FME003136

DRAFT

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND

ALTERNATIVES

FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF
TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP)
OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL (OBP)
EL CENTRO SECTOR, CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2007
FME003137

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BO Biological Opinion FY fiscal year

CBP Customs and Border Protection MD Management Directive

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations NOA Notice of Availability

CWA Clean Water Act NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System

DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security OBP Office of Border Patrol

DOPAA Description of the Proposed Action and PVB primary vehicle barrier
Alternatives

EA Environmental Assessment SBI Secure Border Initiative

ECSO Engineering Construction Support Office SFA Secure Fence Act of 2006

EIS Environmental Impact Statement UAV unmanned aerial vehicles

EO Executive Order USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

ESA Endangered Species Act U.S.C. United States Code

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact USEPA United States Environmental Protection

Agency

ft2 square feet USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
FME003138

COVER SHEET

DRAFT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES FOR AN

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS), CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
(CBP), OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL (OBP), EL CENTRO SECTOR, CALIFORNIA

Responsible Agencies: U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and

Border Protection (CBP), Office of Border Patrol (OBP).

Affected Location: El Centro, Imperial and Riverside Counties, California.

Proposed Action: Text to be developed.

Report Designation: Environmental Assessment (EA).

Abstract: Text to be developed.

Written comments and inquiries regarding this document should be directed to: TBD.

PRIVACY NOTICE

Your comments on this document are requested. Letters or other written comments
provided may be published in the EA. Comments will normally be addressed in the EA
and made available to the public. Any personal information provided will be used only
to identify your desire to make a statement during the public comment period or to fulfill
requests for copies of the EA or associated documents. Private addresses will be
compiled to develop a mailing list for those requesting copies of the EA. However, only
the names of the individuals making specific comments will be disclosed; personal
home addresses and phone numbers will not be published in the EA.
FME003139

DRAFT

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND

ALTERNATIVES FOR AN

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF

TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP)
OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL (OBP)
EL CENTRO SECTOR, CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2007
FME003140

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,
OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL, EL CENTRO SECTOR, CALIFORNIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.  INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................................1-1 

1.1  BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................................................1-1 

1.2  PURPOSE AND NEED..........................................................................................................................1-2 
1.3  PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................................................................1-2 
1.4  PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................................................1-4 
1.5  COOPERATING AGENCIES.................................................................................................................1-4 
1.6  FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................1-5 

2.  PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................2-1 

2.1  SCREENING CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................2-1 

2.2  ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................2-2 
2.3  ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................................................2-2 
2.4  ALTERNATIVE 3: OTHER ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................2-5 
2.5  ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION ................2-5 
2.6  SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................2-6 

3.  REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 

APPENDICES
APPENDIX PAGE
A Descriptions of Tactical Infrastructure ............................................................................................................. A-1

FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE

1-1. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 1-3 

2-1. New Fence Foundation (top) and Pedestrian Fence (bottom) ........................................................................ 2-3 
2-2. Constraints to Proposed Tactical Infrastructure................................................................................................... 2-4 

TABLES
TABLE PAGE

Table 1. The El Centro Sector Proposed Scope of Tactical Infrastructure .................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

i
FME003141

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
PURPOSE AND NEED
PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
Alternative 2: Proposed Action
Alternative 3: Other Alternative Considered
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Consideration
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION ACTIONS
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

i
FME003142
Draft – Not for Public Dissemination

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND
The Office of Border Patrol (OBP) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), has as its priority mission the prevention of
terrorists and terrorist weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, from entering
the United States (CBP 2006). The OBP has retained its traditional missions of
interdicting illegal aliens and drugs and those who attempt to smuggle them into the
United States. The OBP’s new and traditional missions are complementary: to identify
and control who and what are entering the United States.

The OBP is specifically responsible for patrolling nearly 6,000 miles of Mexican and
Canadian international land borders and more than 2,000 miles of coastal waters
surrounding the Florida Peninsula and the island of Puerto Rico. Since 1994, the OBP
has made more than 15.6 million apprehensions nationwide. In fiscal year (FY) 2005,
OBP agents made almost 1.2 million arrests of people for illegally entering the country,
and seized more than 12,300 pounds of cocaine and more than 1.2 million pounds of
marijuana. The total street value of drugs interdicted in FY 2005 was more than $1.4
billion (CBP 2006).

The OBP accomplishes its missions by maintaining surveillance, conducting

investigations, responding to electronic sensor alarms and aircraft sightings, interpreting
and following tracks, maintaining traffic checkpoints along highways leading from border
areas, and conducting city patrol and transportation checks. Electronic sensors are
placed at strategic locations along the border to detect people or vehicles entering the
country illegally. Video monitors and night vision scopes are also used to detect illegal
entries. Agents patrol the border in vehicles, boats, and aircraft; and on foot. In some
areas, the OBP even uses horses, all-terrain motorcycles, bicycles, and snowmobiles.
Recently, the OBP has added air surveillance capabilities by deploying unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAV) (CBP 2006).

The National Border Patrol Strategy includes constructing tactical infrastructures (TI) to
force rerouting of illegal border crossers away from urban areas to remote areas where
OBP agents have a better chance of apprehending them. In some locations, fencing is
a critical element of border security OBP (OBP 2004).

The Secure Border Initiative (SBI) was established on November 2, 2005, as a multi-
year plan to coordinate DHS efforts to ensure the legal entry and exit of people and
goods through our borders, and the enforcement of immigration, customs, and
agriculture laws within the U.S. and abroad (CBP 2007).

OBP has nine administrative sectors along the U.S./Mexico international border. The
OBP El Centro Sector provides law enforcement support for the counties of Imperial
and Riverside, California. [[Preparer’s Note: e²M will obtain additional information
on each sector during the Sector Site Visits, including the length of U.S./Mexico

El Centro Fence EA Draft DOPAA Ver01 1-1 August 2007

FME003143
Draft – Not for Public Dissemination

border within the El Centro Sector and the condition of the current fence,
infrastructure, etc., to be included here.]]

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to assist CBP agents and officers in gaining
effective operational control of our nation’s borders and to comply with the mandates of
the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (SFA) (Public Law 109-367).

The Proposed Action is needed to provide OBP agents with the tools necessary to
prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, to reduce the
flow of illegal drugs, to interdict illegal aliens, to provide a safe work environment for
OBP agents, and to enhance the response time of OBP agents. To achieve effective
operational control of our nation’s borders, OBP is developing an optimum mix of OBP
uniformed agents, application of technology, construction of tactical infrastructures, and
intelligence resources on illegal border activities.

The purpose of the SFA is to establish operational control over the international land
and maritime borders of the United States. The SFA directs the OBP to construct
approximately 700 miles of pedestrian fence along the U.S./Mexico international border.
The SFA seeks ways to enhance the effectiveness of the OBP in their mission to control
illegal immigration. The SFA also provides the OBP with flexibility in choosing and
implementing secure border tools that are most suitable to the respective missions and
operational environments of each OBP sector.

1.3 PROPOSED ACTION

OBP is proposing to install and operate tactical infrastructure consisting of pedestrian,
aesthetic, or hybrid fence; access roads; patrol roads; lights; and other tools along the
U.S./Mexico international border within the El Centro Sector, California. Figure 1-X
illustrates the proposed location of the new tactical infrastructure within the El Centro
Sector.

The OBP El Centro Sector has identified high-priority areas for improvements that will
help it gain operational control of the border. These improvements include installation
of “primary fence” segments (areas of the border that are not currently fenced). These
portions of primary fence are designated as segments ECL-CAX-1 and ECL-CAX-2 on
Figure 1-X. Under the SFA, Congress has appropriated funds for the construction of
pedestrian fence along the U.S./Mexico international border. Construction of other
tactical infrastructure might occur as additional funds are appropriated by Congress.

El Centro Fence EA Draft DOPAA Ver01 1-2 August 2007

FME003144
Draft – Not for Public Dissemination

[[Preparer’s Note: e²M will develop a map showing the El Centro Sector and
locations proposed for construction and operation of new Tactical
Infrastructure to include here.]]

Figure 1-1. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

El Centro Fence EA Draft DOPAA Ver01 1-3 August 2007

FME003145
Draft – Not for Public Dissemination

1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and implementing regulations from the
President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and DHS direct agencies to make
their environmental assessments (EAs) and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
available to the public during the decisionmaking process and prior to actions being
taken. The premise of NEPA is that the quality of Federal decisions will be enhanced if
proponents provide information to the public and involve the public in the planning
process.

Through the public involvement process, OBP notified relevant Federal, state, and local
agencies of the Proposed Action and requested input on environmental concerns they
might have regarding the Proposed Action. The public involvement process provides
OBP the opportunity to cooperate with and consider state and local views in
implementing this Federal proposal. As part of the EA, OBP has coordinated with
agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS); State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO); and other
Federal, state, and local agencies (see Appendix B). Agency responses have been
incorporated into the analysis of potential environmental impacts.

A Notice of Availability (NOA) for this EA and proposed Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) will be published in the _names of newspapers to be inserted here_. This is
done to solicit comments on the Proposed Action and involve the local community in the
decisionmaking process. Comments from the public and other Federal, state, and local
agencies will be incorporated into the Final EA and included in Appendix B.

Throughout the NEPA process, the public may obtain information concerning the status
and progress of the Proposed Action and the EA through (b) (6)
Environmental Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District,
Engineering Construction Support Office (ECSO), at (b) (6)

1.5 COOPERATING AGENCIES

As cooperating agencies, the USACE-Los Angeles District, the USFWS, and _names of
other agencies to be inserted here_ also have decisionmaking authority for components
of the Proposed Action and intend for this EA to fulfill their requirements for compliance
with NEPA. The CEQ regulations implementing NEPA instruct agencies to combine
environmental documents in compliance with NEPA to reduce duplication and
paperwork (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1506.4).

The USACE-Los Angeles District will act on applications for Department of the Army
permits pursuant to Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 United States
Code [U.S.C.] 403), and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
In a _date to be inserted here_ letter, the USACE-Los Angeles District identified the
Proposed Action as the least environmental damaging placement alternatives.

El Centro Fence EA Draft DOPAA Ver01 1-4 August 2007

FME003146
Draft – Not for Public Dissemination

[[Preparer’s Note: e²M will complete this section on cooperating agencies when
that information becomes available.]]

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (Public Law 93-205, December 28,
1973) states that any project authorized, funded, or conducted by any Federal agency
should not “…jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such
species which is determined … to be critical.” The USFWS is a cooperating agency on
this proposed action to determine whether any federally listed or proposed endangered
or threatened species or their designated critical habitats would be adversely impacted
by the Proposed Action, to streamline Section 7 consultation, to identify the nature and
extent of potential effects, and to jointly develop measures that would avoid or reduce
potential effects on the species. The USFWS will issue a Biological Opinion (BO) on
the potential for jeopardy. If their opinion is that the project is not likely to jeopardize
any listed species, they can also issue an incidental take statement as an exception to
the prohibitions in Section 9 of the ESA.

[[Preparer’s Note: e²M will include information on additional cooperating agencies

(if any) when that information becomes available.]]

1.6 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS

NEPA is a Federal statute requiring the identification and analysis of potential
environmental impacts of proposed Federal actions before those actions are taken.
NEPA also established the CEQ that is charged with the development of implementing
regulations and ensuring agency compliance with NEPA. CEQ regulations mandate
that all Federal agencies use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to environmental
planning and the evaluation of actions that might affect the environment. This process
evaluates potential environmental consequences associated with a proposed action and
considers alternative courses of action. The intent of NEPA is to protect, restore, or
enhance the environment through well-informed Federal decisions.

The process for implementing NEPA is codified in 40 CFR 1500–1508, Regulations for
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, and
DHS’s Management Directive (MD) 5100.1, Environmental Planning Program. The
CEQ was established under NEPA to implement and oversee Federal policy in this
process. CEQ regulations specify that the following must be accomplished when
preparing an EA:

• Briefly provide evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS
or a FONSI
• Aid in an agency’s compliance with NEPA when an EIS is unnecessary
• Facilitate preparation of an EIS when one is necessary.

To comply with NEPA, the planning and decisionmaking process for actions proposed
by Federal agencies involves a study of other relevant environmental statutes and
regulations. The NEPA process, however, does not replace procedural or substantive

El Centro Fence EA Draft DOPAA Ver01 1-5 August 2007

FME003147
Draft – Not for Public Dissemination

requirements of other environmental statutes and regulations. It addresses them

collectively in the form of an EA or EIS, which enables the decisionmaker to have a
comprehensive view of major environmental issues and requirements associated with
the Proposed Action. According to CEQ regulations, the requirements of NEPA must
be integrated “with other planning and environmental review procedures required by law
or by agency so that all such procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively.”

In addition to the SFA, additional authorities include the Clean Air Act, CWA (including a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] storm water discharge
permit), Noise Control Act, ESA, National Historic Preservation Act, Archaeological
Resources Protection Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Toxic
Substances Control Act. Executive Orders (EOs) bearing on the Proposed Action
include EO 11988 (Floodplain Management), EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), EO
12088 (Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards), EO 12580 (Superfund
Implementation), EO 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), EO 13045 (Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks), EO 13423 (Strengthening Federal
Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management), EO 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and EO 13186 (Responsibilities of
Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds).

[[Preparer’s Note: e²M will include information on previous NEPA documents,

including the 1994 Joint Task Force-6 PEIS and the 2001 SEIS, after the Sector
Site Visits.]]

El Centro Fence EA Draft DOPAA Ver01 1-6 August 2007

FME003148
Draft – Not for Public Dissemination

2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 SCREENING CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES

This section presents OBP’s proposal to construct and operate new tactical
infrastructure within the OBP El Centro Sector, California. Each alternative concerning
location, construction, and operation of tactical infrastructure must meet the OBP’s
Purpose and Need (as described in Section 1.2) and essential technical, engineering,
and economic threshold requirements to ensure that a proposed action is
environmentally sound, economically viable, and complies with governing standards.
The following screening criteria were used to develop the Proposed Action and evaluate
potential alternatives.
• Border areas without Primary Fence. To meet the requirements of the SFA,
areas along the U.S./Mexico international border that does not have primary
fencing are proposed as having high priority for implementation of the Proposed
Action.
• OBP Operational Requirements. Primary border fencing must support OBP
mission needs to hinder or delay individuals crossing the border; once they have
entered an urban area or suburban neighborhood, it is much more difficult for
OBP agents to identify and apprehend suspects engaged in unlawful border
entry. Additionally, around populated areas it is relatively easy for illegal border
crossers to find transportation into the interior away from the OBP patrol areas.
For these reasons, primary border fencing would most likely be constructed in
urban population centers abutting the border.
• Suitable Landscape. Some areas of the border have steep topography, highly
erodible soils, are in a floodway, or have other characteristics that could
compromise the integrity of fence or other tactical infrastructure. For example, in
areas susceptible to flash flooding, fence and other tactical infrastructure might
be prone to erosion that could undermine the fence’s integrity. Areas with
suitable landscape conditions would be prioritized.
• Threatened or Endangered Species and Critical Habitat. Minimize adverse
impacts on threatened or endangered species and their critical habitat to the
maximum extent practical. The OBP is working with the USFWS as a
cooperating agency to identify potential conservation and mitigation measures.
• Wetlands and Floodplains. Minimize impacts on wetlands and floodplain
resources to the maximum extent practical.
• Cultural and Historic Resources. Minimize impacts on cultural and historic
resources to the maximum extent practical. The OBP worked with the SHPO to
identify potential conservation and mitigation measures.
Section 2.2 presents the No Action Alternative. Section 2.3 provides specific details of
the Proposed Action, and Section 2.4 discusses alternatives considered but not
analyzed in detail.

El Centro Fence EA Draft DOPAA Ver01 2-1 August 2007

FME003149
Draft – Not for Public Dissemination

2.2 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No Action Alternative, new tactical infrastructure would not be built and there
would be no change in fencing, access road, or other facilities along the U.S./Mexico
international border within the OBP El Centro Sector. The No Action Alternative would
not meet OBP mission needs and does not address the Congressional mandates of the
SFA. However, inclusion of the No Action Alternative is prescribed by the CEQ
regulations and will be carried forward for analysis in the EA. The No Action Alternative
also serves as a baseline to evaluate the impacts of the Proposed Action.

2.3 ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION

OBP is proposing to install and operate tactical infrastructure consisting of pedestrian,
aesthetic, or hybrid fence; access roads; patrol roads; lights; and other barrier tools
along the U.S./Mexico international border in the El Centro Sector, California. Figure 2-
X illustrates the proposed location of the new tactical infrastructure within the El Centro
Sector.

The OBP El Centro Sector has identified high-priority areas for tactical infrastructure
improvements that will help it gain operational control of the border. OBP proposes to
construct primary border fencing along urban areas where it would be most effective for
its law enforcement purposes. In these areas, individuals who illegally cross the border
have only a short distance to cover before disappearing into neighborhoods; once they
have entered neighborhoods, it is much more difficult for OBP agents to identify and
apprehend suspects engaged in unlawful border entry. Additionally, around populated
areas, it is relatively easy for illegal border crossers to find transportation into the interior
away from the OBP patrol areas. For these reasons, primary border fencing would
most likely be constructed in urban population centers abutting the border.

In rural areas, individuals who illegally cross the border must traverse longer distances
before they can disappear into populated areas. Although effective, achieving optimum
enforcement value from fencing is manpower intensive because agents must continually
check the fence for breaches and for illegal activity. In some of the more remote areas
of the border far from towns and OBP stations, border patrol agents must travel great
distances, devoting much more time to monitoring areas where fencing is breached or
damaged.

Tactical infrastructure includes installation of “primary fence” segments (areas of the

border that are not currently fenced) [[Preparer’s Note: e²M will obtain information
during Sector Site Visits on access and patrol roads, lights, sensors, etc. to
include here]]. These include portions of the primary fence designated as segments
ECL-CAX-1 and ECL-CAX-2 on Figure 1-X. In alignment with Federal mandates,
including the provisions of the SFA, the OBP has identified this area of the border as a
location where a fence would contribute significantly to its priority homeland security
mission (CBP 2007). Figure 2-X presents photos of typical pedestrian fence. Other
fence designs are included in Appendix A.

El Centro Fence EA Draft DOPAA Ver01 2-2 August 2007

FME003150
Draft – Not for Public Dissemination

Figure 2-1. New Fence Foundation (top) and Pedestrian Fence (bottom)

El Centro Fence EA Draft DOPAA Ver01 2-3 August 2007

FME003151
Draft – Not for Public Dissemination

[[Preparer’s Note: e²M will develop a map showing publicly available

constraints to include here.]]

Figure 2-2. Constraints to Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

El Centro Fence EA Draft DOPAA Ver01 2-4 August 2007

FME003152
Draft – Not for Public Dissemination

The pedestrian fence would be installed approximately 3 feet north of the U.S./Mexico
international border within the Roosevelt Reservation.1 The final design will be
developed by the design/build contractor. However, design criteria require that, at a
minimum, the fence must be 16 feet high and capable of withstanding a crash of a
10,000-pound (gross weight) vehicle traveling at 40 miles per hour.

[[Preparer’s Note: e²M will obtain additional information during the Sector Site
Visits regarding new patrol roads, access roads (construction roads) (locations,
miles and acres potentially impacted), staging areas, lights, sensors, etc. to
include here.]]

Under the SFA, Congress has appropriated funds for the construction of a pedestrian
fence and related tactical infrastructure along the U.S./Mexico international border.
Construction of additional tactical infrastructure might occur if additional funds are
appropriated by Congress.

2.4 ALTERNATIVE 3: OTHER ALTERNATIVES

[[Preparer’s Note: e²M will obtain additional information during the Sector Site
Visits regarding other alternatives (if any) to include here.]]

2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER

CONSIDERATION
CBP evaluated viable alternatives to the Proposed Action and determined that the
Proposed Action described in this document is the best option for CBP to achieve its
missions of stopping and deterring illegal border crossing and securing the border and
complying with the SFA.

The option to construct primary vehicle barriers (PVBs) in lieu of the fence would restrict
vehicles from illegally entering the United States; however, vehicle barriers would not
prevent potential terrorists, drug smugglers, or illegal aliens from entering the United
States on foot in the El Centro Sector. In addition, PVBs alone do not fully satisfy the

1
In 1907, President Roosevelt reserved from entry and set apart as a public reservation all
public lands within 60 feet of the international boundary between the United States and Mexico
within the State of California and the Territories of Arizona and New Mexico. Known as the
“Roosevelt Reservation,” this land withdrawal was found “necessary for the public welfare ... as
a protection against the smuggling of goods.” The proclamation excepted from the reservation
all lands, which, as of its date, were (1) embraced in any legal entry; (2) covered by any lawful
filing, selection, or rights of way duly recorded in the proper U.S. Land Office; (3) validly settled
pursuant to law; or (4) within any withdrawal or reservation for any use or purpose inconsistent
with its purposes (CRS 2006).

El Centro Fence EA Draft DOPAA Ver01 2-5 August 2007

FME003153
Draft – Not for Public Dissemination

intent of the SFA. For these reasons, construction of permanent vehicle barriers, rather
than a pedestrian fence, was eliminated from further consideration.

2.6 SUMMARY
TBD.

El Centro Fence EA Draft DOPAA Ver01 2-6 August 2007

 FME003154
Draft – Not for Public Dissemination

2 3. REFERENCES

CBP 2006 CBP Border Patrol Overview, January 11, 2006. Available online:
<www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/overview.xm>. Accessed
August 16, 2007.

CBP 2007 SBInet Timeline, July 13, 2007. Available online: <www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/
border security/sbi/sbinet information/sbinet project timeline.xm >.
Accessed August 26, 2007.

CRS 2006 Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report For Congress, December 12,
2006. Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border.

OBP 2004 Office of Border Patrol, National Border Patrol Strategy, September 2004.
Available online: <www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/
national_bp_strategy.ctt/national_bp_strategy.pdf>

3 .

El Centro Fence EA Draft DOPAA Ver01 3-1 August 2007

FME003155
Draft – Not for Public Dissemination

APPENDIX A
Descriptions of Tactical Infrastructure

El Centro Fence EA Draft DOPAA Ver01 1 August 2007

FME003156
Draft – Not for Public Dissemination

The OBP currently uses the following three main types of barriers along the border:

• Primary fencing on international border

• Secondary double fencing to complement the primary fencing
• Vehicle barriers meant to stop vehicles, but not people on foot.

There are several types of primary border fence designs CBP can select for
construction depending on various site conditions and law enforcement tactics
employed. Each option offers their relative advantages and disadvantages. Fencing
based on concrete panels, for example, is among the more cost-effective solutions but
OBP agents cannot see through this type of barrier. OBP prefers fencing structures that
offer visual transparency that will offer OBP agents a tactical advantage of their ability to
observe activities developing on the other side of the border.

Over the past decade, CBP has been deploying a variety of types of primary fencing,
such as bollard-type fencing, ornamental picket fencing, landing mat fencing, chain-link
fencing. Bollard fencing has been effective in its limited deployment and can also be
seen through. However, it is expensive to install and to maintain. Landing mat fencing
is composed of army surplus carbon steel landing mats which were used to create
landing strips during the Vietnam War. Chain-link fencing is relatively economical, but
more easily compromised. In selecting particular fencing designs, CBP has to weigh
various factors such as, their utility as law enforcement tool, costs associated with its
construction and maintenance, potential environmental impacts, and other public
interest concerns. CBP is continuing to develop different types of fence designs that
could best address these competing objectives and constraints.

Prototypes of the current fencing designs, their performance specifications, and

photograph are provided in Figure XXX

The secondary fence proposed by the Sandia study has enough space between the two
fences to accommodate an access road. The secondary fence is an angled two-piece
fence. The fence is vertical up to 10 feet high, and then extends out at an angle towards
the climber. This prevents climbing by using gravity and the weight of the climber
against them. CBP is developing different types of fence designs and their
performance, design specifications, and prototype photograph are provided in Figure
XXX.

The CBP developed a variety of barrier designs to stop vehicles from easily crossing
into the United States from Mexico. Some of these barriers are fabricated to be used as
temporary placement and typically not anchored with foundations. Because they are
not permanently anchored, they could be easily moved to different locations with heavy
construction equipment. Temporary vehicle barriers are typically built from welded
metal, such as railroad track, but can also be constructed from telephone poles or pipe.
These barriers are built so that they cannot be easily rolled or moved using manual
labor only. They are placed and typically chained together on areas of high potential for
vehicle entry.

El Centro Fence EA Draft DOPAA Ver01 2 August 2007

FME003157
Draft – Not for Public Dissemination

Permanent vehicle barriers typically consist of steel posts or bollards with a concrete
foundation base. The posts alternate in aboveground height in order to prevent
individuals from forming a ramp over the barrier. CBP is working on developing
different types of vehicle barrier designs and performance specifications Figure XXX
provides photographs of several prototypes.

(Develop detail descriptions of following work scope)

Patrol, Service, and Access Roads

• Paved Road
• Gravel Road
• Bridges

Support Facilities
• Construction materials storage and equipment staging areas

Utilities Network
• Portable packaged power generator and distribution
• Security lighting
• Water wells, storage, and underground distribution piping
• Septic and sewage treatment

Communication networks
• Antenna towers
• Underground utility lines

Transportation nods
• Helipad
• Boat ramps and docks

El Centro Fence EA Draft DOPAA Ver01 3 August 2007

FME003158

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Environmental

Assessment for Infrastructure Within U.S. Border Patrol Naco-Douglas Corridor Cochise County,
Arizona, August, 2000, p. 1-13.
FME003159

The San Diego Fence

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Environmental Impact Statement for

the Completion of the 14-Mile Border Infrastructure System San Diego, California, July
2003.
FME003160

Permanent Vehicle Barriers

Source: CBP Congressional Affairs.