................................................................................... 3-49
36 3.10-1. Federal- and State-Listed Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed Project
37 Corridor........................................................................................................................... 3-53
38 3.11-1. National Register of Historic Places Listed Properties in the Vicinity of the Proposed
39 Project Corridor .............................................................................................................. 3-60
40 3.12-1. Character of Visual Resources within Typical Marfa Sector Land Units (Current
41 Conditions) ..................................................................................................................... 3-68
42 3.12-2. Quality of Visual Resources within Typical Marfa Sector Land Units (Current
43 Conditions) ..................................................................................................................... 3-68
44 3.12-3. Impact on the Character of Visual Resources within Typical Marfa Sector Land Units... 3-74
45
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
iv
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
1 TABLES (CONTINUED)
2 3.12-4. Quality of Visual Resources within Typical Marfa Sector Land Units After Proposed
3 Construction ................................................................................................................... 3-75
4 3.13-1. Employment Type of Residents in Census Tracts, Hudspeth and Presidio Counties,
5 and the State of Texas (Percent) .................................................................................... 3-81
6 3.13-2. Demographic and Economic Characteristics of the Census Tracts, Hudspeth and
7 Presidio Counties, and the State of Texas...................................................................... 3-82
8 4.0-1. Summary of Potential Cumulative Effects......................................................................... 4-4
9
10
1 1. INTRODUCTION
2 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border
3 Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) proposes to construct, operate, and
4 maintain approximately 11 miles of tactical infrastructure, including three discrete
5 sections of primary pedestrian fence and associated access roads, patrol roads,
6 and lights along the U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP Marfa Sector,
7 Texas.
42
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
1-1
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
Rd
Lasc a
Ne w Me xico
Rd Pacific
Diablo
Ocean
Pe
Hudspeth
c
County o s
Ri v
e
Texas r
10
Presidio
Fort Sierra County
10 de
Proposed Tactical an
Hancock Blanca
Gr
Infrastructure
U n i t e d
io
Locations
R
Ra
nc
S t a t e s Mex ico
h
R
ad
o
19
2 Rd
an
Cow
Rd
as s
P
an
u i tm
Q
Texas
L-1
R
i
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
M e x i c o
0 1.5 3 6
Scale
Projection: Albers
USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic
North American Datum of 1983
3
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
1-2
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
Ne w Me xico
Pacific
Ocean
P
Hudspeth e
c
County os
Riv
e
Texas r
U n i t e d Presidio
County
de
Proposed Tactical an
Gr
Infrastructure
io
Locations
S t a t e s
R
F ar
m 67
To
Mex ico
Ma r k
et
R
oa
d
1 70
Texas
dra
Presidio P ie
sa
Ca
L-1B
Big Bend
Ranch
State Park
L-1A
R i o G r
a
M e x i c o n
d
Parks
0 1.5 3 6
Scale
Projection: Albers
USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic
North American Datum of 1983
27 USBP has nine administrative sectors along the U.S./Mexico international border.
28 Each sector is responsible for implementing an optimal combination of personnel,
29 technology, and infrastructure appropriate to its operational requirements. The
30 Marfa Sector is responsible for more than 135,000 square miles encompassing
31 118 counties in Texas and Oklahoma, and 420 miles of the Rio Grande border
32 (CBP 2006). Within the USBP Marfa Sector, areas for tactical infrastructure
33 improvements have been identified that would help the Sector gain more
34 effective control of the border and significantly contribute to USBP’s priority
35 mission of homeland security.
1 Congressional direction in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 DHS Appropriations Act
2 (Public Law [P.L.] 109-295), Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and
3 Technology appropriation to install fencing, infrastructure, and technology along
4 the border. The USBP Marfa Sector has identified 3 discrete areas along the
5 border that experience high levels of illegal cross-border activity. Illegal cross-
6 border activity typically occurs in areas that are remote and not easily accessed
7 by USBP agents, near POEs where concentrated populations might live on either
8 side of the border, or in places that have quick access to U.S. transportation
9 routes.
10 The Proposed Action would provide USBP agents with the tools necessary to
11 strengthen their control of the U.S. borders between POEs in the USBP Marfa
12 Sector. The Proposed Action would help to deter illegal cross-border activities
13 within the USBP Marfa Sector by improving enforcement, preventing terrorists
14 and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, reducing the flow of illegal
15 drugs and other contraband, and enhancing response time, while providing a
16 safer work environment for USBP agents.
6 To comply with NEPA, the planning and decisionmaking process for actions
7 proposed by Federal agencies involves a study of other relevant environmental
8 statutes and regulations. The NEPA process, however, does not replace
9 procedural or substantive requirements of other environmental statutes and
10 regulations. It addresses them collectively in the form of an EA or EIS, which
11 enables the decisionmaker to have a comprehensive view of major
12 environmental issues and requirements associated with the Proposed Action.
13 According to CEQ regulations, the requirements of NEPA must be integrated
14 “with other planning and environmental review procedures required by law or by
15 agency so that all such procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively.”
Agency Permit/Approval/Coordination
- Section 7 (ESA) consultation
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. - MBTA coordination
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) - Special Use Permits for access to National
Wildlife Refuge areas
U.S. Environmental Protection
- CWA NPDES permit
Agency (USEPA)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
- CWA Section 404 permit
(USACE)
- CWA Section 401 State Water Quality
Texas Commission on Environmental Certification
Quality (TCEQ) - CAA permit consultation
- Construction Storm water permit
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
- Texas Endangered Species Act coordination
(TPWD)
Texas Historical Commission (THC) - NHPA Section 106 consultation
Federally recognized American Indian - Consultation regarding potential effects on
Tribes cultural resources
Advisory Council on Historic
- NHPA Section 106 consultation
Preservation
2
3 Through the public involvement process, CBP notified relevant Federal, state,
4 and local agencies of the Proposed Action and requested input regarding
5 environmental concerns they might have regarding the Proposed Action. The
6 public involvement process provides CBP with the opportunity to cooperate with
7 and consider state and local views in its decision regarding implementing this
8 Federal proposal. As part of the EA process, CBP has coordinated with the U.S.
9 Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
10 (USFWS); Texas Historical Commission (THC); and other Federal, state, and
11 local agencies (see Appendix C). Input from agency responses has been
12 incorporated into the analysis of potential environmental impacts.
13 Notices of Availability (NOAs) for this EA and Draft FONSI were published in the
14 Big Bend Sentinel, the International, the Van Horn Advocate, the Hudspeth
15 Herald, the Alpine Avalanche and El Diario on January 8, 2008.
16 The NOA solicits comments on the Proposed Action and involves the local
17 community in the decisionmaking process. Comments from the public and other
18 Federal, state, and local agencies are addressed and included in Appendix D.
18 Steps 1, 3, and 4 have been undertaken as part of this EA and are further
19 discussed in Section 3.7. Steps 2 and 6 through 8 are being conducted
20 simultaneously with the EA development process, including public review of the
21 Draft EA. Step 5 relates to mitigation and is currently undergoing development.
22 a. Electronically through the web site at: www.BorderFenceNEPA.com
23 b. By email to: MScomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
24 c. By mail to: Marfa Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o e²M, 2751
25 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031
26 d. By fax to: (757) 299-8444.
27 Throughout the NEPA process, the public may obtain information concerning the
28 status and progress of the EA via the project Web site at
29 www.BorderFenceNEPA.com; by emailing information@BorderFenceNEPA.com;
30 or by written request to Mr. Charles McGregor, Environmental Manager, U.S.
31 Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District, Engineering and
32 Construction Support Office, 814 Taylor Street, Room 3B10, Fort Worth, TX
33 76102, and Fax: (757) 299-8444.
11 Section 7 of the ESA (P.L. 93-205, December 28, 1973) states that any project
12 authorized, funded, or conducted by any Federal agency should not
13 “…jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened
14 species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such
15 species which is determined … to be critical.” The USFWS is a cooperating
16 agency regarding this Proposed Action to determine whether any federally listed,
17 proposed endangered, or proposed threatened species or their designated
18 critical habitats would be adversely impacted by the Proposed Action. As a
19 cooperating agency, the USFWS has assisted in completing the Section 7
20 consultation process, identifying the nature and extent of potential effects, and
21 developing measures that would avoid or reduce potential effects on any species
22 of concern.
23 For much of the proposed fence sections, the tactical infrastructure would follow
24 the Rio Grande levee rights-of-way (ROWs) administered by the USIBWC. The
25 International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) is an international body
26 composed of the U.S. Section and the Mexican Section, each headed by an
27 Engineer-Commissioner appointed by their respective president. Each Section is
28 administered independently of the other. The USIBWC is a Federal government
29 agency headquartered in El Paso, Texas, and operates under the foreign policy
30 guidance of the Department of State (USIBWC 2007). The USIBWC would
31 provide access and ROWs to construct proposed tactical infrastructure along its
32 levee system within the Marfa Sector. It will also ensure that design and
33 placement of the proposed tactical infrastructure does not impact flood control
34 and does not violate treaty obligations between the United States and Mexico.
35 For purposes of the analysis in this EA, the phrase “north of the proposed fence
36 sections” refers to the area on the U.S. side of the proposed tactical
37 infrastructure.
38
Ranch R
U n i t e d S t a t e s
oa
d
1 92
Texas
sR
M e x i c o
as
P
an
tm
Qui
U n i t e d
S t a t e s 67
Texas
Fa
rm rke
Ma t Roa
To d 1
70
L-1B
Presidio
M e x i c o
L-1A
0 0.5 1 2
Scale
Projection: Albers
USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic
North American Datum of 1983
Associated Length of
Section
USBP General Location Land Ownership Section
Number
Station (miles)
Sierra
L-1 Neely’s Crossing Public (USIBWC) 4.6
Blanca
Rio Grande East of Public (USIBWC)
L-1A Presidio 3.3
POE and private
Rio Grande West of Public (USIBWC)
L-1B Presidio 2.9
POE and private
Total 10.8
3
4 Presidio POE and the third section (Section L-1) would be approximately 4.6
5 miles in length in Hudspeth County.
6 Design criteria that have been established based on USBP operational needs
7 specify that, at a minimum, any fencing must meet the following requirements:
17 In addition, the USIBWC has design criteria for tactical infrastructure to avoid
18 adverse impact on floodplains, levees, and flood control operations (see
19 Appendix C) (USIBWC 2007). Typical primary pedestrian fence designs that
20 could be used are included in Appendix A. The preliminary estimate to
21 construct the proposed tactical infrastructure sections is approximately $33
22 million.
23 The alignment of the proposed tactical infrastructure under Alternative 2 was
24 identified by the USBP Marfa Sector as meeting its operational requirements and
25 developed through coordination with Federal and state agencies. The proposed
26 tactical infrastructure would follow the USIBWC levee system for the majority of
27 its length. Section L-1, in Hudspeth County, would be constructed as a “bollard
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
2-5
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
1 floating fence” and placed atop the levee (see Figure 2-3) This configuration
2 would allow the majority of the proposed infrastructure to be placed on property
3 owned by the USIBWC without major disturbance to current USIBWC operations
4 or USBP patrol roads. In Sections L-1A and L-1B, in Presidio County, the
5 proposed alignments along the USIBWC levee would be constructed as new
6 levee retaining walls on the side of the levee facing the Rio Grande (see Figure
7 2-4). Design and construction of the new retaining wall would allow for the wall to
8 be heightened at some future date, by an additional 4 feet, to accommodate the
9 USIBWC proposal to increase the height of the levee. There would be a break in
10 Section L-1B where the fence would encounter Cibolo Creek. A patrol road
11 would be constructed around the perimeter of the creek crossing at a suitable
12 point upstream.
13 There are several sections along the levee that the USIBWC does not own but
14 has ROWs which would require new agreements or the acquisition of land. In
15 addition, ROWs or land acquisition would be required for access roads and
16 construction staging areas. The proposed tactical infrastructure in the three
17 fence sections would also encroach on privately owned land parcels.
27 There would be no change in overall USBP Marfa Sector operations. The USBP
28 Marfa Sector activities routinely adapt to operational requirements, and would
29 continue to do so under this alternative. The Marfa Sector operations would
30 retain the same flexibility to most effectively provide a law enforcement resolution
31 to illegal cross-border activity. Fence maintenance would initially be performed
32 by USBP Sector personnel, but would eventually become a contractor performed
33 activity.
38 CBP is working closely with local landowners and others potentially affected by
39 the proposed tactical infrastructure. Gates and ramps would be constructed to
40 allow USBP, USIBWC, and other land owners access to land, the Rio Grande,
41 water resources, and infrastructure. In agricultural areas, gates would be wide
42
Preliminary Final EA
NOT TO SCALE
2-9
PATROL ROAD
March 2008
Figure 2-5. Schematic of Proposed Project Corridor – Alternative 2
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
1 enough to allow access for necessary farming equipment. In other cases, gates
2 would be situated to provide access to existing recreational amenities; water
3 resources, including pumphouses and related infrastructure; grazing areas;
4 existing parks; and other areas. On a case-by-case basis, USACE might
5 purchase the land between the fence and the Rio Grande on behalf of USBP, if
6 operationally necessary.
9 To the extent that additional actions in the study area are known, they are
10 discussed in this EA in Section 4, Cumulative and Other Impacts.
21 Figure 2-6 shows a schematic of typical proposed project corridor areas for this
22 alternative. The design of the tactical infrastructure for this alternative would be
23 similar to that of Alternative 2.
37
SECONDARY FENCE
Preliminary Final EA
NOT TO SCALE
2-11
PATROL ROAD
March 2008
Figure 2-6. Schematic of Proposed Project Corridor – Alternative 3
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
12 This alternative was determined not to meet the screening criteria of USBP
13 operational requirements. The physical presence of an increased number of
14 agents could provide an enhanced level of deterrence against illegal entry into
15 the United States, but the use of additional agents alone, in lieu of the proposed
16 tactical infrastructure, would not provide a practical solution to achieving effective
17 control of the border in the Marfa Sector. The use of physical barriers has been
18 demonstrated to slow cross-border violators and provide USBP agents with
19 additional time to make apprehensions (USACE 2000). Additionally, as tactical
20 infrastructure is built, agents could be more effectively redeployed to secure
21 other areas. A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (CRS 2006)
22 concluded that USBP border security initiatives such as the 1994 “Operation
23 Gatekeeper” required a 150 percent increase in USBP manpower, lighting, and
24 other equipment. The report states that “It soon became apparent to immigration
25 officials and lawmakers that the USBP needed, among other things, a ‘rigid’
26 enforcement system that could integrate infrastructure (i.e., multi-tiered fence
27 and roads), manpower, and new technologies to further control the border
28 region” (CRS 2006).
29 Increased patrol agents would aid in interdiction activities, but not to the extent
30 anticipated by the construction of primary pedestrian fence and other tactical
31 infrastructure along Sections M-1 and M-2A. As such, this alternative is not
32 practical in the USBP Marfa Sector and will not be carried forward for further
33 detailed analysis.
1 States, as noted above. The use of technology alone would not provide a
2 practical solution to achieving effective control of the border in the Marfa Sector.
3 Therefore, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need as described in
4 Section 1.2 and will not be carried forward for further detailed analysis.
18 Implementation of the Proposed Action would meet CBP’s purpose and need
19 described in Section 1.2. The No Action Alternative would not meet CBP’s
20 purpose and need. Alternative 3 would meet CBP’s purpose and need described
21 in Section 1.2 but would have greater environmental impacts compared to the
22 Preferred Alternative. CBP might need to implement this alternative at some
23 point in the future depending on future USBP operational requirements. While
1 CBP believes that this level of tactical infrastructure is not required at this time it
2 is a viable alternative and will be carried forward for detailed analysis.
3 All potentially relevant resource areas were initially considered in this EA. In
4 accordance with NEPA, the CEQ regulations, and DHS MD 5100.1, the following
5 evaluation of environmental impacts focuses on those resources and conditions
6 potentially subject to impacts, on potentially significant environmental issues
7 deserving of study, and deemphasizes insignificant issues. Some environmental
8 resources and issues that are often analyzed in an EA have been omitted from
9 detailed analysis. The following provides the basis for such exclusions.
36 Construction workers are exposed to safety risks from the inherent dangers at
37 any construction site. Contractors would be required to establish and maintain
38 safety programs at the construction site. The proposed construction would not
39 expose members of the general public to increased safety risks. Therefore,
40 because the proposed construction would not introduce new or unusual safety
30 The CAA directed USEPA to develop National Ambient Air Quality Standards
31 (NAAQS), for pollutants that have been determined to impact human health and
32 the environment. USEPA established both primary and secondary NAAQS
33 under the provisions of the CAA. NAAQS are currently established for six criteria
34 air pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur
35 dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate matter (including particulate matter equal to
36 or less than 10 microns in diameter [PM10] and particulate matter equal to or less
37 than 2.5 microns in diameter [PM2.5]), and lead (Pb). The primary NAAQS
38 represent maximum levels of background air pollution that are considered safe,
39 with an adequate margin of safety to protect public health. Secondary NAAQS
40 represent the maximum pollutant concentration necessary to protect vegetation,
41 crops, and other public resources along with maintaining visibility standards.
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
3-2
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
1 The Federal CAA and USEPA delegated responsibility for ensuring compliance
2 with NAAQS to the states and local agencies. The State of Texas has adopted
3 the NAAQS as the Texas Ambient Air Quality Standards (TAAQS) for the entire
4 state of Texas. Table 3.1-1 presents the primary and secondary USEPA NAAQS
5 that apply to the air quality in the State of Texas.
1 USEPA classifies the air quality in an air quality control region (AQCR), or in
2 subareas of an AQCR according to whether the concentrations of criteria
3 pollutants in ambient air exceed the primary or secondary NAAQS. All areas
4 within each AQCR are therefore designated as either “attainment,”
5 “nonattainment,” “maintenance,” or “unclassified” for each of the six criteria
6 pollutants. Attainment means that the air quality within an AQCR is better than
7 the NAAQS, nonattainment indicates that criteria pollutant levels exceed NAAQS,
8 maintenance indicates that an area was previously designated nonattainment but
9 is now attainment, and unclassified means that there is not enough information to
10 appropriately classify an AQCR, so the area is considered in attainment.
17 In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that carbon dioxide (CO2) and
18 other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the CAA. The Court declared
19 that the USEPA has the authority to regulate emissions from new cars and trucks
20 under the landmark environment law.
21 Many gases exhibit these “greenhouse” properties. The sources of the majority
22 of greenhouse gases come mostly from natural sources but are also contributed
23 to by human activity. Additional information on sources of greenhouse gases is
24 included in Appendix E.
11 The construction projects would generate total suspended particulate and PM10
12 emissions as fugitive dust from ground-disturbing activities (e.g., grading,
13 trenching, soil piles) and from combustion of fuels in construction equipment.
14 Fugitive dust emissions would be greatest during the initial site preparation
15 activities and would vary from day to day depending on the construction phase,
16 level of activity, and prevailing weather conditions. The quantity of uncontrolled
17 fugitive dust emissions from a construction site is proportional to the area of land
18 being worked and the level of construction activity.
27 For purposes of this analysis, the project duration and affected project site area
28 that would be disturbed (presented in Section 2) were used to estimate fugitive
29 dust and all other pollutant emissions. The construction emissions presented in
30 Table 3.1-2 include the estimated annual construction PM10 emissions
31 associated with Alternative 2. These emissions would produce slightly elevated
32 short-term PM10 ambient air concentrations. However, the impacts would be
33 temporary, and would fall off rapidly with distance from the proposed construction
34 sites. As seen in Table 3.1-2, the emissions of NAAQS pollutant is not high,
35 would not contribute to the deterioration of the air quality in the region, and does
36 not exceed 10 percent of the regional values.
1 After construction is completed, USBP Del Rio Sector would begin patrols along
2 Sections L-1, L-1A, and L-1B. The vehicles used for surveillance of the existing
3 border area are currently generating criteria pollutants and would not introduce
4 new pollutant sources. Therefore, no net increase of criteria pollutant emissions
5 would be expected from these border-patrol operations.
15 Greenhouse Gases. USEPA has estimated that the total greenhouse emissions
16 for Texas was 189 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) in 1999. Of
17 this, an estimated 995 tons of CO2 are associated with the EPLCAI AQCR
18 regions. Therefore construction emissions of CO2 represent less than 10 percent
19 of the regional emissions (USEPA 2007c).
26 Summary. Table 3.1-2 illustrates that the emissions from Alternative 2 would be
27 minor adverse and much less than 10 percent of the emissions inventory for
28 EPLCAI AQCR (USEPA 2007b). Within the EPLCAI AQCR, the estimated
29 annual CO2 emissions of power plants is 775,000 tons, while vehicles add
30 another estimated 220,000 tons. Therefore, no adverse impacts on regional or
31 local air quality are anticipated from implementation of Alternative 2.
32 According to 40 CFR Part 81, there are no Class I areas in the vicinity of
33 Alternative 2. Therefore, Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
34 regulations would not apply.
10 The construction projects would generate total suspended particulate and PM10
11 emissions as fugitive dust from ground-disturbing activities (e.g., grading,
12 trenching, soil piles) and from combustion of fuels in construction equipment.
13 Fugitive dust emissions would be greatest during the initial site preparation
14 activities and would vary from day to day depending on the construction phase,
15 level of activity, and prevailing weather conditions. The quantity of uncontrolled
16 fugitive dust emissions from a construction site is proportional to the area of land
17 being worked and the level of construction activity.
24 For purposes of this analysis, the project duration and affected project site area
25 that would be disturbed (presented in Section 2) was used to estimate fugitive
26 dust and all other criteria pollutant emissions. The construction emissions
27 presented in Table 3.1-3 include the estimated annual construction PM10
28 emissions associated with Alternative 3. These emissions would produce slightly
29 elevated short-term PM10 ambient air concentrations. However, the impacts
30 would be temporary, and would fall off rapidly with distance from the proposed
31 construction sites.
17 According to 40 CFR Part 81, there are no Class I areas in the vicinity of
18 Alternative 3. Therefore, Federal PSD regulations would not apply.
19 Greenhouse Gases. USEPA has estimated that the total greenhouse emissions
20 for Texas was 189 MMTCE in 1999. Of this, of this an estimated 995,000 tons of
21 CO2 are associated with the EPLCAI AQCR regions. Therefore construction
22 emissions of CO2 represent less than 10 percent of the regional emissions
23 (USEPA 2007c).
30 3.2 NOISE
31 3.2.1 Definition of the Resource
32 Noise and sound share the same physical aspects, but noise is considered a
33 disturbance while sound is defined as an auditory effect. Sound is defined as a
34 particular auditory effect produced by a given source, for example the sound
35 resulting from rain hitting a metal roof. Noise is defined as any sound that is
36 undesirable because it interferes with communication, is intense enough to
37 damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. Sound or noise (depending on one’s
38 perception) can be intermittent or continuous, steady or impulsive, and can
39 involve any number of sources and frequencies. It can be readily identifiable or
40 generally nondescript. Human response to increased sound levels varies
15 Noise levels in residential areas vary depending on the housing density, location,
16 and surrounding use. As shown in Figure 3.2-1, a quiet urban area in the
17 daytime is about 50 dBA, however, noise increases to 65 dBA for a commercial
18 area, and 80 dBA for a noisy urban daytime area.
19 Construction activities can cause an increase in sound that is well above the
20 ambient level. A variety of sounds come from graders, pavers, trucks, welders,
21 and other work processes. Table 3.2-1 lists noise levels associated with
22 common types of construction equipment that are likely to be used under the
23 Proposed Action. Construction equipment usually exceeds the ambient sound
24 levels by 20 to 25 dBA in an urban environment and up to 30 to 35 dBA in a quiet
25 suburban area.
2
3 Figure 3.2-1. Common Noise Levels
10 Major transportation routes in the vicinity of Presidio include State Route (SR) 67
11 and Ranch Road 170. SR 67 passes through the northern side of Presidio and
12 abuts several residential communities. Ranch Road 170 passes by several
13 residential areas on the southeastern, eastern, and northern sections of the city.
14 It is anticipated that there is a high volume of traffic on border crossing roads.
15 Traffic along these roads contributes to the ambient acoustical environment in
16 the vicinity of Presidio.
17 Industrial and commercial noise sources in the vicinity of Presidio originate from
18 both sides of the border. Industrial noise sources in Presidio are mainly
19 relegated to the central areas of the city. Several industrial facilities exist directly
20 south of Presidio on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande. Noise from these
21 sources contributes to the ambient acoustical environment in the vicinity of
22 Presidio.
23 Texas-Pacifico Transportation, LTD owns and operates a rail line passing south
24 of the town of Presidio. Transportation of goods and services along this line by
25 rail car would impact the ambient acoustical environment in the vicinity of
26 Presidio. However, no details on the amount of traffic along this rail line were
27 found, and frequency of rail traffic on the line is anticipated to be low. Noise from
28 traffic along the rail line contributes little to the ambient acoustical environment to
29 the areas west of Presidio.
12 The construction of the fence sections and related tactical infrastructure would
13 result in noise effects on populations in the vicinity of the proposed sites.
14 Populations that could be affected by construction noise include adjacent
15 residents, people visiting the adjacent recreation areas, or patrons and
16 employees in nearby office, retail, or commercial buildings.
1 Two main objectives of land use planning are to ensure orderly growth and
2 compatible uses among adjacent property parcels or areas. Compatibility among
3 land uses fosters the societal interest of obtaining the highest and best uses of
4 real property. Tools supporting land use planning include written master
5 plans/management plans and zoning regulations. In appropriate cases, the
6 location and extent of a proposed action needs to be evaluated for its potential
7 effects on a project site and adjacent land uses. The foremost factor affecting a
8 proposed action in terms of land use is its compliance with any applicable land
9 use or zoning regulations. Other relevant factors include matters such as
10 existing land use at the proposed project corridor, the types of land uses on
11 adjacent properties and their proximity to a proposed action, the duration of a
12 proposed activity, and its “permanence.”
3 The existing land use in the Marfa Sector for the proposed project corridor
4 ranges from well-developed urban centers of commerce (e.g., Presidio) to areas
5 of intensive agricultural activities to extensive areas designated for recreation
6 and wildlife management activities. The following is a brief description of the
7 existing land use in Hudspeth and Presidio counties (USACE 1994):
8 • Hudspeth County – The major land use is rangeland (96 percent).
9 Rangeland is used for production of beef cattle. Agricultural land use
10 (2 percent) is used for the production of cotton, alfalfa, and vegetables.
11 Approximately 40,000 acres (56 percent) of agricultural land is irrigated.
12 There is a limited amount of mining (e.g., primarily talc, stone, and
13 gypsum). The major recreational area is Guadalupe Mountains National
14 Park. The park contains unique plant life, scenic canyons, scenic drives,
15 hot springs, salt basins, white sands, and other geological formations.
16 The leasing of rangeland for hunting is an important secondary and
17 seasonal land use. Urban land use (less than 1 percent) is in Sierra
18 Blanca (population 700 est.), the county seat and principal center of trade
19 and commerce.
20 • Presidio County – Rangeland (99 percent) is the major land use.
21 Rangeland is used to raise cattle and goats. Agricultural land use
22 (1 percent) is limited to the production of cantaloupes, lettuce,
23 watermelons, onions, and alfalfa. Limited irrigation of agricultural land
24 occurs, mostly along the Rio Grande. Major secondary land uses involve
25 hunting and tourism. Most tourism occurs within the Big Bend Ranch
26 State Natural Area and on adjacent land. Marfa (population 2,689) is the
27 county seat; it and Presidio make up the two urban areas in Presidio
28 County.
1 on the need for rezoning to accommodate the fence sections, patrol roads, and
2 lighting. CBP might be required to obtain a permit or zoning variance based on
3 local restrictions and ordinances. Short-term minor adverse impacts would occur
4 from construction. Impacts on land use would vary depending on potential
5 changes in land use and the land use of adjacent properties.
6 For the purposes of this EA, a land use analysis was conducted using the
7 National Land Cover Dataset. The National Land Cover Dataset is the first land
8 cover mapping project with a national (conterminous) scope. It is likely the most
9 widely used land cover data set in the United States and no other national land
10 cover mapping program has ever been undertaken. The National Land Cover
11 Dataset provides 21 land cover classes for the lower 48 states. The 21 land
12 cover classes were generalized into the following 4 categories: agricultural,
13 urban, rangeland, and water. The proposed project corridor is classified by
14 approximately 4.6 percent agricultural, 8.9 percent urban, and 86.5 rangeland.
Proposed Tactical
Infrastructure Community Affected
Section Number
L-1 Sierra Blanca
L-1A Presidio
L-1B Presidio
25 Because the proposed tactical infrastructure sections would traverse both public
26 and private lands, various methods could be used to acquire the necessary
27 interests in land. These methods include, among other things, acquiring
28 easements, ROWs, or outright purchase.
29 For those proposed tactical infrastructure sections that are on Federal lands, the
30 most likely means of acquisition would be a ROW obtained from the relevant
31 Federal land manager. On private land, the government would likely purchase
32 the land or some interest in land from the relevant landowner. Acquisition from
4 Agricultural lands within the 60-foot proposed project corridor would not be
5 available for future crop production. In addition, residential, industrial,
6 commercial, and undeveloped lands within the proposed impact corridor would
7 not be available for future development.
12 Land use in the areas between the three proposed fence sections would be
13 expected to be adversely impacted by the deterrent effects the fence sections
14 would experience from the funneling of illegal cross-border activities into those
15 areas. Since the locations of the proposed tactical infrastructure sections are
16 based on USBP operational requirements including the ability to make
17 apprehensions, the adverse effects would be expected to be minor.
6 Soils are the unconsolidated materials overlying bedrock or other parent material.
7 They develop from the weathering processes of mineral and organic materials
8 and are typically described in terms of landscape position, slope, and physical
9 and chemical characteristics. Soil types differ in structure, elasticity, strength,
10 shrink-swell potential, drainage characteristics, and erosion potential, which can
11 affect their ability to support certain applications or uses. In appropriate cases,
12 soil properties must be examined for compatibility with particular construction
13 activities or types of land use.
14 Prime and unique farmland is protected under the Farmland Protection Policy Act
15 (FPPA) of 1981. Prime farmland is defined as land that has the best combination
16 of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber,
17 and oilseed crops, and is also available for these uses. Unique farmland is
18 defined as land other than prime farmland that is used for the production of
19 specific high-value food and fiber crops. It has the special combination of soil
20 quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically
21 produce sustained high quality or high yields of a specific crop when treated and
22 managed according to acceptable farming methods. Soil qualities, growing
23 season, and moisture supply are needed for a well-managed soil to produce a
24 sustained high yield of crops in an economic manner. The land could be
25 cropland, pasture, rangeland, or other land, but not urban built-up land or water.
26 The intent of the FPPA is to minimize the extent that Federal programs contribute
27 to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The act also
28 ensures that Federal programs are administered in a manner that, to the extent
29 practicable, will be compatible with private, state, and local government programs
30 and policies to protect farmland.
20 Geology. The Marfa Sector occurs within the Trans-Pecos Region of the Basin
21 and Range geomorphic province. The surface geology of the Trans-Pecos
22 Region consists of Lower Paleozoic rocks to Quaternary unconsolidated
23 materials, formed during a diverse and complex structural history spanning
24 approximately 400 million years. At least two major series of tectonic episodes
25 have shaped this region. The first series of episodes resulted in contorted
26 Permian sedimentary rocks that were then eroded to a flat plain. Cretaceous
27 seas then deposited carbonate sediments on this unconformity and formed what
28 is now known as the limestones of the Comanche Series. In a second series of
29 tectonic episodes, this unconformity was then deformed by a combination of
30 overthrusting and extensive intrusive and extrusive igneous activity. This area
31 then ceased to be volcanically active and much of the surface topography began
32 to be transformed through erosion and alluvial deposition during the Quaternary
33 as in the case of the Upper Rio Grande Basin. Currently, most of the Cretaceous
34 deposits have been removed by erosion (USACE 1994).
35 Soils. Generally the soils of the Marfa Sector are typical of the Trans-Pecos
36 Region of the Basin and Range province and consist of desertic soils with some
37 undulating to hilly calcareous soils over limestone and limy earths of the Grande
38 Prairie and Edwards Plateau (USACE 1994). The majority of the soils in the L-1
39 fence section of Hudspeth County were unmapped by the NRCS as shown in
40 Appendix G, Map 1. However, a portion of the eastern L-1 fence section
41 occurred in the Nickel-Delnorte-Canutio-Badland and Tigua-Harkey-Glendale-
42 Gila soil associations as shown in Appendix G, Map 2. The Nickel-Delnorte-
43 Canutio-Badland soil association consists of well-drained, moderately to
44 moderately rapid permeable, very gravelly and fine sandy loams that occur on
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
3-21
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
1 alluvial fans, fan piedmonts, hilly uplands, and on valley floors of wide arroyos in
2 mountainous areas (0 to 35 percent slopes). The Tigua-Harkey-Glendale-Gila
3 soil association consists of moderately well-drained to well-drained, moderately
4 to moderately slowly to very slowly permeable, fine sandy to silty clay loams and
5 silty clays that occur on alluvial fans, floodplains, bajadas, stream terraces, and
6 piedmont slopes (0 to 5 percent slopes). Neither of these soil associations are
7 designated as farmland of importance in Hudspeth County (NRCS 2007).
8 The majority of the soils in the L-1B fence section of Presidio County were
9 mapped as occurring within the Nickel-Delnorte-Canutio-Badland soil association
10 by the NRCS as shown in Appendix G, Map 3. A small portion of fence Section
11 L-1B at its western extent was unmapped. The Nickel-Delnorte-Canutio-Badland
12 soil association consists of well-drained, moderately to moderately rapid
13 permeable, very gravelly and fine sandy loams that occur on alluvial fans, fan
14 piedmonts, hilly uplands, and on valley floors of wide arroyos in mountainous
15 areas (0 to 35 percent slopes). The majority of the soils in the L-1A fence section
16 of Presidio County were unmapped by the NRCS as shown in Appendix G,
17 Map 4. However, a small portion of the western L-1A fence section occurred in
18 the Nickel-Delnorte-Canutio-Badland soil association. This soil association is not
19 designated as farmland of importance in Presidio County (NRCS 2007).
20 In Hudspeth County, soils of the Tigua, Harkey, Glendale, and Gila series occur
21 within the eastern portion of proposed project corridor for fence Section L-1 and
22 are classified as partially hydric (the mapping units have inclusions of hydric soils
23 that are too small to map as individual units). The mapped soil associations that
24 occur within the proposed project corridor of fence Sections L-1B and L-1A are
25 not classified as partially or fully hydric in Presidio County. Hydric soils are soils
26 that are saturated, flooded, or have ponding sufficiently long during the growing
27 season to develop anaerobic (oxygen-deficient) conditions in upper horizons.
28 The presence of hydric soil is one of the three criteria (hydric soils, hydrophytic
29 vegetation, and wetland hydrology) used to determine that an area is a wetland
30 based on the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1
31 (USACE 1987).
22 The SWPPPs should contain one or more site maps that show the construction
23 site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water
24 collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after
25 construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPPs must list
26 BMPs the discharger will use to protect storm water runoff, along with the
27 locations of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPPs must contain a visual
28 monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for nonvisible pollutants to
29 be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs, and a sediment monitoring plan if
30 the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment.
31 Part III.F of the Construction General Permit describes the elements that must be
32 contained in an SWPPP.
1 determine depth to bedrock due to the lack of available information on soils in the
2 fence sections. In most cases, it is expected that project design and engineering
3 practices could be implemented to mitigate geologic limitations to site
4 development.
22 The SWPPP should contain one or more site maps, which show the construction
23 site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water
24 collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after
25 construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must list
26 BMPs that the discharger will use to address storm water runoff along with the
27 locations of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual
28 monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for nonvisible pollutants to
29 be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs, and a sediment monitoring plan if
30 the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment.
31 Part III.F of the Construction General Permit describes the elements that must be
32 contained in an SWPPP.
37 None of the mapped soil associations were listed as prime farmland soils or
38 appear to be associated with farmland of local, unique, or statewide importance
39 in Hudspeth and Presidio counties. No significant adverse impacts on prime
40 farmland soils would be expected.
3 The major aquifer underlying the proposed project corridor occurs in the Alluvium
4 and Bolson deposits, which are found in several isolated areas. This aquifer is
5 an important source for irrigation and public water supply. It is an unconfined
6 system consisting of sand, gravel, silt, and clay that ranges in depth from 100 to
7 1,000 feet, but can extend to depths of more than 3,000 feet. Large capacity
8 wells yield from 500 to 900 gallons per minute with maximum yields exceeding
9 2,500 gallons per minute. Groundwater is the primary source of drinking water in
10 the project study corridor. Groundwater assessments of the Alluvium and Bolson
11 deposits aquifer in the project study corridor indicate that the most common
12 sources for potential contamination include the following: (1) increased
13 chloride/sulfate concentrations along the Rio Grande that exceed Secondary
14 Drinking Water Standards, (2) higher levels of total dissolved solids with levels
15 exceeding 3,000 to 10,000 milligrams per liter (mg/l), (3) natural/man-made
16 levels of nitrate (41–60 percent) in the counties of Presidio and Hudspeth, and
17 (4) fluoride (0–3 percent) that continually exceed the Federal drinking water
18 standards. In general, Hudspeth and Presidio counties have been determined by
19 the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) to have low to
20 moderately high potential for groundwater contamination. Sources of potential
21 groundwater contaminants include areas of radioactive anomalies or occurrences
22 of radioactive minerals (radium) in Hudspeth and Presidio Counties and feedlots
23 and animal wastes (nitrogen, phosphates, salts, and infectious agents) in
24 Presidio County. Other potential pollution sources result from inadequate
25 treatment facilities for wastewater and industrial/hazardous wastes which might
26 pose a risk in some regions of the U.S./Mexico international border. Discharges
27 from these facilities could impact waters which cross the border or flow into rivers
28 that form the international boundary. Within the project study corridor, the sister
29 cities of Ojinaga and Presidio are considered major contributors of waste
30 discharges into the Rio Grande (USACE 1994).
1 floodplain of the Rio Grande, which could in turn increase erosion potential and
2 increase runoff during heavy precipitation events. Revegetating the area with
3 native vegetation following construction along with other BMPs to abate runoff
4 and wind erosion could reduce the impacts of erosion and runoff. Additionally,
5 the small increase in impervious surface within the floodplain would result in
6 negligible increases in the quantity and velocity of storm water flows to the Rio
7 Grande. As required by the Texas Construction General Permit (TXR150000),
8 BMPs would be developed as part of the required SWPPPs to manage storm
9 water both during and after construction. Therefore, effects would be expected
10 to be negligible.
38 The CWA (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) established the Federal authority for
39 regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States. Section 404
1 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344) establishes a Federal program to regulate the
2 discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States. The
3 USACE administers the permitting program for authorization of actions under
4 Section 404 of the CWA. Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires that
5 proposed dredge and fill activities permitted under Section 404 be reviewed and
6 certified by the designated state agency that the proposed project will meet state
7 water quality standards. The Federal permit under Section 404 is not valid until it
8 has received Section 401 water quality certification. Section 402 of the CWA
9 establishes the NPDES permit program to regulate point source discharges of
10 pollutants into waters of the United States. An NPDES permit sets specific
11 discharge limits for point sources discharging pollutants into waters of the United
12 States and establishes monitoring and reporting requirements, as well as special
13 conditions. Pursuant to Texas Water Code 26.040 and CWA Section 402 all
14 construction that would result in a soil disturbance of greater than 5 acres
15 requires authorization under the TCEQ Construction General Permit
16 (TXR150000). Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states and USEPA to identify
17 waters not meeting state water-quality standards and to develop Total Maximum
18 Daily Loads (TMDLs) and an implementation plan to reduce contributing sources
19 of pollution.
20 Waters of the United States are defined within the CWA of 1972, as amended.
21 USEPA and the USACE assert jurisdiction over (1) traditional navigable waters,
22 (2) wetlands adjacent to navigable waters, (3) nonnavigable tributaries of
23 traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries
24 typically flow year-around or have continuous flow at least seasonally, and
25 (4) wetlands that directly abut such tributaries. In addition, the Supreme Court
26 issued a decision on June 19, 2006, that addresses the scope of the CWA
27 jurisdiction over certain waters of the United States, including wetlands. On June
28 5, 2007, USEPA and the USACE issued joint guidance clarifying CWA
29 jurisdiction in light of the court decision.
30 The CWA (as amended in 1977) established the basic structure for regulating
31 discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The objective of the
32 CWA is restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological
33 integrity of U.S. waters. To achieve this objective, several goals were enacted
34 including (1) eliminate discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985;
35 (2) achieve water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of
36 fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water by
37 1983; (3) prohibit discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts; (4) provide
38 Federal financial assistance to construct publicly owned waste treatment works;
39 (5) develop and implement the national policy that areawide waste treatment
40 management planning processes ensure adequate control of sources of
41 pollutants in each state; (6) establish the national policy that a major research
42 and demonstration effort be made to develop technology necessary to eliminate
43 the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters, waters of the contiguous zone,
44 and the oceans; and (7) establish the national policy that programs be developed
45 and implemented in an expeditious manner so as to enable the goals to be met
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
3-29
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
1 through the control of both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. The USACE
2 regulates the discharge of dredge and fill material (e.g., concrete, riprap, soil,
3 cement block, gravel, sand) into waters of the United States including wetlands
4 under Section 404 of the CWA. The USACE regulates work on, or structures in
5 or affecting navigable waters of the United States under Section 10 of the Rivers
6 and Harbors Act of 1899.
7 Wetlands include important natural systems and habitats that perform diverse
8 biologic and hydrologic functions. These functions include water quality
9 improvement, groundwater recharge and discharge, pollution mitigation, nutrient
10 cycling, wildlife habitat provision, unique flora and fauna niche provision, storm
11 water attenuation and storage, sediment detention, and erosion protection.
12 Wetlands are considered as a subset of the waters of the United States under
13 Section 404 of the CWA. The term “waters of the United States” has a broad
14 meaning under the CWA and incorporates deepwater aquatic habitats and
15 special aquatic habitats (including wetlands). The USACE defines wetlands as
16 “those areas that are inundated or saturated with ground or surface water at a
17 frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
18 circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in
19 saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs,
20 and similar areas” (33 CFR Part 328).
27 The proposed fence sections follow the IBWC levee system of the Rio Grande for
28 the majority of their lengths. There are no permanent surface water features
29 occurring within the proposed project corridors. Surface water features occurring
30 adjacent to the project corridors include the Rio Grande River and open water
31 components of resacas (bancos) that occur to the north of fence sections L-1 and
32 L-1A. The fence alignments cross several ephemeral washes within the project
33 corridors and numerous washes cross under the proposed access road to the
34 north of fence Section L-1.
35 The 2004 USEPA CWA §303[d] list indicates the waters of the Rio Grande-Fort
36 Quitman, within the project impact corridor of the L-1 fence section, are impaired
37 as a result of arachlor, bacteria, chlorides, and total dissolved solids. No
38 approved TMDLs have been reported to the USEPA by the state of Texas at this
39 time (USEPA 2008).
40 The waters upstream of Amistad Dam, within the project impact corridor of the L-
41 1B and L-1A fence sections, were identified on the 2000 State of Texas CWA
1 §303(d) list as “partially supporting” aquatic life uses due to ambient toxicity of
2 water downstream of Del Rio and due to insufficient data available in 2002 to
3 assess water quality was identified on the 2002 list. The recorded flow rate for
4 waters upstream of Amistad Dam (Segment 2306 of the Rio Grande) was during
5 2001 and 2002 sampling events was below the levels required for water quality
6 standards to be applicable. Sample testing revealed several occurrences of total
7 suspended solids (TSS) and chlorine and one instance of mercury detected
8 above acceptable levels. Testing revealed no lethal toxicity to fathead minnow
9 (Pimephales promelas) and water flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) in lab tests. Some
10 sublethal effects were observed in the study but were determined inconclusive
11 since aquatic life uses would not be applicable during extremely low flows.
12 Toxicity Identification Evaluations (TIEs) were not conducted due to the
13 ambiguous results from the toxicity tests. Although it was recommended that
14 Segment 2306 remain on the 303(d) list, additional testing was determined to be
15 necessary to fully assess the presence and causes of toxicity prior to the
16 establishment of TMDLs (TCEQ 2003). The 2004 USEPA CWA §303(d) list
17 indicates the waters upstream of Amistad Dam are impaired as a result of
18 bacteria and chronic toxicity. No approved TMDLs have been reported to the
19 USEPA by the state of Texas at this time (USEPA 2008).
20 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States within the
21 Proposed Project Areas. Field surveys were conducted in Sections L-1, L-1A,
22 and L-1B on January 28 and January 29, 2008, to delineate jurisdictional
23 wetlands and other waters of the United States (WoUS) within the proposed
24 project areas. Delineations were also conducted along proposed access roads
25 and staging areas associated with the proposed fence alignments. Formal
26 delineations were conducted within a 150-foot corridor associated with the
27 proposed fence alignments, 60 feet to either side of proposed access roads, and
28 within proposed staging areas.
5 All wetlands and other WoUS within the proposed projects areas were
6 delineated, and field data has been submitted as an Application for Jurisdictional
7 Determination to the USACE Albuquerque District.
(b) (5)
8
9
10 Table 3.6-1 provides the section locations, wetland or other WoUS types, and
11 the acreage of each identified wetland or other WoUS within a 60-foot-wide
12 assessment corridor. The 60-foot corridor is considered the maximum width of
13 potential impact associated with implementing the preferred alternative. Maps
14 showing the locations and boundaries of delineated wetlands and other WoUS in
15 the project assessment areas are provided in Attachment D of the Biological
16 Survey Report.
17 Based on the field surveys, 14 wetlands or other WoUS (WL1 through WL14)
18 occur within the assessment area. Wetlands WL1 through WL9 occur in Section
19 L-1; WL11 and WL12 occur in Section L-1B; and WL13 and WL14 occur in
20 Section L-1A. The following text provides brief descriptions of the delineated
21 wetlands.
1 Table 3.6-1: Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States and Acreages
2 within the Project Assessment Areas in Marfa Sections L-1, L-1A, and L-1B
12 WL8/L-1. Wetland 8 is a wide shallow ephemeral wash that drains directly into
13 the Rio Grande. The wash channel ranges from approximately 10 to 20 feet in
1 engineering practices, erosion and sediment controls, and storm water BMPs
2 would be implemented during and after construction and would be consistent
3 with the Construction General Permit, reducing the potential for adverse impacts
4 on water quality associated with erosion and sedimentation during and following
5 implementation of the Proposed Action.
33 3.7 FLOODPLAINS
34 Floodplains are areas of low-level ground and alluvium adjacent to rivers, stream
35 channels, or coastal waters. The living and nonliving parts of natural floodplains
36 interact with each other to create dynamic systems in which each component
37 helps to maintain the characteristics of the environment that supports it.
38 Floodplain ecosystem functions include natural moderation of floods, flood
39 storage and conveyance, groundwater recharge, nutrient cycling, water quality
40 maintenance, and a diversity of plants and animals. Floodplains provide a broad
41 area to spread out and temporarily store floodwaters. This reduces flood peaks
42 and velocities and the potential for erosion. In their natural vegetated state,
Preliminary Final EA March 2008
3-36
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
1 floodplains slow the rate at which the incoming overland flow reaches the main
2 water body (FEMA 1986).
34 Sections L-1B and L-1A are depicted as occurring in the 100-year floodplain of
35 the Rio Grande, as identified on the July 3, 1985, FEMA FIRM Panel No.
36 4805300700B for Presidio County, Texas. This area is also designated as Zone
37 A. Well-defined levees exist and are considered the floodplain edge throughout.
19 The soil disturbance associated with the Proposed Action would disturb more
20 than 5 acres of soil; therefore, authorization under the TCEQ Construction
21 Stormwater Permit (TXR150000) would be required. Erosion and sediment
22 control and storm water management practices during and after construction
23 would be implemented consistent with the SWPPP developed under the
24 Construction General Permit. Based on these requirements, adverse effects on
25 floodplain resources would be minimized.
1 impervious surface, contributing slightly more surface runoff to the Rio Grande
2 and its associated floodplain. Section L-1 would affect approximately 4.6 miles of
3 floodplain, Section L-1B would affect approximately 2.9 miles of floodplain, and
4 Section L-1A would affect approximately 3.3 miles of floodplain. The permanent
5 width of the impact area would be 150 feet (see Figure 2-5) and would affect
6 approximately 195 acres of floodplains along Sections L-1, L-1B, and L-1A.
17 The vegetation of the west-Texas deserts has generally been classified under the
18 Dry Domain, Tropical/Subtropical Desert Division of Bailey (1995). The proposed
19 project corridor is more finely classified as the Chihuahuan Desert Province. The
20 TPWD (2007) provides discussion and describes vegetation geography to biotic
21 provinces and natural regions using topographic features, climate, vegetation
22 types, and terrestrial vertebrates. This system places the proposed project
23 corridor in the Chihuahuan Biotic Province; Trans Pecos Natural Region; and the
24 Level III Ecoregion of the Chihuahuan Desert. The vegetative resources section
25 describes and illustrates the existing condition and distribution of vegetation as it
26 occurred in 2007 within the international border fence corridor, as proposed.
39 The existing vegetation types of Sections L-1, L-1A, and L-1B (see Appendix H)
40 were examined in October 2007. Plant species recorded for the Sections L-1
1 (Sierra Blanca), L-1A (Presidio), and L-1B (Presidio) and their wetland indicator
2 status (NRCS 2007), when appropriate, are included in Table 3.8-1.
3 Vegetation in the proposed project corridors for Sections L-1, L-1A, and L-1B
4 consists of native creosotebush and honey mesquite shrublands; native and
5 nonnative forblands, grasslands, shrublands, and woodlands; and agricultural
6 crops and weedy fallow fields. Emergent and shrub-scrub wetland communities
7 occur rarely within the corridor. Project-related impacts on wetlands are
8 presented under Section 3.6.2.
1 Table 3.8-1. Plant Species Observed in Sections L-1, L-1A, and L-1B
Section Wetland
Scientific Name/
Indictor
Common Name
L-1 L-1A L-1B Status
Section Wetland
Scientific Name/
Indictor
Common Name
L-1 L-1A L-1B Status
Section Wetland
Scientific Name/
Indictor
Common Name
L-1 L-1A L-1B Status
1 regional native vegetation. Managed fires designed and controlled to reduce fuel
2 loading and to reduce nonnative or invasive plant species populations would
3 have short- and long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial impacts on native
4 vegetation reintroduction. Dust generated from the existing access roads
5 traveled by a variety of agency, farm, recreation, and illegal vehicles would result
6 in insignificant to minor, short- and long-term, adverse impacts on downwind
7 vegetation due to interference with pollination and photosynthesis.
9 Within Section L-1, construction grading would occur atop the short levee
10 resulting in approximately 34 acres of vegetation clearing and removal.
11 Vegetation clearing and removal within this segment would result in minor to
12 moderate, short- and long-term, adverse impacts on mostly nonnative shrub,
13 grass, and forb communities dominated by salt-cedar, rabbitbrush, seepweed,
14 arrowweed, Bermuda grass, and Russian-thistle. Within Sections L-1A and
15 L-1B, construction clearing would occur south of and adjacent to the tall levee
16 resulting in approximately 44 acres of vegetation clearing and removal.
17 Vegetation clearing and removal within this section would result in minor to
18 moderate, short- and long-term, adverse impacts on mostly nonnative tree,
19 shrub, grass, and forb communities dominated by salt-cedar, honey mesquite,
20 Bermuda grass, and Russian-thistle. The removal of certain of the non-native
21 species, such as salt-cedar and noxious weed species would be considered a
22 short and long term beneficial impact. Within Sections L-1A and L-1B, in
23 particular, the completed fence would capture Russian-thistle tumbleweeds
24 common in the area and that represent a fire hazard, resulting in low, short- and
25 long-term, adverse impacts on areawide vegetation from wildfire should captured
26 tumbleweeds become ignited and the fires spread. Dust generated from the
27 existing access roads traveled by a variety of agency, farm, recreation, and
28 illegal vehicles would result in negligible to minor short- and long-term, adverse
29 impacts on downwind vegetation due to interference with pollination and
30 photosynthesis.
31 In accordance with the Noxious Weed Act, CBP would reduce the potential to
32 spread noxious weeds and soil pests by implementing such measures as
33 prohibiting the disposal of soil and plant materials from non-native areas to native
34 areas, washing all construction equipment before beginning work on the project,
35 use of gravel or fill material from weed-free sources for relatively weed-free areas
36 and implementation of post-construction monitoring and treatment of invasive
37 weeds.
4 Within Section L-1A, construction grading would occur atop the short levee
5 resulting in approximately 84 acres of vegetation clearing and removal.
6 Vegetation clearing and removal within this segment would result in minor to
7 moderate, short- and long-term, adverse impacts on mostly nonnative shrub,
8 grass, and forb communities dominated by salt-cedar, rabbitbrush, seepweed,
9 arrowweed, Bermuda grass, and Russian-thistle. Within Sections L-1A and
10 L-1B, construction clearing would occur south of and adjacent to the tall levee
11 resulting in approximately 111 acres of vegetation clearing and removal.
12 Vegetation clearing and removal within this section would result in minor to
13 moderate, short- and long-term, adverse impacts on mostly nonnative tree,
14 shrub, grass, and forb communities dominated by salt-cedar, honey mesquite,
15 Bermuda grass, and Russian-thistle. Within Sections L-1A and L-1B, in
16 particular, the completed fences would capture Russian-thistle tumbleweeds
17 common in the area and that represent a fire hazard, resulting in minor, short-
18 and long-term, adverse impacts on area-wide vegetation from wildfire should
19 captured tumbleweeds become ignited and the fires spread. Dust generated
20 from the existing access roads traveled by a variety of agency, farm, recreation,
21 and illegal vehicles would result in negligible to minor, short- and long-term
22 adverse impacts on downwind vegetation due to interference with pollination and
23 photosynthesis.
31 The MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703–712) as amended, implements various treaties for the
32 protection of migratory birds. Under the Act, taking, killing, or possessing
33 migratory birds is unlawful without a valid permit. Under EO 13186,
34 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, the USFWS has
35 the responsibility to administer, oversee, and enforce the conservation provisions
36 of the MBTA, which include responsibility for population management (e.g.,
37 monitoring), habitat protection (e.g., acquisition, enhancement, and modification),
38 international coordination, and regulations development and enforcement. The
39 MBTA defines a migratory bird as any bird listed in 50 CFR 10.13, which includes
40 nearly every native bird in North America.
1 The MBTA and EO 13186 require Federal agencies to minimize or avoid impacts
2 on migratory birds listed in 50 CFR 10.13. If design and implementation of a
3 Federal action cannot avoid measurable negative impact on migratory birds, EO
4 13186 requires the responsible agency to consult with the USFWS and obtain a
5 Migratory Bird Depredation Permit.
24 Typical mammals found along the Marfa Sector include desert pocket gopher
25 (Geomys arenarius), yellow-faced pocket gopher (Cratogeomys castanops),
26 Nelson’s kangaroo rat, Nelson’s pocket mouse, southern grasshopper mouse
27 (Onychomys torridus), Goldman’s woodrat (Neotoma goldmani), Texas antelope
28 squirrel (Ammospermophilus interpres), desert pocket mouse (Perognathus
29 longimembris), desert shrew (Notiosorex crawfordi), desert mule deer
30 (Odocoileus hemionus crooki), pronghorn (Antilocapra Americana), desert
31 bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis spp.), merriam’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys
32 merriami), and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) (USIBWC 2005).
33 Bird species that inhabit the riparian areas and shrublands along the levee
34 include scaled quail (Callipepla squamata) and white-necked raven (Corvus
35 cryptoleucus). Other birds include mourning dove (Zenaida macroura),
36 roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus), lesser nighthawk (Chordeiles
37 acutipennis), Scott’s oriole (Icterus parisorum), cactus wren (Campylorhynchus
38 brunneicapillus), curve-billed thrasher (Toxostoma curvirostre), and black-
39 throated sparrow (Amphispiza bilineata) (USIBWC 2005).
40 Wildlife species observed during the field surveys are listed in Appendix H. An
41 October 2007 survey recorded 37 species of vertebrates, including 32 bird
7 A survey of the Rio Grande done by the USIBWC in 1977 for Hudspeth and
8 Presidio counties found the following fish species: red shiner (Notropis lutrensis),
9 common carp, gizzard shad, mosquitofish, and green sunfish. The most
10 common fish was the red shiner. Catfish, sunfish, and white bass were also
11 observed. The section of the Rio Grande near Presidio, Texas, had low diversity
12 and density of fish species likely due to the high salinity of the Rio Grande and
13 periodic drought conditions that influenced river flows (USIBWC 2005).
16 CBP has included plans to use lighting, cameras, etc., to support its efforts.
17 Lighting an area will have an effect on the behaviors of diurnal and nocturnal
18 species, and likely a direct or indirect effect on crepuscular species in the area.
19 The height of the lights, direction of lighting, power source, and wattage will be
20 assessed by USFWS prior to installation and use. Lights would operate from
21 dusk to dawn. Light poles adjacent to USIBWC levees would be coordinated
22 with and approved by the USIBWC. The final placement and direction of lighting
23 has been and would continue to be coordinated with the USFWS, with the
24 USFWS having final review over both placement and direction along each fence
25 segment. USBP has used lighting and other means for several years in many
26 sectors. Additional lighting specifications can be found in Appendix A of the
27 Preliminary Final EA. In general, lighting an area so that it has the least effect on
28 wildlife includes:
29 • Producing a certain type of light (e.g., using low pressure sodium lighting)
30 • Establishing the height of the lamp based on the height of surrounding
31 vegetation
32 • Providing high-intensity light shields on the top and sides of the light
33 • Using the least intensive lighting necessary for an area.
34 Artificial lighting will influence the behavior of most species, including mammals,
35 birds, and amphibians. These behavior changes have been observed as
36 changes in foraging patterns, the location of nesting sites, territorial singing, and
37 migration routes. Other influences that may occur include disorientation, an
38 attraction to artificial lighting, increased predation or prey, and an overall change
39 to the ecological structure of an area. A comparison of lighting sources provides
40 a better understanding (see Table 3.9-1).
6 • Many usually diurnal birds and reptiles have been found to forage under
7 (and become dependent upon) artificial lighting.
8 • The northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) male typically sings at night
9 before mating, yet under the effect of artificial lighting was found to sing
10 only at night after mating had occurred. Other behavior changes were
11 unknown.
12 • Nocturnally migrating birds have been disoriented by artificial lighting.
13 • Nest sites were observed to be selected so that they were farther away
14 from artificial lighting.
15 • Many believe an increase in predation risk on open habitats occurs under
16 bright moonlight, and would therefore occur under artificial lighting as well.
17 Although no field study conclusively confirms or refutes this explanation,
18 circumstantial evidence supports this idea (Longcore and Rich 2004).
19 • Bat foraging studies conducted at streetlights found a decrease in the
20 attraction of moths to streetlights when lamps were changed from mercury
21 vapor to high-pressure sodium vapor lamps (Rich and Longcore 2006).
22 Other studies, however, reflect different long-term findings. For example, studies
23 have shown that within several weeks under constant lighting, migratory birds
24 and mammals will quickly stabilize and reset their circadian rhythms back to their
25 original schedules (when returned to normal lighting conditions).
26 The greatest impacts to wildlife from lighting would probably be to birds and
27 insects that would be affected by the lights while migrating, causing them to alter
28 their course or schedule. The tendency for nocturnal birds and other wildlife
29 species (e.g. bats) to congregate around the lights to feed on insects attracted by
1 the lights may also increase. This change in behavior may make these species
2 more vulnerable to predation or injury (USACE 2003).
3 As such, lights would have minor to moderate, adverse and beneficial impacts on
4 nocturnal wildlife depending on the species examined.
10 The 44 acres of vegetation removed for Sections L-1A and L-1B are dominated
11 by salt-cedar, honey mesquite, Bermuda grass, and Russian-thistle. This
12 vegetation removal would result in short- and long-term, minor adverse impacts
13 on wildlife due to loss of habitat.
14 Impacts on migratory birds could be substantial and is highly dependent upon the
15 timing of fence construction. Implementing a series of BMPs to avoid or
16 minimize adverse impacts could markedly reduce their intensity. The following is
17 a list of BMPs recommended for reduction or avoidance of impacts on migratory
18 birds:
35 Because not all of the above BMPs can be fully implemented due to time
36 constraints of fence construction, a Special Purpose Relocation Permit would be
37 obtained from USFWS.
1 short- and long-term, and minor due to construction disturbance and associated
2 loss of habitat. Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts would occur due to
3 reduction of foot traffic through migratory bird habitat north of the impact corridor.
25 The ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 et seq.) provides broad protection
26 for species of fish, wildlife, and plants that are listed as threatened or endangered
27 in the United States or elsewhere. Provisions are made for listing species, as
28 well as for recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat for listed species.
29 Section 7 of the ESA outlines procedures for Federal agencies to follow when
30 taking actions that might jeopardize listed species, and contains exceptions and
31 exemptions. Criminal and civil penalties are provided for violations of the ESA.
32 Section 7 of the ESA directs all Federal agencies to use their existing authorities
33 to conserve threatened and endangered species and, in consultation with the
34 USFWS, to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize listed species or destroy
35 or adversely modify critical habitat. Section 7 applies to management of Federal
36 lands as well as other Federal actions that might affect listed species, such as
37 approval of private activities through the issuance of Federal permits, licenses, or
38 other actions.
1 Under the ESA a Federal endangered species is defined as any species which is
2 in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The
3 ESA defines a Federal threatened species as any species which is likely to
4 become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
5 significant portion of its range.
Table 3.10-1. Federal- and State-Listed Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed Project Corridor
Federal State
Common Name Scientific Name County Habitat
Status Status
PLANTS
Quercus Arid limestone slopes at mid elevations in Chihuahuan
Hinckley oak P T T
hinckleyi Desert
FISH
Larger portions of major rivers in Texas; usually in channels
and flowing pools with a moderate current; bottom type
Cycleptus
Blue sucker P T usually of exposed bedrock, perhaps in combination with
elongates
hard clay, sand, and gravel; adults winter in deep pools and
move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles
Rio Grande basin, Big Bend region; clear, cool water that is
Chihuahua often associated with nearby springs; often in pools with
3-53
Notropis
P T
shiner Chihuahua slight current or riffles over a gravel or sand bottom where
snake
boulders and rock faults/fissures
Preliminary Final EA
Federal State
Common Name Scientific Name County Habitat
Status Status
REPTILES (continued)
Mountain short- Phrynosoma Open, shrubby, or openly wooded areas with sparse
H T
horned lizard hernandesi vegetation at ground level; soil can vary from rocky to sandy
Open, arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation,
Texas horned Phrynosoma
H T including grass, cactus, scattered brush or scrubby trees;
lizard cornutum
soil can vary in texture from sandy to rocky
BIRDS
Nests in tall cliff eyries; migratory stopovers at leading
American Falco peregrines
H DL E landscape edges such as lake shores, coastlines, and
peregrine falcon anatum
barrier islands
Arctic peregrine Falco peregrines Migratory stopovers at leading landscape edges such as
H DL T
falcon tundrius lake shores, coastlines, and barrier islands
3-54
Federal State
Common Name Scientific Name County Habitat
Status Status
MAMMALS
Ursus Bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible
Black bear H T/SA;NL T
americanus forested areas
Mexican long- Leptonycteris Cave-dwelling species that usually inhabits deep caverns;
P E E
nosed bat nivalis nectivorous, with Agave spp. Preferred
Sources: TPWD 2007, USFWS 2007
Notes: E = Endangered, T = Threatened
C = Candidate, DL = De-Listed, NL = Not listed
T/SA = Threatened due to similar appearance
H = Hudspeth County (Section L-1)
P = Presidio County (Section L-1A and L-1B)
3-55
8 Potential impacts on state and federally listed species would be due to direct
9 mortality during construction and operation, and loss of habitat (quality or
10 quantity).
18 The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the official listing of properties
19 significant in U.S. history, architecture, or prehistory, and includes both publicly
20 and privately owned properties. The list is administered by the National Park
21 Service (NPS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior. Cultural resources that
22 are listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP (36 CFR 800.16(l)) are called
23 historic properties. Properties are determined to be eligible for listing in the
24 NRHP by the Secretary of the Interior (NPS) or by consensus of a Federal
25 agency official and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Generally,
26 resources must be more than 50 years old to be considered for listing in the
27 NRHP. More recent resources, such as Cold War-era buildings, might warrant
28 listing if they have the potential to gain significance in the future or if they meet
29 “exceptional” significance criteria. NRHP-listed properties of exceptional national
30 significance can also be designated as National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) by
31 the Secretary of the Interior.
7 In addition to meeting at least one of the above criteria, a historic property must
8 also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
9 feeling, and association. Integrity is defined as the authenticity of a property’s
10 historic identity, as evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics it
11 possessed in the past and its capacity to convey information about a culture or
12 group of people, a historic pattern, or a specific type of architectural or
13 engineering design or technology. Resources that might not be considered
14 individually significant can be considered eligible for listing on the NRHP as part
15 of a historic or archaeological district. According to the NPS, a district possesses
16 a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or
17 objects that are historically or aesthetically united by plan or physical
18 development.
29 The pre-contact history of Far West Texas can be divided into three general
30 cultural periods:
33 Previously reported in the vicinity include the southern edge of the La Junta de
34 los Rios Archaeological District that is listed on the National Register of Historic
35 Places (NRHP). Sites within this district include open campsites, ceramic and
36 lithic scatters, pithouses, and the ruins of Spanish missions. Temporal and
37 cultural affiliations for some of these sites are unclear. Other historic-period
38 resources within a mile of the proposed project include a privately built fort, a
39 railroad trestle, and a former port of entry facility. Information about these
40 resources was plotted on project maps, aerial photographs, and topographic
41 maps to identify areas of interest for further identification and evaluation. These
42 resources are discussed by infrastructure section below.
1 Section L-1. Section L-1 passes near three previously recorded archaeological
2 sites (see Table 3.11-1). Two Late Prehistoric open camp sites with hearths and
3 lithic scatters were recorded in 1948. The third site is a lithic scatter also
4 recorded in 1948. Its temporal affiliation is unknown.
5 Section L-1A and L-1B. Sections L-1A and L-1B pass near one NRHP-listed
6 archaeological district (La Junta de Los Rios Archaeological District) and 1.92
7 miles from a NRHP-listed historic property (Fort Leaton 41PS18) (see Table
8 3.11-1). Within the district there are four prehistoric sites within 1 mile of
9 Sections L-1A and L-1B. One of these sites is a prehistoric open camp and lithic
10 scatter (41PS16), the second is a multi-component site with prehistoric artifacts,
11 as well as ruins of a Spanish mission (41PS15). The remaining two sites are
12 poorly recorded and no information besides location and site number are
13 available on the THC Archaeological Sites Atlas (41PS86, 41PS87). A historic
14 cemetery is also located within a mile of the sections.
20 Fort Leaton is situated 1.92 miles northeast of the southern terminus of L-1A. It
21 will not be affected by the proposed project. Section L-1B passes through or just
22 outside of the La Junta de Los Rios Archaeological District; however, the sites
23 within the district are located almost a mile distant and north of the alignment at
24 the edge of the modern floodplain. These properties are summarized in Table
25 3.1-1.
1 Under Alternative 2, direct construction impacts would occur within a 60-foot wide
2 corridor that accounts for grading of vegetation and fence construction. Under
3 Alternative 3, the direct construction impacts would occur in a 150-foot wide
4 corridor. The archaeological APE is 150 feet to encompass Alternatives 2 and 3.
5 A second, larger APE has been developed for both Alternatives 2 and 3 to
6 account for potential impacts to architectural or other above-ground resources.
7 Topography, type and density of vegetation and intervening development,
8 orientation of streets and properties in relation to the alternatives, traffic patterns,
9 and surrounding development all are factors considered in the definition of this
10 historic APE for a specific location.
25 The archaeological survey examined a 150-foot corridor for all proposed tactical
26 infrastructure sections (inclusive of the direct effect area for both Alternatives 2
27 and 3). An architectural/historic resource survey examined the larger APE that
28 accounts for visual and other effects on historic-period resources. Both surveys
29 considered access roads and stating areas. Seventeen historic-period resources
30 and one prehistoric isolated occurrence were identified in Sections L-1, L-1A and
31 L-1B. Two of these resources have been recommended as eligible for National
32 Register listing. Both properties recommended as eligible for the NRHP are
33 located in section L-1A and are associated the historic themes of border crossing
34 or transportation. They are at a distance of between 15 to 100 feet from the
35 proposed alignment. One of the properties will be located near a staging area.
36 The discussion below provides additional information about the resources
37 identified, recommendations regarding their NRHP eligibility, and environmental
38 consequences of each alternative.
9 Alternative 2:
10 Section L-1. Based on field work conducted to date, no resources are
11 anticipated to be recommended as NRHP eligible in Section L-1. Consequently,
12 no historic properties would be affected.
27 The infrastructure section also passes within 100 feet of the Dupuy Port of Entry
28 (POE) Building. The building, constructed between 1955-1960, served as the
29 U.S. Customs House/Port of Entry for the privately owned and operated Dupuy
30 Bridge. The bridge, no longer extant, was completed in 1926 and served as the
31 only international crossing in the area. The facility was used until 1985 when a
32 new POE was built 500 feet upstream. The POE Building and associated
33 canopy are recommended as eligible for the NRHP for its historical significance.
34 The POE Building is located north of the levee away from the proposed retaining
35 wall infrastructural location. The property and POE Building have been seized by
36 the U.S. Marshal and likely would be used for project-related purposes, such as a
37 staging area. The building and its associated canopy would be retained and not
38 affected by the project. Because of this, the Proposed Action would have no
39 effect to the Dupuy POE Building.
40
1 Section L-1B. Section L-1B passes through or just outside a southern portion of
2 the La Junta de los Rios Archaeological District. Boundaries of the district in this
3 area are somewhat ambiguous. The National Register nomination (Clark 1975)
4 discusses 12 archaeological sites within the nearly 4,000 acres of the district. An
5 archaeological survey of the archaeological APE for the Proposed Action
6 identified no archaeological sites. Therefore, it can be concluded that the La
7 Junta de los Rios district would not be affected by the proposed infrastructure
8 project.
12 Section L-1A. Alternative 3 could present potential impacts and effects to the
13 two cultural resources evaluated and recommended as NRHP eligible. This
14 alternative consists of a primary fence, a patrol road, and a secondary fence in a
15 150 foot corridor. Under this alternative, tactical infrastructure would be
16 constructed on the south side of the IBWC levee. As with Alternative 2, there
17 would be no impact or effect to the Dupuy POE Building.
1 national, regional, or local level for their visual excellence (e.g., National Historic
2 Landmarks (NHLs), National Scenic Rivers); asking viewers to identify quality
3 visual resources; or looking to the regional landscape for specific resource
4 indicators of visual quality. One evaluative approach that has proven useful
5 includes three criteria: vividness (the visual power or memorability of the
6 landscape), intactness (the visual integrity of the natural and man-made
7 landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements), and unity (the visual
8 coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole).
9 A high value for all three criteria equates to a high visual quality; combinations of
10 lesser values indicate moderate or low visual quality. It should be noted that low
11 visual quality does not necessarily mean that there will be no concern over the
12 visual impacts of a project. In instances such as urban settings, communities
13 might ask that projects be designed to improve existing visual quality.
27 Local values and goals operate indirectly on viewer experience by shaping view
28 expectations, aspirations, and appreciations. For example, at a regional or
29 national level, viewers might be particularly sensitive to the visual resources and
30 appearance of a particular landscape due to its cultural significance, and any
31 visual evidence of change might be seen as a threat to these values or
32 resources. Concern over the appearance of the Proposed Action often might be
33 based on how it will affect the visual character of an area rather than on the
34 particular visual resources it will displace.
1 higher than 8,000 feet. Mountain ranges generally trend nearly north-south and
2 rise abruptly from barren rocky plains. Plateaus in which the rocks are nearly
3 horizontal and less deformed commonly flank the mountains. Large flows of
4 volcanic ash and thick deposits of volcanic debris flank the slopes of most former
5 volcanoes. Eroded craters, where the cores of volcanoes collapsed and
6 subsided, are abundant. Gray oak, pinyon pine, alligator juniper parks drape the
7 highest elevations. Creosote bush and lechuguilla shrubs sparsely populate
8 plateaus and intermediate elevations. Tobosa black grama grassland occupies
9 the low basins.
10 Primary landform types present within the APEs include the narrow Rio Grande
11 channel and floodplain, cutoff meander loops (most still containing water),
12 arroyos, and gentle ridges and swales within the floodplain. The City of Presidio
13 lies on the toeslope of an alluvial fan. The levee (man-made landform) is almost
14 invisible at Neely’s Crossing, but a substantive linear feature in Sections L-1A
15 and L-1B.
16 Land cover overlying these landforms can be simplified into three primary types:
17 agriculture, developed, and undeveloped. For the most part, these land cover
18 types parallel the Rio Grande, with developed lands situated farthest from the
19 river channel, and developed and undeveloped lands alternating next to the river
20 channel. The primary encroachment of one land cover type into another is at the
21 Presidio POE, where development intersects the river channel. There are also
22 certain features that cross-cut or link land cover types, such as transportation
23 features (e.g., highways, paved and unpaved roads, bridges) or flood control
24 features (e.g., the levee system).
25 At the macro level of analysis, the Basin and Range province is a distinct land
26 unit. Within that larger land unit, combinations of landform types with the range
27 of land cover types form smaller land units:
28 • Rural land unit. This unit includes the floodplain of the Rio Grande and
29 the intersecting arroyos where they are overlain by agriculture and range
30 lands; however, the character of the underlying landforms is still clearly
31 visible and plays a role in the placement of overlying features (see
32 Figure 3.12-1). Typical features include field breaks, irrigation features,
33 unpaved roads, occasional farmsteads or ranches, occasional water
34 towers, and larger metal utility towers.
1 • Urban/Industrial land unit. This unit includes the floodplain of the Rio
2 Grande and the toeslope of the adjacent alluvial fan in Sections L-1A and
3 L-1B where they are overlain by the city of Presidio (see Figure 3.12-2).
4 The underlying landforms are almost completely masked by man-made
5 features and play little or no role in the layout or location of overlying
6 features. Typical features include buildings of varying heights, sizes, and
7 materials; a mixture of gridded and more organic road networks (primarily
8 paved); planned park areas (often near water sources); open paved areas
9 (e.g., parking areas); the Presidio POE; industrial and commercial areas;
10 overhead utility lines on poles; elevated roadways and overpasses; and
11 elevated signage.
12 Character and Quality of Visual Resources. Tables 3.12-1 and 3.12-2 provide
13 summaries of the visual character and quality, respectively, of visual resources
14 observed within the land units within the Marfa Sector. Values reflect visual
15 character and visual quality of resources visible from distances of 50 feet to
16 1,000 feet (see Figure 3.12-3). Within Section L-1, where the levee is only a few
17 feet high, the Rio Grande channel can be seen from a distance, except where it
18 is obscured by vegetation. In Sections L-1A and L-1B, the levee typically
19 obscures the view of the Rio Grande channel except at the Presidio POE,
20 although the greater elevations within the city center might allow residents and
21 businesses to see over the levee in places. Additionally, the amount of visual
22 clutter between the viewer and the proposed project corridor increases with
23 distance.
Rural Urban/Industrial
Primarily horizontal lines (fields, Vertical lines more prominent than
roads, canals), with occasional horizontal
Line
vertical elements (water towers,
utility towers, tree lines, buildings)
Earthy colors (bare earth and Often a high variety of colors
Color crops, open ground, sparse associated with buildings, signs, green
vegetation) spaces
Mixture of angled and curved Primarily rectilinear forms but can be
forms (roads and buildings vs. punctuated by curves from more
Form
rolling hills and meandering river) elaborate architecture or organic
shapes of natural elements
Relatively subtle variations in Variety of textures related to different
Texture texture (mostly bare earth or building materials against natural
crops) textures in green spaces
3
1 In terms of visual quality, the analysis presumes that any view that includes the
2 Rio Grande constitutes a high-quality view, except for views dominated by
3 industrial or commercial elements (e.g., views of the POEs). Similarly, given that
4 quality of view can be somewhat subjective, it is possible to find at least one low-
5 and one high-quality view within any land unit type. Rather than simply provide a
6 range of ratings of low to high for each, the quality of the most common views
7 within a given land unit type was used.
12 • Neely Ranch
13 • Neely Arroyo
14 • La Junta de los Rios Archaeological District
15 • Mimbrosa Arroyo
16 • Marfa Lights
17 • Presidio.
30 • Residential viewers
31 - Rural landowners, primarily farmers and ranchers
32 - Urban residents
33 • Commercial viewers
34 - Rural farms, ranches, and isolated businesses
35 - Urban businesses
36 • Industrial viewers
37 - Rural industries (e.g., pump stations, pipeline monitors)
38 - Urban industries
1 • Recreational viewers
2 - Tourists visiting towns and cities
3 • Special interest viewers
4 - Native American tribes
5 - Local historical societies
6 - Local chapters of conservation societies (e.g., Audubon Society)
7 - Park commissions
8 - Regulatory agencies (e.g., USFWS, THC)
9 • Intermittent viewers (view primarily from transportation corridors)
10 - Commuters
11 - Commercial (e.g., truck drivers, railroad operators, ferry operator).
12 Within each of these categories, viewer response will also vary depending on the
13 typical duration of exposure to visual resources and the typical distance from
14 which they view those resources. For example, a residential viewer who
15 currently has an unobstructed view of a high-quality resource from their backyard
16 will be impacted differently than a residential viewer who lives several streets
17 away and already has an obstructed view of those resources. Similarly, a viewer
18 that only views a resource such as the Rio Grande from the highway as they
19 pass through the region will have a different viewer response relative to that
20 resource than a viewer that regularly walks along the levee overlooking the river.
1 constant exposure to the fence at close distances. Beneficial impacts are also
2 possible (e.g., addition of the fence increases the unity or dramatic impact of a
3 view, removal of visual clutter within the proposed project corridor can clarify a
4 view, or a viewer positively associates the fence with a feeling of greater
5 security), but are considered to be less common.
26 Of these, addition of the line of fencing and the associated patrol road, removal
27 of existing elements from the proposed project corridor in Section L-1, and the
28 loss of access to specific visual resources due to the fact that the fence is a
29 barrier would have long-term impacts on visual resources, while the remaining
30 elements would have temporary or short-term impacts limited to the period of
31 construction. The nature (adverse or beneficial) and degree (minor to major) of
32 the long-term impacts can be affected by the appearance of the fencing (width,
33 height, materials, color), the patrol road (paved or unpaved, width), the lighting
34 configuration (number of lighting poles, number of lights per pole, angle and
35 screening of lights), and the access roads (number, paved or unpaved, width).
36 Removal of existing visual elements in Section L-1 would also constitute a long-
37 term impact. Where the existing element adds to the visual character and quality
38 of the resource, the impact of its removal would be adverse. Where the existing
39 element detracts from the visual character and quality of the resource (e.g.,
40 rusted equipment or dead trees), the impact of removal could be beneficial. In all
41 cases, removal of existing elements would have the net result of exposing more
1 of the fence, patrol road, and other tactical infrastructure; in settings where the
2 addition of the fence is considered to have a major adverse impact on visual
3 resources, any benefit accruing from removal of existing elements would be
4 outweighed by the more dominant adverse visual impact of the fence.
5 In Sections L-1A and L-1B, the tactical infrastructure would consist of a retaining
6 wall on the river side of the existing levee, topped with a typical guard rail. The
7 patrol road would be the existing road on top of the levee. Apart from the guard
8 rail, the only new addition to the corridor will be lighting poles, placed at
9 approximately 50-foot intervals along the levee in each of these sections. No
10 clearing or removal of visual elements is anticipated in Sections L-1A and L-1B.
21 In rural land units in Section L-1, the fence would add an additional linear feature,
22 but will generally be taller than any existing feature in the immediate viewshed.
23 Accordingly, the impact in Section L-1 would be negative to the owners of Neely
24 Ranch and to casual viewers of this section of the Rio Grande that use Rancho
25 Road. In the rural land units within Sections L-1A and L-1B, the version of the
26 fence that would be used (retaining wall behind levee and guard rail) would
27 typically be lost from view once the viewer moves more than a few hundred feet
28 from the guard rail. Even in relatively close proximity, the impact on the views
29 from on top of the levee would be minor and typically neutral.
30 The lighting associated with the patrol road is likely to be the most visually
31 intrusive element of the Proposed Action, with the degree of impact during
32 daylight hours tied to the number and height of lighting poles, and the degree of
33 impact during night hours tied to the brightness and extent of illumination created
34 by the lights. From the vantage point of the City of Presidio, which is set back
35 several hundred or more feet from the levee, except at the Presidio POE, the
36 addition of a guard rail along the top of the levee would hardly be visible. The
37 impact would be greater for those residences and businesses closest to the river
38 or at high points within the city, and less for those lying further inside the city, as
39 there would be greater screening of the lights and lighted areas from other
40 buildings and visual elements of the urban landscape. For this land unit,
41 therefore, impacts would range from minor to major, and neutral to adverse.
Rural Urban/Industrial
In Section L-1, the horizontal line of the For viewers in the City of
fence would blend to some extent with Presidio that have a clear view
other linear features; however, due to its of the levee or the Rio Grande,
height, the fence would become the the addition of the guard rail
dominant linear element in the viewshed. would blend with the linear
In Sections L-1A and L-1B, the guard rail feature of the levee. The
will blend with the levee even at short lighting poles might be
Line
distances; however, the lights would discordant except where they
contrast with the generally horizontal co-occur with other vertical
lines in these areas except where they linear features.
co-occur with other vertical features such
as electric poles. The patrol road and
access roads also should blend, both at
short and long distances.
The current fence design parameters call The “color” parameter of most
for fencing to be black in Section L-1. importance in the
Although some of the vegetation trunks urban/industrial land unit is that
are black, the height and massive quality of the pool of light created by
of the fence will be completely discordant the lights in the corridor
with the other colors in Section L-1. In between dusk and dawn.
Color
Sections L-1A and L-1B, the color of the Although the POE has lights,
guard should have no impact. For rural most of the area towards the
landowners, the same comments river is rural and any pools of
regarding lighting noted for light would contrast with the
urban/industrial viewers are also valid. normal nighttime views in that
direction.
The fence and patrol road are rectilinear In Sections L-1A and L-1B, the
in form and will result in greater form of the guard rail would be
domination of rectilinear forms compared lost against that of the more
Form to organic forms in Section L-1. In dominant levee.
Sections L-1A and L-1B, the form of the
guard rail would be lost against that of the
more dominant levee.
As a man-made, synthetic element, the Because this land unit contains
fence would contrast with the dominant a variety of textures, the texture
textures of this land unit in Section L-1. of the guard rail, lights, and
In Sections L-1A and L-1B, the guard rail patrol road are more likely to
Texture
also represents a contrast, but would blend with the textures of this
contrast no more than similar existing land unit at least at a distance.
features such as the POE bridge and the
levee.
3
1 Table 3.12-4. Quality of Visual Resources within Typical Marfa Sector Land
2 Units After Proposed Construction
5
6 Figure 3.12-4. Typical Views Towards Proposed Construction Corridor,
7 Section L-1
5
6 Figure 3.12-5. Typical Views Towards Proposed Project Corridor,
7 Sections L-1A and L-1B
1 Finally, with respect to the impacts on the specific visual resources listed in
2 Section 3.12.1, implementation of the Proposed Action would likely have short-
3 or long-term adverse impacts on the settings of those resources. The greater the
4 distance between the resource and the intrusive visual elements (primarily the
5 fence), and the more intervening visual elements between them, the less severe
6 of an impact. For example, construction of the fence at a distance of 60 feet from
7 a historic building would typically constitute a major adverse impact, while
8 construction of the fence several hundred feet from the resource with intervening
9 vegetation or buildings would reduce the impact to moderate or minor.
10 Placement of the fence within the boundaries of an NHL or historic district,
11 particularly where there is a high degree of visual continuity between resources
12 (few noncontributing elements) would also be considered a major adverse impact
13 on that resource.
14 Intrusions into the settings or viewshed of many of these resources would need
15 to be avoided, minimized, or mitigated depending on the extent and duration of
16 the impact.
5 For viewers likely to observe the tactical infrastructure on a less regular basis
6 (i.e., recreational viewers, special interest viewers, intermittent viewers), viewer
7 responses would be tied to perception of how the tactical infrastructure has
8 altered their access (impede existing views or impede physical access to views)
9 to valued visual resources. Although any of these groups might object on
10 principal to any type of alteration or feel a beneficial response due to a sense of
11 increased security, responses would be more intense and adverse where
12 alterations downgrade the quality or character of existing visual resources.
13 As a final point, for viewers accustomed to accessing views available from the
14 levees or from settings other than parks or refuges, the construction of the fence
15 would place a permanent barrier between the viewer and the visual resources in
16 those locales. By presumption, any visual resource regularly sought out by a
17 viewer would constitute a moderate or high quality visual resource; and
18 restricting physical access to those resources would thus constitute a long-term
19 major adverse impact for those viewers.
1 moderate or major adverse responses. For the viewers with constant or close
2 proximity exposure, a double line of fencing and larger corridor would be
3 perceived as doubly intrusive. The proposed project corridor would intrude more
4 closely on many landowners, increase the number of viewers that would have
5 regular exposure, and would further complicate access to visual resources
6 behind the far line of fencing. For viewers with less regular exposure, Alternative
7 3 would still likely be perceived as having a greater impact than Alternative 2,
8 simply because it makes impacts on various visual resources more difficult to
9 avoid.
21 The largest employment type in Census Tract 9502 (Presidio County), Presidio
22 County, and Texas is educational, health, and social services (23.9, 22.0, and
23 19.3 percent, respectively) (see Table 3.13-1). The largest employment type in
24 Census Tract 9502 (Hudspeth County) is public administration; agriculture,
25 forestry, fishing, and hunting; retail trade; and educational, health, and social
26 services (U.S. Census Bureau 2002).
27 In 2006, Hudspeth and Presidio counties had unemployment rates of 7.4 percent
28 and 10.7 percent, respectively, compared to a 4.9 percent unemployment rate for
29 all of Texas (Fedstats 2007a, Fedstats 2007b). Table 3.13-2 shows
30 demographic data and economic indicators of the ROI, Hudspeth and Presidio
31 counties, and Texas.
Census Census
Tract Tract State
Economic and Social Hudspeth Presidio
9502 9502 of
Indicators County County
(Hudspeth (Presidio Texas
County) County)
Census Census
Tract Tract
Hudspeth Presidio
9502 9502 Texas
County County
(Hudspeth (Presidio
County) County)
Total Population 772 3,344 4,645 7,304 20,851,820
Percent White 87.8 87.2 81.9 85.0 71.0
Percent Black or African
0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 11.5
American
Percent American Indian
3.0 1.4 0.2 0.3 0.57
Alaska Native
Percent Asian 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 2.7
Percent Native Hawaiian
0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.07
and Other Pacific Islander
Percent “Some other
4.7 8.8 16.7 13.5 11.7
race”
Percent Reporting 2 or
4.4 2.1 1.0 0.9 2.5
more races
Percent Below Poverty 18.2 35.8 43.7 36.4 15.4
Per Capita Income $13,296 $9,549 $7,166 $9,558 $19,617
Median Household
$28,333 $21,045 $17,515 $19,860 $39,927
Income
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2002
Note: Census 2000 data are the most recent comprehensive economic and demographic data
for the ROI.
10 Census tract 9502 in Presidio County has a higher percentage of minority and
11 low-income populations than the county (see Table 3.13-2). In addition, 43.7
12 percent of the residents in census tract 9502 (Presidio County) live below the
13 poverty line, as compared to 36.4 percent in the county and 15.4 percent in the
14 State of Texas. A larger proportion of residents living in Census Tract 9502
15 (Hudspeth County) also live below the poverty line compared to the statewide
16 average. Therefore, both census tracts will be evaluated further for
17 environmental justice impacts.
Preliminary Draft EA March 2008
3-82
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
19 Sections L-1A and L-1B. The area surrounding each side of the Presidio POE
20 is in an urban area of Presidio County, Texas. The project corridor would be
21 located on both USIBWC and private lands.
22 Utilities. Electrical power for Presidio, Texas, and the surrounding area is
23 provided through aboveground utility lines. Field photographs show utility lines
24 run between Presidio, Texas, and Ojinaga, Mexico, within the project corridor.
32 According to TCEQ, there are three active landfills in Hudspeth County, and five
33 active landfills in Presidio County. In Hudspeth County, the closest landfill is in
34 Sierra Blanca. The City of Presidio operates the closest landfill to the project
35 corridor in Presidio County. Both landfills are permitted to accept arid-exempt
36 municipal solid waste (TCEQ 2007).
37 Water Supply Systems. The principal source of water for irrigation and
38 municipal water in the project corridor is the Rio Grande. There are several
1 private water pumps within the project corridor and water access could become
2 an issue for some private landowners (CBP 2007). No underground utilities are
3 known to exist in the proposed project corridor, and no outfalls were seen during
4 site visits.
8 Electrical and Natural Gas Systems. No adverse impacts on the electrical and
9 natural gas systems would be expected. All electrical and natural gas
10 infrastructure would be identified prior to construction and impacts on these
11 systems would be avoided to the maximum extent practical. Any electrical
12 transmission or natural gas distribution lines impacted by construction would be
13 moved. Temporary interruptions in electrical power transmission and natural gas
14 distribution could be experienced when this infrastructure is moved. No long-
15 term impacts would be expected.
36 Section L-1 would be situated southwest of Sierra Blanca, Texas. There are two
37 primary roads leading to the proposed project corridor: FM 192 and FM 111. FM
38 192 crosses I-10 between McNary, Texas, and Esperanza, Texas. Traveling
1 west to the project location from I-10, FM 192 traverses the towns of Ninety,
2 Esperanza, and Fort Quitman. FM 111 crosses I-10 in the City of Sierra Blanca,
3 Texas. From I-10 to the project location, FM 111 travels south and west where it
4 eventually splits into Quitman Canyon Pass Road and Red Light Draw Road.
5 Quitman Canyon continues southwest to the proposed project corridor. There
6 are no roads crossed by FM 111 from Sierra Blanca, Texas, to the proposed
7 project corridor (Texas Atlas and Gazetteer 2003). Dirt roads and jeep trails also
8 occur along the project corridor.
9 Sections L-1B and L-1A would be situated on either side of the Rio Grande East
10 POE west of Presidio, Texas. Presidio is accessed from the north by U.S. Route
11 67, from Marfa, Texas. State Route 310 divides from U.S. Route 67 directly to
12 Presidio and then meets again south of Presidio just before the U.S./Mexico
13 international border where the name changes to MEX 16. FM 170 travels along
14 the U.S./Mexico international border from Presidio, Texas, northwest to the
15 proposed project corridor through the town of La Junta, Texas. The South Orient
16 Railroad Company operates the railroad. The line runs from the north to the
17 U.S./Mexico international border (Texas Atlas and Gazetteer 2003, TTMCRO
18 undated). Dirt roads and jeep trails also occur along the project corridor.
1 be longer due to the construction of two layers of primary pedestrian fence rather
2 than one.
2 CEQ defines cumulative impacts as the “impacts on the environment that result
3 from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and
4 reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or
5 non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7).
6 Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant
7 actions taking place over a period of time by various agencies (Federal, state,
8 and local) or individuals. Informed decisionmaking is served by consideration of
9 cumulative impacts resulting from projects that are proposed, under construction,
10 recently completed, or anticipated to be implemented in the reasonably
11 foreseeable future.
35 Past Actions. Past actions are those within the cumulative effects analysis
36 areas that have occurred prior to the development of this EA. Past actions have
37 shaped the current environmental conditions around the Proposed Action.
38 Therefore, the effects of these past actions are now part of the existing
39 environment, and are generally included in the affected environment described in
40 Section 3. For example, development of Presidio has altered the natural
41 environment.
Current
Known Future Cumulative
Resource Past Actions Background Proposed Action
Actions Effects
Activities
Air Quality Attainment criteria Existing emissions Fugitive dust and Existing emission Continued
for all criteria sources continue to combustion sources continue attainment.
pollutants. adversely affect emissions generated to adversely affect
regional air quality. during construction. regional air quality.
No new major
sources identified
in Marfa Sector.
Noise Commercial and Commercial and Short-term noise from Commercial and Existing sources
residential residential construction residential would be the
development, development, equipment and development near dominant noise
vehicles dominate vehicles dominate increased traffic. Presidio source. Negligible
4-4
Current
Known Future Cumulative
Resource Past Actions Background Proposed Action
Actions Effects
Activities
Geology and Soils Installation of Installation of Minor grading and Continued cross- Minor long-term
infrastructure and infrastructure; recontouring would border violator’s impact from
other features. continued cross- disturb soils; activities adversely construction of
border violators installation of fence affect soils. additional
activities adversely might affect geology. Installation of infrastructure.
affect soils. infrastructure near
Presidio.
Hydrology and Degradation of Continued None. Improvements to None.
Groundwater aquifers to degradation of the wastewater
historical pollution. aquifers from collection system
pollution. should reduce
current adverse
impacts on water
4-5
quality.
Current
Known Future Cumulative
Resource Past Actions Background Proposed Action
Actions Effects
Activities
Floodplains Permanently Various storm water Adverse impacts due New development Minor contribution
altered by and floodplain to installation of could add to cumulative
development and management tactical infrastructure impervious areas impacts from
safety features practices when in floodplain. and alter peak flow construction of
such as levees and activities are or floodplain tactical
dams. proposed in or near capacity during infrastructure in
floodplains. high-volume storm floodplain.
events.
Vegetation Degraded historic Continued minor Minor loss of native Development Minor contribution
Resources habitat of sensitive urbanization results species and habitat. causes minor loss to adverse impacts
and common in loss of native of native species on native habitats
wildlife species. species. and habitat. and vegetation.
Wildlife and Urbanization and Minor loss of green Minor loss of green Loss of green Minor loss of
4-6
Aquatic loss of green corridor for wildlife. corridor and water corridor for wildlife. green corridor and
Current
Known Future Cumulative
Resource Past Actions Background Proposed Action
Actions Effects
Activities
Cultural, Historic, Development and Development and Moderate to major Continued Moderate to major
and infrastructure infrastructure long-term adverse development and long-term adverse
Archaeological improvements improvements impacts on cultural infrastructure impacts on cultural
Resources adversely affected adversely affect resources. improvements resources.
cultural resources. cultural resources. adversely affect
cultural resources.
Aesthetics and Past development Development of Constant static visual Constant static Minor to moderate
Visual Resources affected natural natural areas for interruption at fixed visual interruption long-term impacts
viewshed. community and points. at fixed points. from permanent
industry infrastructure.
infrastructure.
Socioeconomics, Commercial and Commercial and Minor, short-term Infrastructure Minor stimulation
Environmental residential residential contribution to local development to of local economy
4-7
Justice, and development development around construction industry. support future from construction
Current
Known Future Cumulative
Resource Past Actions Background Proposed Action
Actions Effects
Activities
Roadways and Construction and Roadways have Minor short-term Continued None.
Traffic maintenance of been upgraded as adverse impacts on development and
roadways in area. necessary. traffic during maintenance of
construction roadways in area.
4-8
1 4.2 NOISE
2 Minor cumulative impacts on ambient noise are expected from the additive
3 impacts of construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure and
4 anticipated development activities and infrastructure improvement projects that
5 would occur near the proposed project corridor. Noise intensity and duration
6 from construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure would be
7 similar to construction activities from other development, or road construction and
8 maintenance. Because noise attenuates over distance, a gradual decrease in
9 noise levels occurs the further a receptor is away from the source of noise.
10 Construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure would be
11 distant from other substantial noise-generating activities in urban areas in
12 Presidio. Increased noise from construction of tactical infrastructure could
13 combine with existing noise sources or other construction activities to produce a
14 temporary cumulative impact on sensitive noise receptors. Construction noise
15 would not be louder, but might be heard over a greater distance or over a longer
16 time period.
15 Wetland losses in the United States have resulted from draining, dredging, filling,
16 leveling, and flooding for urban, agricultural, and residential development.
17 According to the NWI database, there is no wetland information available for the
18 proposed project corridor for any of the three fence sections. However, due to
19 the proximity of the Rio Grande and the identification of irrigation and drainage
20 canals on the topographic quads for these areas, wetlands might be present
21 within all three sections of the proposed project corridor. Areas of potential
22 wetlands or other waters of the United States will be identified during field
23 surveys. If wetlands are identified in the proposed project corridor, effects would
24 be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. CBP would obtain CWA Section
25 404 permits and mitigate the loss of wetlands. The cumulative impacts on
26 wetlands would be long-term and moderate.
27 4.7 FLOODPLAINS
28 Floodplain resources can be adversely impacted by development, increases in
29 impervious areas, loss of vegetation, changes in hydrology, and soil compaction.
30 Construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure has the
31 potential for minor impacts on floodplains from further loss of vegetation, soil
32 compaction on access roads and patrol roads, and the placement of structures in
33 the floodplains. Floodplains were previously impacted by the construction of the
34 levee system which controls the flow of water over low-lying areas. When added
35 to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, impacts from
36 the new tactical infrastructure would be minor due to the relatively small impact
37 within floodplains. As discussed in Sections 1.5 and 3.7, CBP would follow the
38 FEMA process to floodproof the structures and minimize adverse impacts on
39 floodplain resources.
10 Minor development of land for urban use in the Presidio area would continue at
11 an unknown pace resulting in the loss of some farmland and of wildlife habitat.
12 Construction of tactical infrastructure would contribute to this development issue.
13 Water rights issues could become important and affect agricultural and urban
14 acreages and planning efforts.
1 combined with potential construction has the potential for long-term, major,
2 adverse cumulative impacts.
11 In compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, cultural resources surveys are
12 underway to identify and evaluate properties listed in or eligible for listing in the
13 NRHP that might be affected by the proposed tactical infrastructure.
14 Consultation with Native American tribes would ensure that properties of religious
15 and cultural significance to the tribes are addressed. It is anticipated that
16 additional properties to be determined as eligible for listing in the NRHP will be
17 identified that would be affected. Known historic properties would also be
18 affected.
20 The cumulative impacts of USBP activities to reduce the flow of illegal drugs,
21 terrorists, and terrorist weapons into the United States and the concomitant
22 effects upon the Nation’s health and economy, drug-related crimes, community
23 cohesion, property values, and traditional family values would be long-term and
24 beneficial, both nationally and locally. Residents of the border towns would
25 benefit from increased security, a reduction in illegal drug-smuggling activities
26 and the number of violent crimes, less damage to and loss of personal property,
27 and less financial burden for entitlement programs. This would be accompanied
28 by the concomitant benefits of reduced enforcement and insurance costs. There
29 could be an adverse cumulative effect on agriculture and other employers of low-
30 income workers if the labor pool of illegal aliens was substantially reduced.
31 Operation and maintenance of the tactical infrastructure has little potential for
32 cumulative impacts on socioeconomic resources.
28 Energy Resources. Energy resources utilized for the Proposed Action would be
29 irretrievably lost. These include petroleum-based products (e.g., gasoline and
30 diesel) and electricity. During construction, gasoline and diesel would be used
31 for the operation of construction vehicles. USBP operations would not change
32 and the amount of fuel used to operate government-owned vehicles might
33 decrease slightly due to increased operational efficiencies. Consumption of
34 these energy resources would not place a significant demand on their availability
35 in the region. Therefore, no significant impacts would be expected.
36 Land Resources. The proposed Action would result in the irretrievable loss of
37 alternative uses of the land within the proposed 60-foot corridor. Residential,
38 industrial, commercial, and undeveloped lands within the proposed impact
Preliminary Draft EA March 2008
4-14
Marfa Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
1 corridor would not be available for future development. This loss would not be of
2 significance since the acreage is small and because the land is already
3 constrained in use by USIBWC easements.
26
1 6. REFERENCES
1 7. LIST OF PREPARERS
2 This EA has been prepared under the direction of CBP and the U.S. Army Corps
3 of Engineers, Fort Worth District ECSO. The individuals who assisted in
4 resolving and providing agency guidance for this document are:
5 Christopher Oh
6 Chief, CBP Environmental Branch
22