Draft ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection U.S. Border Patrol November 2007 COVER SHEET 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Responsible Agencies: U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP). 9 10 11 Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Galveston District and the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). 12 13 Affected Location: U.S./Mexico international border in southernmost portions of Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties, Texas. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Proposed Action: The Proposed Action includes the construction, maintenance, and operation of tactical infrastructure to include pedestrian fencing, patrol roads, and access roads along approximately 70 miles of the U.S./Mexico international border within the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas. The Proposed Action would be implemented in 21 discrete sections. Individual sections would range from approximately 1 mile to more than 13 miles in length. 21 Report Designation: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 22 23 24 25 Abstract: CBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate approximately 70 miles of tactical infrastructure, including pedestrian fencing, patrol roads, and access roads along the U.S./Mexico international border in southernmost portions of Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties, Texas. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 The Proposed Action includes the installation of tactical infrastructure in 21 discrete sections along the international border in the vicinity of Roma, Rio Grande City, McAllen, Progreso, Mercedes, Harlingen, and Brownsville, Texas. Individual tactical infrastructure sections would range from approximately 1 mile to more than 13 miles in length. For much of its length, the proposed tactical infrastructure would follow the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) levee along the Rio Grande. Some portions of the tactical infrastructure would encroach upon privately owned land parcels and would cross multiple land use types, including rural, agricultural, suburban, and urban land. It would also encroach upon portions of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Texas state parks in the Rio Grande Valley. 37 38 39 40 The EIS process will serve as a planning tool to assist agencies with decisionmaking authority associated with the Proposed Action and ensure that the required public involvement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is accomplished. The EIS presents potential environmental impacts DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR, TEXAS 1 2 3 associated with the Proposed Action and provides information to assist in the decisionmaking process addressing whether and how to implement the Proposed Action. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Throughout the NEPA process, the public may obtain information concerning the status and progress of the Proposed Action and the EIS via the project web site at www.BorderFenceNEPA.com, by emailing information@BorderFenceNEPA.com, or by written request to Mr. Charles McGregor, Environmental Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District, Engineering Construction Support Office (ECSO), 814 Taylor Street, Room 3B10, Fort Worth, TX 76102; and Fax: (757) 282-7697. 11 12 13 You may submit written comments to CBP by contacting the SBI Tactical Infrastructure Program Office. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods: 14 (a) Electronically through the web site at: www.BorderFenceNEPA.com; 15 (b) By email to: RGVcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com; 16 17 (c) By mail to: Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS, c/o e²M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031; or 18 (d) By fax to: (757) 282-7697. 19 Privacy Notice 20 21 22 Your comments on this document are due by December 31, 2007. Comments will be addressed in the Final EIS and made available to the public. Any personal information included in comments will therefore be publicly available. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR, TEXAS U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection U.S. Border Patrol NOVEMBER 2007 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2 INTRODUCTION 3 4 5 6 7 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) proposes to construct, maintain, and operate approximately 70 miles of tactical infrastructure, including pedestrian fence and associated patrol roads, and access roads along the U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas. 8 9 10 11 12 The mission of CBP is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, while also facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel. In supporting CBP’s mission, USBP is charged with establishing and maintaining effective control of the border of the United States. USBP’s mission strategy consists of five main objectives: 13 14 15 x 16 x x 17 18 19 20 x 21 22 x Establish substantial probability of apprehending terrorists and their weapons as they attempt to enter illegally between the Ports of Entry (POEs) Deter illegal entries through improved enforcement Detect, apprehend, and deter smugglers of humans, drugs, and other contraband Leverage “smart border” technology to multiply the effect of enforcement personnel Reduce crime in border communities and consequently improve quality of life and economic vitality of targeted areas. 23 24 25 26 27 This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared through coordination with Federal and state agencies to identify and assess the potential impacts associated with the proposed construction, maintenance, and operation of tactical infrastructure. This EIS is also being prepared to fulfill the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. 28 PURPOSE AND NEED 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 The purpose of the Proposed Action is to increase border security within the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector through the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure in the form of fences, roads, and supporting technological and tactical assets. The USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector has identified several areas along the border that experience high levels of illegal cross-border activity. This activity occurs in areas that are remote and not easily accessed by USBP agents, near POEs where concentrated populations might live on either side of the border, contain thick vegetation that can provide concealment, or have quick access to U.S. transportation routes. Draft EIS November 2007 ES-1 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The Proposed Action is needed to provide USBP agents with the tools necessary to strengthen their control of the U.S. borders between POEs in the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector. The Proposed Action would help to deter illegal crossborder activities within the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector by improving enforcement, preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, reducing the flow of illegal drugs, and enhancing response time, while providing a safer work environment for USBP agents. 8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 CBP initiated the public scoping process for this Draft EIS on September 24, 2007, with the publication in the Federal Register of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS. The NOI requested public comments on the scope of the EIS and provided information on how the public could submit comments by mail, facsimile, electronic mail, or through the project-specific Web site. Public comments submitted as part of the scoping process were considered during the development of this Draft EIS. Additional opportunities for public involvement will occur throughout the EIS development process. 17 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 CBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate tactical infrastructure consisting of pedestrian fence and associated patrol roads, and access roads along the U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas. Proposed tactical infrastructure includes installation of fence sections in areas of the border that are not currently fenced. The proposed locations of tactical infrastructure are based on a USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector assessment of local operational requirements where tactical infrastructure would assist USBP agents in reducing illegal cross-border activities. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 DHS Appropriations Act (Public Law [P.L.] 109-295) provided $1,187,565,000 under the Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology appropriation for the installation of fencing, infrastructure, and technology along the border. 30 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 31 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed tactical infrastructure would not be built and there would be no change in fencing, roads, or other facilities along the U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations within the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector. The No Action Alternative would not meet USBP mission or operational needs. However, inclusion of the No Action Alternative is prescribed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA and will be carried forward for analysis in this Draft EIS. The No Action Alternative also serves as a baseline against which to evaluate the impacts of the Proposed Action. Draft EIS November 2007 ES-2 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 Alternative 2: Routes A and B 2 3 4 5 6 Under this alternative, proposed tactical infrastructure would be constructed in 21 distinct sections along the international border within the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector in the southernmost portions of Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties, Texas. Individual fence sections might range from approximately 1 mile in length to more than 13 miles in length. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Two alternatives for the alignment of the infrastructure (Route Alternatives) are being considered under Alternative 2. Route A is the route initially identified by the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector as meeting its operational requirements. Route B was developed through coordination with Federal and state agencies and incorporates input received through the public scoping period. The Route B alignment meets current operational requirements with less environmental impact, and is CBP’s Preferred Alternative. 14 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative 15 16 17 18 19 Under this alternative, two layers of fence, known as primary and secondary fence, would be constructed approximately 130 feet apart along the same alignment as Route B. This alternative would be most closely aligned with fence described in the Secure Fence Act of 2006, P.L. 109-367, 120 Stat. 2638, codified at 8 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1701. 20 21 22 23 This alternative would also include construction and maintenance of access and patrol roads. The patrol roads would be constructed between the primary and secondary fences. The design of the tactical infrastructure for this alternative would be similar to that of Alternative 2. 24 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 25 26 27 Table ES-1 provides an overview of potential impacts anticipated under each alternative considered, broken down by resource area. Section 4 of this Draft EIS addresses these impacts in more detail. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 USBP would follow design criteria to reduce adverse environmental impacts and would implement mitigation measures to further reduce or offset adverse environmental impacts. Design criteria to reduce adverse environmental impacts include selecting a location for tactical infrastructure that would avoid or minimize impacts on environmental and cultural resources, consulting with Federal and state agencies and other stakeholders to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts and develop appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs), and avoiding physical disturbance and construction of solid barriers in wetlands/riparian areas and streambeds. BMPs would include implementation of a Construction Mitigation and Restoration (CM&R) Plan; Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan; Dust Control Plan; Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan; and Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Cultural Resources to protect natural and cultural resources. Draft EIS November 2007 ES-3 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 Table ES-1. Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts, by Alternative Alternative 2 Resource Area Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Route A Route B (Preferred Alternative) Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Air Quality No new impacts would occur. Short- and long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts. Short- and long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts. Impacts would be similar to, but greater than, the impacts described under Alternative 2. Noise No new impacts would occur. Short-term moderate adverse impacts would be expected. Short-term moderate adverse impacts would be expected. Impacts would be similar to, but slightly greater than, the impacts described under Alternative 2. Land Use Long-term minor to major adverse impacts would continue to occur. Short- and long-term minor adverse and long-term beneficial impacts would occur. Short- and long-term minor adverse and long-term beneficial impacts would occur. Impacts would be similar to, but slightly greater than, the impacts described under Alternative 2. Geology and Soils Long-term minor adverse impacts would continue to occur. Short- and long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts would be expected. Short- and long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts would be expected. Impacts would be similar to, but slightly greater than, the impacts described under Alternative 2. Water Resources Long-term minor adverse impacts would continue to occur. Short-term and long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts would be expected. Short-term and long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts would be expected. Impacts would be similar to, but slightly greater than, the impacts described under Alternative 2. Draft EIS November 2007 ES-4 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Alternative 2 Resource Area Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Route A Route B (Preferred Alternative) Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Vegetation Long-term minor to major adverse impacts would continue to occur. Short- and long-term negligible to major beneficial and adverse impacts would be expected. Short- and long-term negligible to major beneficial and adverse impacts would be expected. Impacts would be similar to, but slightly greater than, the impacts described under Alternative 2. Wildlife and Aquatic Resources Long-term minor adverse impacts would continue to occur. Short- and long-term negligible to moderate adverse and minor beneficial impacts would be expected. Short- and long-term negligible to moderate adverse and minor beneficial impacts would be expected. Impacts would be similar to, but slightly greater than, the impacts described under Alternative 2. Special Status Species Long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts would continue to occur. Short- and long-term minor to major adverse and long-term negligible to minor beneficial impacts would be expected. Impacts would be similar to, but slightly greater than, the impacts described under Alternative 2. Cultural Resources Long-term minor adverse impacts would continue to occur. Long-term minor to major adverse impacts would be expected. Short- and long-term minor to moderate adverse and long-term negligible to minor beneficial impacts would be expected. Long-term minor to major adverse impacts would be expected. Aesthetics and Visual Resources No new impacts would occur. Short- and long-term minor to major adverse impacts would be expected. Short- and long-term minor to major adverse impacts would be expected. Impacts would be similar to, but slightly greater than, the impacts described under Alternative 2. Draft EIS Impacts would be similar to, but slightly greater than, the impacts described under Alternative 2. November 2007 ES-5 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Alternative 2 Resource Area Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Route A Route B (Preferred Alternative) Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Socioeconomic Resources, Environmental Justice, and Safety Long-term minor to major adverse impacts would continue to occur. Short- and long-term minor to moderate adverse and short-term beneficial impacts would be expected. Short- and long-term minor to moderate adverse and short-term beneficial impacts would be expected. Impacts would be similar to, but slightly greater than, the impacts described under Alternative 2. Utilities and Infrastructure No new impacts would occur. Short-term negligible to minor adverse impacts would be expected. Short-term negligible to minor adverse impacts would be expected. Impacts would be similar to, but slightly greater than, the impacts described under Alternative 2. Hazardous Materials and Waste No new impacts would occur. Short-term negligible adverse impacts would be expected. Short-term negligible adverse impacts would be expected. Impacts would be similar to, but slightly greater than, the impacts described under Alternative 2. 1 Draft EIS November 2007 ES-6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR, TEXAS 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ ES-1 8 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 2.3 2.4 2.5 3. USBP BACKGROUND............................................................................................... 1-3 PURPOSE AND NEED .............................................................................................. 1-4 PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................ 1-4 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 1-4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................... 1-6 COOPERATING AND COORDINATING AGENCIES ................................................ 1-9 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................... 2-1 2.1 2.2 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1 SCREENING CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES ........................................................ 2-1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS...................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative.............................................................. 2-2 2.2.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B ...................................................................... 2-2 2.2.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative ................................ 2-9 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER DETAILED ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 2-11 2.3.1 Additional USBP Agents in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure........................... 2-11 2.3.2 Technology in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure............................................... 2-12 2.3.3 Native Thorny Scrub Hedge in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure ..................... 2-12 2.3.4 Fence Within the Rio Grande ...................................................................... 2-12 2.3.5 Brownsville Weir and Reservoir Project in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 2-13 2.3.6 Raising Levees in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure......................................... 2-13 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ACTION ALTERNATIVES ..................................... 2-14 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED, LEAST-DAMAGING PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE .............................................................................. 2-14 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3-1 AIR QUALITY............................................................................................................. 3-2 NOISE ........................................................................................................................ 3-5 LAND USE ................................................................................................................. 3-9 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................... 3-11 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 3-16 VEGETATION .......................................................................................................... 3-25 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ............................................................... 3-29 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES .................................................................................. 3-31 Draft EIS November 2007 i Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 1 3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 3-39 3.11 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES ............................................................. 3-43 3.12 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND SAFETY................................................................................................................... 3-54 3.13 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ...................................................................... 3-70 3.14 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE ............................................................... 3-73 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .............................................................................. 4-1 4.1 4.2 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 4-1 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................. 4-2 4.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative.............................................................. 4-2 4.2.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B ...................................................................... 4-2 4.2.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative ................................ 4-5 4.3 NOISE ........................................................................................................................ 4-8 4.3.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative.............................................................. 4-8 4.3.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B ...................................................................... 4-9 4.3.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative .............................. 4-10 4.4 LAND USE ............................................................................................................... 4-10 4.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative............................................................ 4-10 4.4.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B .................................................................... 4-10 4.4.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative .............................. 4-13 4.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................... 4-13 4.5.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative............................................................ 4-13 4.5.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B .................................................................... 4-13 4.5.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative .............................. 4-15 4.6 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 4-15 4.6.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative............................................................ 4-15 4.6.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B .................................................................... 4-16 4.6.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative .............................. 4-19 4.7 VEGETATION .......................................................................................................... 4-20 4.7.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative............................................................ 4-20 4.7.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B .................................................................... 4-20 4.7.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative .............................. 4-22 4.8 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES................................................................ 4-23 4.8.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative............................................................. 4-23 4.8.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B .................................................................... 4-24 4.8.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative ............................... 4-27 4.9 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES .................................................................................. 4-27 4.9.1 Federal Species .......................................................................................... 4-27 4.9.2 State Species .............................................................................................. 4-29 4.9.3 Migratory Birds ............................................................................................ 4-31 4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 4-33 4.10.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative............................................................ 4-33 Draft EIS November 2007 ii Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4.10.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B .................................................................... 4-34 4.10.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative .............................. 4-38 4.10.4 Treatment of Historic Properties ................................................................. 4-38 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES ............................................................. 4-38 4.11.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative............................................................ 4-39 4.11.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B .................................................................... 4-39 4.11.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative .............................. 4-51 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND SAFETY................................................................................................................... 4-52 4.12.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative............................................................ 4-52 4.12.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B .................................................................... 4-52 4.12.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative .............................. 4-56 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ...................................................................... 4-57 4.13.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative............................................................ 4-57 4.13.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B .................................................................... 4-57 4.13.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative .............................. 4-59 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE ............................................................... 4-59 4.14.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative............................................................ 4-59 4.14.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B .................................................................... 4-59 4.14.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative .............................. 4-60 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 AIR QUALITY............................................................................................................. 5-4 NOISE ........................................................................................................................ 5-4 LAND USE ............................................................................................................... 5-12 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................... 5-12 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 5-12 VEGETATION .......................................................................................................... 5-13 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ............................................................... 5-14 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES .................................................................................. 5-14 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 5-15 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES ............................................................. 5-16 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND SAFETY................................................................................................................... 5-16 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ...................................................................... 5-17 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE ............................................................... 5-18 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ........ 5-18 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SHORT-TERM USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ............................................ 5-19 40 6. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 6-1 41 7. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................. 7-1 42 8. LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................................ 8-1 43 Draft EIS November 2007 iii Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 APPENDICES A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. Applicable Laws and Executive Orders Draft Scoping Report Public Comments on the Draft EIS (Reserved Space) Detailed Descriptions of Each Discrete Fence Section Under Routes A and B Standard Design for Tactical Infrastructure Detailed Maps of the Proposed Fence Sections Detailed Maps of the Proposed Fence Sections Showing Soils Soil Properties of Starr, Hildalgo, and Cameron Counties Draft Biological Survey Report Preliminary Cultural Resources Findings Air Quality Information FIGURES 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 1-1. 2-1. 2-2. 2-3. 2-4. 2-5. 3.3-1. 3.4-1. 3.11-1. 3.11-2. 3.11-3. 3.11-4. 3.11-5. 4.11-1. 4.11-2. 4.11-3. 4.11-4. General Location of the Proposed Action – Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas ............... 1-2 Locations of the Proposed Rio Grande Valley Sector Tactical Infrastructure (Map 1 of 3) .................................................................................................................... 2-3 Locations of the Proposed Rio Grande Valley Sector Tactical Infrastructure (Map 2 of 3) .................................................................................................................... 2-4 Locations of the Proposed Rio Grande Valley Sector Tactical Infrastructure (Map 3 of 3) .................................................................................................................... 2-5 Schematic of Proposed Project Corridor – Alternative 2................................................. 2-8 Schematic of Proposed Project Corridor – Alternative 3............................................... 2-10 Common Noise Levels ................................................................................................... 3-7 Parks and Refuges in the Rio Grande Valley ............................................................... 3-12 Photograph View of Arroyo within Wildlife Refuge (Section O-1) ................................. 3-47 Photograph View of Typical Rural Land Unit (Section O-17) ........................................ 3-47 Photograph View of Town of Los Ebanos (Section O-3) .............................................. 3-48 Photograph View of Rio Grande City POE (Section O-2) ............................................. 3-49 Schematic Showing Visibility of Fencing at Various Distances ..................................... 3-52 Typical Views Towards Proposed Project Corridor, Showing How the Park/Refuge Land Unit Would Appear with a Fence and Patrol Road .............................................. 4-44 Typical Views Towards Proposed Project Corridor, Showing How the Rural Land Unit Would Appear with a Fence and Patrol Road ....................................................... 4-45 Typical Views Towards Proposed Project Corridor, Showing How the Town/Suburban Land Unit Would Appear with a Fence and Patrol Road .................... 4-46 Typical Views Towards Proposed Project Corridor, Showing How the Urban/Industrial Land Unit Would Appear with a Fence and Patrol Road .................... 4-47 Draft EIS November 2007 iv Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure TABLES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1-1. 2-1. 2-2. 3.2-1. 3.3-1. 3.6-1. 3.6-2. 3.7-1. 3.9-1. 3.11-1. 3.11-2. 3.12-1. 3.12-2. 3.12-3. 3.12-4. 3.12-5. 3.12-6. 3.12-7. 3.12-8. 3.12-9. 3.12-10. 3.12-11. 3.13-1. 3.13-2. 3.13-3. 4.2-1. 4.2-2. 4.2-3. 4.4-1. 4.11-1. 4.11-2. 5.0-1. 5.0-2. Major Permits, Approvals, and Interagency Coordination............................................... 1-6 Proposed Fence Sections Under the Proposed Action................................................... 2-6 Comparison of Action Alternatives ............................................................................... 2-14 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ......................................................................... 3-3 Predicted Noise Levels for Construction Equipment....................................................... 3-8 NWI Identified Wetlands that Occur Within the Proposed Project Corridor for Route A ........................................................................................................................ 3-22 NWI Identified Wetlands that Occur within the Proposed Project Corridor for Route B ........................................................................................................................ 3-25 Ecological Systems Present in Each Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Section ............ 3-28 Federal- and State-Threatened and Endangered Species in Texas, by County ........... 3-33 Character of Visual Resources within Typical Rio Grande Valley Land Units (Current Conditions) ..................................................................................................... 3-50 Quality of Visual Resources within Typical Rio Grande Valley Land Units (Current Conditions) ................................................................................................................... 3-51 State and County Population Trends Comparison in the ROI 1980 to 2006................. 3-56 County Population Trends, 2000 to 2020 ..................................................................... 3-56 Racial and Ethnic Characteristics in the ROI, 2000 to 2006 ......................................... 3-58 Employment by Industrial Sector in the ROI, 2005 ....................................................... 3-60 State and ROI Labor Force and Unemployment Rate Averages .................................. 3-62 Poverty Rates and Median Income .............................................................................. 3-63 Characteristics of Local Agriculture, 2002 .................................................................... 3-64 Ethnic and Racial Distribution by County and Independent School District (ISD) in the ROI ......................................................................................................................... 3-65 Law Enforcement Agencies and Personnel in the ROI * .............................................. 3-66 Racial and Ethnic Population Composition in Geographic Comparison Areas ............. 3-67 Census Tract Detail of Demographic Characteristics Relevant to Environmental Justice .......................................................................................................................... 3-69 Known Water Supply, Drainage, and Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Within the Proposed Project Corridor ............................................................................................ 3-71 Remaining Capacity of Local Municipal Landfills as of 2005 ........................................ 3-72 Location of Utility Infrastructure Located Within the Proposed Project Corridor ........... 3-73 Estimates of Total Proposed Construction Emissions from Route A in Tons Per Year .. 4-4 Estimates of Total Proposed Construction Emissions from Route B in Tons Per Year .. 4-6 Estimates of Total Proposed Construction Emissions from Alternative 3 in Tons Per Year ......................................................................................................................... 4-7 Communities Potentially Affected by Route A .............................................................. 4-11 Impact on the Character of Visual Resources within Typical Rio Grande Valley Land Units .................................................................................................................... 4-41 Quality of Visual Resources within Typical Rio Grande Valley Land Units After Proposed Construction................................................................................................. 4-43 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions by Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Sections for the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector .......................................................... 5-5 Summary of Potential Cumulative Effects ...................................................................... 5-8 Draft EIS November 2007 v Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1 Draft EIS November 2007 vi SECTION 1 Introduction Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 3 4 5 6 7 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) proposes to construct, maintain, and operate approximately 70 miles of tactical infrastructure, including 21 discrete sections of pedestrian fence and associated patrol roads, and access roads along the U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Proposed Action includes the installation of tactical infrastructure in 21 discrete fence sections (designated O-1 through O-21) along the international border with Mexico in the vicinity of Roma, Rio Grande City, McAllen, Progreso, Mercedes, Harlingen, and Brownsville, Texas (see Figure 1-1). The locations of the individual tactical infrastructure sections were proposed based on the situational and operational requirements of the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector. Although some of the fence sections would be contiguous, each fence section would represent an individual project and could proceed independent of the other sections. Detailed descriptions of the fence sections are presented in Section 2.2.2. Individual sections would range from approximately 1 mile to more than 13 miles in length. For much of its length, the proposed tactical infrastructure would follow the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) levee along the Rio Grande. The IBWC enforces and oversees the boundary and water treaties of the United States and Mexico and settles differences that arise in their application (IBWC 2007a). The tactical infrastructure would cross multiple land use types, such as agricultural, rural, suburban, and urban. Impacted parcels are both publicly and privately owned. The Proposed Action would also encroach upon portions of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge (LRGVNWR) and Texas state parks in the Rio Grande Valley. A detailed description of the Proposed Action and the alternatives considered is presented in Section 2. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is divided into eight sections and appendices. Section 1 provides background information on USBP missions, identifies the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, describes the area in which the Proposed Action would occur, and explains the public involvement process. Section 2 provides a detailed description of the Proposed Action, alternatives considered, and the No Action Alternative. Section 3 describes existing environmental conditions in the areas where the Proposed Action would occur. Section 4 identifies potential environmental impacts that could occur within each resource area under the alternatives evaluated in detail. Section 5 discusses potential cumulative impacts and other impacts that might result from implementation of the Proposed Action, combined with foreseeable future actions. Sections 6 and 7 provide references and acronyms, respectively. Section 8 identifies the preparers of the Draft EIS. Draft EIS November 2007 1-1 1 Draft EIS 1-2 November 2007 Rio Grande Valley Sector Gulf of Mexico G O-3 e r and 83 O-4 O-5 O-7 O-8 Alamo O-9 433 107 O-10 O-11 Progreso O-13 O-12 Weslaco Mercedes M E X I C O O-6 McAllen Mission Texas Linn S T A T E S 56 83 O-15 O-14 77 O-18 O-17 O-16 O-19 San Benito Harlingen 5 10 Scale Miles 20 O-2 Fence Section Label U.S./Mexico International Border Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 0 O-21 Gulf of Mexico Proposed Fence Sections O-20 Brownsville 100 Figure 1-1. General Location of the Proposed Action – Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Source: ESRI StreetMap USA 2005 o i ME XICO Corpus Christi O-2 Rio Grande City R Texas O-1 Roma U N I T E D Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Appendix A contains a listing of those laws, regulations, and executive orders potentially applicable to the Proposed Action. Appendix B presents the Scoping Summary Report which includes the Federal Register, Notice of Intent (NOI), the newspaper ads posted in local papers, and agency coordination letters. Appendix C will present materials related to the Draft EIS comment process and public involvement. Appendix D contains a detailed description of the 21 proposed tactical infrastructure sections along Routes A and B. Appendix E provides potential fence designs and a description of the proposed tactical infrastructure. Appendix F contains detailed maps of each of the 21 proposed tactical infrastructure sections. Appendix G contains detailed soil maps of each of the 21 proposed tactical infrastructure sections. Appendix H contains a detailed summary of soils in Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties. Appendix I contains the Draft Biological Survey Report. Appendix J contains preliminary cultural resource findings. Appendix K presents air quality information. 15 1.1 16 17 18 19 20 The mission of CBP is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, while also facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel. In supporting CBP’s mission, USBP is charged with establishing and maintaining effective control of the border of the United States. USBP’s mission strategy consists of five main objectives: USBP BACKGROUND 21 22 23 x Establish substantial probability of apprehending terrorists and their weapons as they attempt to enter illegally between the Ports of Entry (POEs) 24 x Deter illegal entries through improved enforcement 25 26 x Detect, apprehend, and deter smugglers of humans, drugs, and other contraband 27 28 x Leverage “smart border” technology to multiply the effect of enforcement personnel 29 30 x Reduce crime in border communities and consequently improve quality of life and economic vitality of targeted areas. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 USBP has nine administrative sectors along the U.S./Mexico international border. Each sector is responsible for implementing an optimal combination of personnel, technology, and infrastructure appropriate to its operational requirements. The Rio Grande Valley Sector is responsible for 17,000 square miles of land in southeastern Texas, including the following counties: Cameron, Willacy, Hidalgo, Starr, Brooks, Kenedy, Kleberg, Nueces, San Patricio, Jim Wells, Bee, Refugio, Calhoun, Goliad, Victoria, Dewitt, Jackson, and Lavaca (CBP 2007). The areas affected by the Proposed Action include the southernmost portions of Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties, Texas, within the Rio Grande Valley Sector. Draft EIS November 2007 1-3 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The purpose of the Proposed Action is to increase border security within the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector through the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure in the form of fences, roads, and supporting technological and tactical assets. The USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector has identified 21 discrete areas along the border that experience high levels of illegal cross-border activity. This activity occurs in areas that are remote and not easily accessed by USBP agents, near POEs where concentrated populations might live on either side of the border, contain thick vegetation that can provide concealment, or have quick access to U.S. transportation routes. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 The Proposed Action is needed to provide USBP agents with the tools necessary to strengthen their control of the U.S. borders between POEs in the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector. The Proposed Action would help to deter illegal crossborder activities within the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector by improving enforcement, preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, reducing the flow of illegal drugs, and enhancing response time, while providing a safer work environment for USBP agents. 18 1.3 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 USBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate tactical infrastructure consisting of pedestrian fence and associated patrol roads, and access roads along 21 discrete areas of the U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas (examples of pedestrian fence are included in Appendix E). Proposed tactical infrastructure includes installation of fence sections in areas of the border that are not currently fenced. The proposed locations of tactical infrastructure are based on a USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector assessment of local operational requirements where such infrastructure would assist USBP agents in reducing illegal cross-border activities. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 DHS Appropriations Act (Public Law [P.L.] 109-295) provided $1,187,565,000 under the Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology appropriation for the installation of fencing, infrastructure, and technology along the border (CRS 2006). Figure 1-1 illustrates the location of the proposed tactical infrastructure within the Rio Grande Valley Sector. Details of the Proposed Action are included in Section 2.2.2. 34 1.4 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 The process for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is codified in Code of Federal Regulations 40 (CFR) Parts 1500–1508, Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, and DHS’s related Management Directive (MD) 5100.1, Environmental Planning Program. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established under NEPA to implement and oversee Federal policy in this process. PROPOSED ACTION FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS Draft EIS November 2007 1-4 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 An EIS is prepared when a proposed action is anticipated to have potentially “significant” environmental impacts, or a proposed action is environmentally controversial. An EIS generally presents separate chapters specifically tailored to address the following: 5 x The purpose and need for the Proposed Action 6 x Reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action 7 x A characterization of the affected environment 8 9 x The nature and extent of potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives (including the No Action Alternative) 10 11 x A listing of agencies and persons contacted during the EIS preparation process and public involvement efforts. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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 requirements of other environmental statutes and regulations. It addresses them collectively in the form of an Environmental Assessment (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.” 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Within the framework of environmental impact analysis under NEPA, additional authorities that may be applicable include the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA) (including a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] storm water discharge permit and Section 404 permit), Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Noise Control Act, Endangered Species Act (ESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, and various Executive Orders (EOs). A summary of laws, regulations, and EOs that might be applicable to the Proposed Action are shown in Appendix A. Table 1-1 lists major Federal and state permits, approvals, and interagency coordination required to construct, maintain, and operate the proposed tactical infrastructure. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 The Proposed Action and analysis in this Draft EIS is complementary to that in a recent EIS prepared by CBP. The Environmental Impact Statement for Operation Rio Grande, April 2004 (DHS 2004), was prepared to address tactical infrastructure needs within the Rio Grande Valley Sector (formerly McAllen Sector) associated with Operation Rio Grande. Operation Rio Grande is a strategy that was initiated in August 1997 to aid in reducing illegal immigration Draft EIS November 2007 1-5 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Table 1-1. Major Permits, Approvals, and Interagency Coordination 1 Agency U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Permit/Approval/Coordination - Section 7 ESA consultation - MBTA coordination - Special Use Permits for access to National Wildlife Refuge areas - CWA NPDES permit U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - CWA Section 404 permit Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Section 10 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) - CWA Section 401 State Water Quality Certification - CAA permit consultation Texas General Land Office (TxGLO) - Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Consistency Determination Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) - Texas Endangered Species Act coordination National Park Service - NHPA Section 106 consultation for National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) Texas Historical Commission (THC) - NHPA Section 106 consultation Federally recognized American Indian Tribes - Consultation regarding potential effects on cultural resources Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) - NHPA Section 106 consultation 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 and drug trafficking along the Rio Grande corridor of the Rio Grande Valley Sector. The tactical infrastructure proposed and analyzed in the Operation Rio Grande EIS includes permanent and portable lighting, road improvement, fence construction, boat ramp construction, and maintenance mowing. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Operation Rio Grande EIS was signed on April 15, 2005. The discussion and analysis in the Operation Rio Grande EIS are incorporated into this EIS by reference because the proposals analyzed in each EIS are complementary to each other. 11 1.5 12 13 14 15 16 Agency and public involvement in the NEPA process promotes open communication between the public and the government and enhances the decisionmaking process. All persons or organizations having a potential interest in the Proposed Action are encouraged to participate in the decisionmaking process. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Draft EIS November 2007 1-6 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 prior to any decisionmaking on what actions are to be 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. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Public scoping activities for this EIS were initiated on September 24, 2007, when a NOI to prepare this EIS was published in the Federal Register (72 FR 184, pp. 54276–77, see Appendix B). Besides providing a brief description of the Proposed Action and announcing CBP’s intent to prepare this EIS, the NOI also established a 20-day public scoping period. The purpose of the scoping process was to solicit public comments regarding the range of issues, including potential impacts and alternatives that should be addressed in the EIS. Public comments received during the public scoping period were taken into consideration as part of the preparation of this Draft EIS (see Appendix B). 13 14 15 16 17 In addition to the NOI published in the Federal Register, newspaper notices coinciding with the NOI was published in The Monitor, The Brownsville Herald, and The Valley Morning Star on September 24 and 30, 2007. A notice was also published in Spanish in La Frontera and El Nuevo Heraldo on September 24, 2007. Copies of the newspaper notices are included in Appendix B. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) will publish the Notice of Availability (NOA) for this Draft EIS in the Federal Register. The purpose of the USEPA NOA is to announce to the public the availability of this Draft EIS, and to begin a 45-day public comment period. In addition to the USEPA NOA, CBP will publish a separate NOA in the Federal Register announcing the dates, times, and places for public informational meetings and to request comments on the Draft EIS. All comments received will be taken into consideration in the development of the Final EIS and subsequent to this draft will also be included in Appendix C. Upon completion, CBP will make the Final EIS available to the public for 30 days. At the conclusion of the 30-day period, a Record of Decision (ROD) regarding the Proposed Action can be signed and published in the Federal Register. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Through the public involvement process, USBP also 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 USBP with the opportunity to cooperate with and consider state and local views in its decision regarding implementing this Federal proposal. As part of the EIS process, USBP coordinated with the USEPA; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); Texas State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO); and other Federal, state, and local agencies (see Appendix B). Input from responses received by these agencies has been incorporated into the analysis of potential environmental impacts. 40 41 42 This Draft EIS also serves as a public notice regarding impacts on floodplains. EO 11988 directs Federal agencies to avoid floodplains unless the agency determines that there is no practicable alternative. Where the only practicable Draft EIS November 2007 1-7 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 alternative is to site in a floodplain, a specific process must be followed to comply with EO 11988. This eight-step process is detailed in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) document “Further Advice on EO 11988 Floodplain Management.” The eight steps are as follows: 5 6 1. Determine whether the action will occur in, or stimulate development in, a floodplain 7 2. Receive public review/input of the Proposed Action 8 3. Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating in the floodplain 9 4. Identify the impacts of the Proposed Action (when it occurs in a floodplain) 10 11 5. Minimize threats to life, property, and natural and beneficial floodplain values, and restore and preserve natural and beneficial floodplain values 12 13 6. Reevaluate alternatives in light of any new information that might have become available 14 7. Issue findings and a public explanation 15 8. Implement the action. 16 17 18 19 20 Steps 1, 3, and 4 have been undertaken as part of this Draft EIS and are further discussed in Sections 3.6 and 4.6. Steps 2 and 6 through 8 are being conducted simultaneously with the EIS development process, including public review of the Draft EIS. Step 5 relates to mitigation and is currently undergoing development. 21 22 23 24 Anyone wishing to provide written comments, suggestions, or relevant information regarding the Proposed Action may submit comments to CBP by contacting SBI, Tactical Infrastructure Program Office. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods: 25 (a) Electronically through the web site at: www.BorderFenceNEPA.com; 26 (b) By email to: RGVcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com; 27 28 (c) By mail to: Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS, c/o e²M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031; or 29 (d) By fax to: (757) 282-7697. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Throughout the NEPA process, the public may obtain information concerning the status and progress of the EIS via the project web site at www.BorderFenceNEPA.com, by emailing information@BorderFenceNEPA.com, or by written request to Mr. Charles McGregor, Environmental Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District, Engineering Construction Support Office (ECSO), 814 Taylor Street, Room 3B10, Fort Worth, TX 76102; and Fax: (757) 282-7697. Draft EIS November 2007 1-8 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 1.6 COOPERATING AND COORDINATING AGENCIES 2 3 4 5 6 7 The USACE-Galveston District and the IBWC as cooperating agencies, and the USFWS as a coordinating agency, also have decisionmaking authority for components of the Proposed Action and intend for this EIS to fulfill their requirements for compliance with NEPA. The CEQ regulations implementing NEPA instruct agencies to combine environmental documents to reduce duplication and paperwork (40 CFR 1506.4). 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 The USACE-Galveston District Engineer has the authority to authorize actions under Section 404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 United States Code [U.S.C.] 403). Applications for work involving the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States and work in, or affecting, a navigable water of the United States will be submitted to the USACE-Galveston District Regulatory Program Branch for review and a decision on issuance of a permit will be reached. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Section 7 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. Section 1531–1544) 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 coordinating agency regarding this Proposed Action to determine whether any federally listed, proposed endangered, or proposed threatened species or their designated critical habitats would be adversely impacted by the Proposed Action. As a coordinating agency, the USFWS will assist in completing the Section 7 consultation process, identifying the nature and extent of potential effects, and developing measures that would avoid or reduce potential effects on any species of concern. The USFWS will prepare the Biological Assessment and will issue the Biological Opinion (BO) of the potential for jeopardy to species of concern. If the USFWS determines that the project is not likely to jeopardize any listed species, it can also issue an incidental take statement as an exception to the prohibitions in Section 9 of the ESA. 31 32 33 34 35 The Proposed Action would encroach upon multiple component parcels of the LRGVNWR. In order to proceed with geotechnical studies, and natural and cultural resources surveys prior to fence and road construction on LRGVNWR lands, the USFWS would need to issue special use permits for the proposed studies and surveys to commence. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 For much of the proposed fence sections, the tactical infrastructure would follow the Rio Grande levee rights-of-ways (ROWs) administered by the IBWC. The IBWC is an international body composed of a U.S. Section and a Mexican Section, each headed by an Engineer-Commissioner appointed by their respective president. Each Section is administered independently of the other. The U.S. Section of the IBWC is a Federal government agency headquartered in El Paso, Texas, and operates under the foreign policy guidance of the Draft EIS November 2007 1-9 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Department of State (IBWC 2007a). The U.S. Section of the IBWC would provide access and ROWs to construct proposed tactical infrastructure along its levee system within the Rio Grande Valley Sector. It will also ensure that design and placement of the proposed tactical infrastructure does not impact flood control process and does not violate treaty obligations between the United States and Mexico. For purposes of the analysis in this EIS, the phrase “north of the proposed project corridor” refers to the area on the U.S. side of the tactical infrastructure. Draft EIS November 2007 1-10 SECTION 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 This section provides detailed information on USBP’s proposal to construct, maintain, and operate tactical infrastructure along the U.S./Mexico international border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas. The range of reasonable alternatives considered in this EIS is constrained to those that would meet the purpose and need described in Section 1 to provide USBP agents with the tools necessary to achieve effective control of the border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. Such alternatives must also meet essential technical, engineering, and economic threshold requirements to ensure that each is environmentally sound, economically viable, and complies with governing standards and regulations. 11 2.1 12 13 14 15 16 The following screening criteria were used to develop the Proposed Action and evaluate potential alternatives. The USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector is working to develop the right combination of personnel, technology, and infrastructure to meet its objective to gain effective control of the border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. SCREENING CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 x USBP Operational Requirements. Pedestrian border fencing must support USBP mission needs to hinder or delay individuals crossing the border illegally. Once individuals have entered an urban area or suburban neighborhood, it is much more difficult for USBP agents to identify and apprehend suspects engaged in unlawful border entry. In addition, around populated areas it is relatively easy for cross-border violators to find transportation into the interior of the United States. 24 25 26 27 28 29 x Threatened or Endangered Species and Critical Habitat. The construction, maintenance, and operation of the proposed tactical infrastructure would be designed to minimize adverse impacts on threatened or endangered species and their critical habitat to the maximum extent practical. USBP is working with the USFWS to identify potential conservation and mitigation measures. 30 31 32 33 34 35 x Wetlands and Floodplains. The construction, maintenance, and operation of the proposed tactical infrastructure would be designed to avoid and minimize impacts on wetlands, surface waters, and floodplain resources to the maximum extent practicalable. USBP is working with the USACEGalveston District and IBWC to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts on wetlands, surface waters, and floodplains. 36 37 38 39 40 x Cultural and Historic Resources. The construction, maintenance, and operation of the proposed tactical infrastructure would be designed to minimize impacts on cultural and historic resources to the maximum extent practical. USBP is working with the Texas SHPO to identify potential conservation and mitigation measures. Draft EIS November 2007 2-1 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure x 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2.2 Suitable Landscape. Some areas of the border have steep topography, highly erodible soils, unstable geology, or 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 the effects of erosion that could undermine the fence’s integrity. Areas with suitable landscape conditions would be prioritized. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 9 10 11 12 13 14 The following sections describe the alternative analysis for this Proposed Action. Section 2.2.1 presents the No Action Alternative, Section 2.2.2 provides specific details of the Proposed Action, and Section 2.2.3 discusses the Secure Fence Act Alternative. Section 2.3 discusses alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail, Section 2.4 is a summary comparison of the alternatives, and Section 2.5 is the identification of the preferred alternative. 15 2.2.1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Under the No Action Alternative, proposed tactical infrastructure would not be built and there would be no change in fencing, access roads, or other facilities along the U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations within the Rio Grande Valley Sector. The No Action Alternative would not meet USBP mission or operational needs. However, inclusion of the No Action Alternative is prescribed by the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA and will be carried forward for analysis in the EIS. The No Action Alternative also serves as a baseline against which to evaluate the impacts of the alternatives. 24 2.2.2 25 26 27 28 29 30 USBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate tactical infrastructure consisting of pedestrian fence, patrol roads, and access roads along the U.S./Mexico international border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas. Congress has appropriated funds for the construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure. Construction of additional tactical infrastructure might be required in the future as mission and operational requirements are continually reassessed. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 The proposed tactical infrastructure would be constructed in 21 distinct sections along the border within the Rio Grande Valley Sector in Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties, Texas. Individual fence sections might range from approximately 1 mile in length to more than 13 miles in length. Each proposed tactical infrastructure section would be an individual project and could proceed to completion independent of the other sections. These 21 sections of pedestrian fence are designated as Sections O-1 through O-21 on Figures 2-1 through 2-3 and are shown in more detail in Appendix F. Table 2-1 presents general information for each of the 21 proposed sections. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Routes A and B Draft EIS November 2007 2-2 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure et Ro ad 7 a rk Los Alvarez Rio Grande City Fa rm M To e a rk tR oa 5 d7 5 Hi d Far m La Rosita Sta rr Co un alg ty oC ou nty Te x a s To M a r k et Garceno Escobares 49 0 To M Los Villareales North Escobares Roma ket R oa d Far m O-1 Ro ad 31 67 Fronton To M ar 55 o Mark et Roa d 6 49 F ar m T Farm O-2 83 Las Lomas La Puerta Santa Cruz El Refugio La Victoria La CasitaGarciasville Mexico Alto Bonito Eagle 277 Pass o Victoria Port Lavaca 183 181 Beeville 35 La Grulla Ri Texas G n ra de 59 Laredo Robstown Alice 77 Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Los Ebanos 281 San Juan 83 Monterrey Weslaco Havana o R i Route A Proposed Fence Sections Cuevitas O-3 Portland Corpus Christi Kingsville Nuevo Laredo Gr Harlingen San Benito Brownsville Sullivan City O-4 La Joya ande Penitas 83 AbramPerezville Gulf of Mexico U.S./Mexico International Border O-2 Fence Section Label MEXICO Miles 0 1 2 Scale Rio Grande Valley Sector 4 Map Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 Source of Aerial Photography: NAIP 2005 1 Figure 2-1. Locations of the Proposed Rio Grande Valley Sector Tactical Infrastructure (Map 1 of 3) 2 Draft EIS November 2007 2-3 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Laguna Seca West Sharyland Edinburg Palmhurst 107 Muniz Nurillo Santa Rosa Lopezville Mcc o ll Rd San Juan Indian Hills Midway North Rd Alamo To wer 83 Military R d Heidelberg La Feria Alamo R d Weslaco O-5 Scissors Llano Grande Villa Verde Mercedes 123 Mile 1/2 Rio Rico Rd Midway South South Alamo Granjeno Solis 34th St 34th Milita ry Eagle Pass Port Lavaca R io G Texas O-9 Progreso O-10 O-8 Arroyo Alto Relampago 281 Santa Maria Progreso Lakes Victoria 183 181 Beeville 35 Hwy D onna O-7 Rd O-6 Bixby Rio Rico ry Hwy Hidalgo La Feria North Donna Pharr Old Milita Ratamosa 433 Internationa l Blvd Rd McAllen Mila Doce North Alamo Ware Sh ary B ryan Rd Rd Mission Hidalgo County Olivarez Cameron County Te x a s M ain Palmview St C on w ay Av e 23rd S t Grand Acres ran Rio G Kansas City Rd La Homa Tierra Bonita BluetownIglesia Antigua O-11 de ra nd e Robstown Alice 59 Laredo Nuevo Laredo Portland Corpus Christi Kingsville 77 Rio Grande 83 City Route A Proposed Fence Sections 281 Pharr Harlingen San Benito Mexico Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Gulf Brownsville of Mexico Monterrey Route A/B Overlap U.S./Mexico International Border MEXICO O-2 Rio Grande Valley Sector Fence Section Label Miles 0 1 2 Scale 4 Map Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 1 Source of Aerial Photography: NAIP 2005 Figure 2-2. Locations of the Proposed Rio Grande Valley Sector Tactical Infrastructure (Map 2 of 3) 2 Draft EIS November 2007 2-4 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Olmito No rth Rd Green Valley Farms San Benito Laureles Bayview Laguna Vista To M arke t O-11 Los Fresnos Ro a vill er ng O-12 Ra O-13 O-14 Los Indios 100 77 Farm BluetownIglesia Antigua eR d d1 577 Rangerville O-15 Te x a s 281 EncantadaRanchito El Calaboz Rancho Viejo O-16 Olmito R io G San Pedro ra Alton Glo or B lv d n O-17 de O-18 o O-19 Port Lavaca i Texas G ran de Robstown Alice 59 Laredo Nuevo Laredo lm Pa B d lv h 6t at rn te lB na io lv d O-20 Mi lp Route A Proposed Fence Sections Dockberry Rd a rd e Ve Gulf of Mexico 281 Brownsville St In 77 83 Edinburg Rio Grande City Mission McAllen San O-19 Portland Corpus Christi Kingsville Indiana Ave R Victoria 183 181 Beeville 35 Iowa Ave Eagle Pass Mexico Mon se Harlingen es R d Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) O-21 Juan South Point Monterrey Route A/B Overlap U.S./Mexico International Border MEXICO O-2 Rio Grande Valley Sector 0 Fence Section Label Miles 1 2 Scale 4 Map Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 1 Source of Aerial Photography: NAIP 2005 Figure 2-3. Locations of the Proposed Rio Grande Valley Sector Tactical Infrastructure (Map 3 of 3) 2 Draft EIS November 2007 2-5 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Table 2-1. Proposed Fence Sections Under the Proposed Action 1 Fence Section Number Associated Border Patrol Station O-1 Rio Grande City O-2 Length of Fence Section (in miles) General Location Route A Route B Near Roma POE 5.26 3.75 Rio Grande City Near RGC POE 7.30 8.74 O-3 McAllen Los Ebanos POE 1.86 1.90 O-4 McAllen From Penitas to Abram 4.35 4.35 O-5 McAllen Future Anzalduas POE 1.73 1.76 O-6 McAllen Hidalgo POE 3.86 3.85 O-7 Weslaco Proposed Donna POE 2.43 0.90 O-8 Weslaco Retamal Dam 2.05 3.25 O-9 Weslaco West Progreso POE 3.02 3.87 O-10 Weslaco East Progreso POE 2.43 2.33 O-11 Harlingen Joe’s Bar - Nemo Road 2.33 2.31 O-12 Harlingen Weaver’s Mountain 0.96 0.92 O-13 Harlingen West Los Indios POE 1.58 1.58 O-14 Harlingen East Los Indios POE 3.07 3.59 O-15 Harlingen Triangle - La Paloma 1.93 1.93 O-16 Harlingen Ho Chi Minh - Estero 2.97 2.97 O-17 Brownsville Proposed Carmen Road Freight Train Bridge 1.63 1.61 O-18 Brownsville Proposed Flor De Mayo POE to Garden Park 3.58 3.58 O-19 Brownsville Brownsville/Matamoros (B&M) POE to Los Tomates 3.33 3.37 O-20 Brownsville Los Tomates to Veterans International Bridge 0.91 0.93 O-21 Fort Brown Veterans International Bridge to Sea Shell Inn 13.30 12.99 69.87 69.84 Total 2 3 4 Design criteria that have been established based on USBP operational needs specify that, at a minimum, any fencing must meet the following requirements: 5 x Built 15 to 18 feet high and extend below ground 6 x Capable of withstanding vandalism, cutting, or various types of penetration Draft EIS November 2007 2-6 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 x Semi-transparent, as dictated by operational need 2 x Designed to survive extreme climate changes 3 x Designed to reduce or minimize impacts on small animal movements 4 x Engineered to not impede the natural flow of surface water 5 x Aesthetically pleasing to the extent possible. 6 7 8 Typical pedestrian fence designs that could be used are included in Appendix E. The combined preliminary estimate to construct the proposed individual tactical infrastructure sections is approximately $210 million. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Two alternatives for the alignment of the infrastructure (Route A and B) are being considered under Alternative 2. Route A is the route initially identified by the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector as meeting its operational requirements. Route B was developed through coordination with Federal and state agencies and incorporates input received through the public scoping period. The Route B alignment continues to meet current operational requirements with less environmental impact, and is USBP’s Preferred Alternative. Differences between Routes A and B are shown in Figures 2-1 through 2-3 and are presented in detail in Appendices D and F. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Routes A and B would follow the IBWC levee system associated with the Rio Grande along Sections O-4 through O-21. In most cases, the proposed section alignments along the IBWC levee would be placed approximately 30 feet from the toe of the levee (i.e., lowest point of the base of the structure facing away from the Rio Grande). This configuration would allow the proposed infrastructure to be placed in an existing levee ROW without disturbing current IBWC operations or USBP patrol roads. However, several proposed locations along the levee ROW would require the relocation of private residences or other structures that encroach upon the levee ROW. 27 28 29 30 Under both route alternatives, the tactical infrastructure within several of the 21 sections would also encroach on multiple privately owned land parcels. Some proposed fence sections could also encroach upon portions of the LRGVNWR and Texas state parks in the Rio Grande Valley. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 The proposed project corridor would impact an approximate 60-foot-wide corridor. This corridor would include fences and patrol roads. Vegetation would be cleared and grading would occur where needed. The area that would be permanently impacted by the construction of tactical infrastructure (both Routes A and B) would total approximately 508 acres. Unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands, would be mitigated. Wherever possible, existing roads and previously disturbed areas would be used for construction access and staging areas. Figure 2-4 shows a schematic of typical impact areas for tactical infrastructure for both Route A and B. Draft EIS November 2007 2-7 PATROL ROAD PEDESTRIAN FENCE ± NOT TO SCALE Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 60’ PERMANENT IMPACT AREA 1 2 Figure 2-4. Schematic of Proposed Project Corridor – Alternative 2 Draft EIS November 2007 2-8 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 Rio Grande Valley Sector activities routinely adapt to operational requirements, and would continue to do so under this alternative. Overall, the Rio Grande Valley Sector operations would retain the same flexibility to most effectively provide a law enforcement resolution to illegal cross-border activity. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 USBP is working closely with local landowners and others potentially affected by the proposed infrastructure. For both Route Alternatives, gates would be constructed to allow USBP personnel and landowners access to land, the Rio Grande and other water resources, and infrastructure. Route B would include the construction of approximately 90 secure access gates (see Appendix D). In agricultural areas, gates would be wide enough to allow access for necessary farming equipment. In other cases, gates would be situated to provide access to existing recreational amenities; water resources, including pump houses and related infrastructure; grazing areas; existing parks; and other areas. On a caseby-case basis, the USACE might purchase the land between the fence and the Rio Grande on behalf of USBP, if operationally necessary. 16 17 If approved, construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure would begin in Spring 2008 and continue through December 2008. 18 19 20 21 To the extent that additional actions in the study area are known, they are discussed in this EIS in Section 5, Cumulative Impacts. Both Routes A and B under Alternative 2 are viable and are carried forward for detailed analysis in this EIS. 22 2.2.3 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 In addition to Routes A and B described above, an alternative of two layers of fence, known as primary and secondary fence, is analyzed in this EIS. Under this alternative, the two layers of fence would be constructed approximately 130 feet apart along the same alignment as Route B and would be most closely aligned with the fence description in the Secure Fence Act of 2006, P.L. 109-367, 120 Stat. 2638, codified at 8 U.S.C. 1701. This alternative would also include construction and maintenance of access and patrol roads. The patrol road would be between the primary and secondary fences. 31 32 33 Figure 2-5 shows a schematic of typical project corridor areas for this alternative. The design of the tactical infrastructure for this alternative would be similar to that of Alternative 2. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure would impact an approximate 150-foot wide corridor for 70 miles along the 21 fence sections. This construction corridor would accommodate fencing and patrol and access roads. Vegetation would be cleared and grading would occur where needed. Unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands, would be mitigated. Wherever possible, existing roads would be used for construction Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative Draft EIS November 2007 2-9 PATROL ROAD PRIMARY FENCE SECONDARY FENCE ± NOT TO SCALE Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 150’ PERMANENT IMPACT AREA 1 2 Figure 2-5. Schematic of Proposed Project Corridor – Alternative 3 Draft EIS November 2007 2-10 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 access. This is a viable alternative and is carried forward for detailed analysis in this EIS. 3 2.3 4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER DETAILED ANALYSIS 5 6 7 USBP evaluated possible alternatives to be considered for the Proposed Action. This section addresses options that were reviewed but not carried forward for detailed analysis. 8 2.3.1 Additional USBP Agents in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 USBP considered the alternative of increasing the number of USBP agents assigned to the border as a means of gaining effective control of the border. Under this alternative, USBP would hire and deploy a significantly larger number of agents than are currently deployed along the U.S./Mexico international border and increase patrols to apprehend cross-border violators. USBP would deploy additional agents as determined by operational needs, but might include 4-wheel drive vehicles, all terrain vehicles, helicopters, or fixed-wing aircraft. Currently, USBP maintains an aggressive hiring program and a cadre of well-trained disciplined agents. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This alternative was determined not to meet the screening criteria of USBP operational requirements. The physical presence of an increased number of agents could provide an enhanced level of deterrence against illegal entry into the United States, but the use of additional agents alone, in lieu of the proposed tactical infrastructure, would not provide a practical solution to achieving effective control of the border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. The use of physical barriers has been demonstrated to slow cross-border violators and provide USBP agents with additional time to make apprehensions (USACE 2000). 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (CRS 2006) concluded that USBP border security initiatives such as the 1994 “Operation Gatekeeper” required a 150 percent increase in USBP manpower, lighting, and other equipment. The report states that “It soon became apparent to immigration officials and lawmakers that the USBP needed, among other things, a ‘rigid’ enforcement system that could integrate infrastructure (i.e., multi-tiered fence and roads), manpower, and new technologies to further control the border region” (CRS 2006). 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Tactical infrastructure, such as a pedestrian fence, is a force multiplier to allow USBP to deploy agents efficiently and effectively. As tactical infrastructure is built, some agents would be redeployed to other areas of the border within the sector. Increased patrols would aid in interdiction activities, but not to the extent anticipated by the Proposed Action. As such, this alternative is not practical in the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector and will not be carried forward for further detailed analysis. Draft EIS November 2007 2-11 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2.3.2 Technology in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 USBP would use various forms of technology to identify cross-border violators. The use of technology in certain sparsely populated areas is a critical component of SBInet and an effective force multiplier that allows USBP to monitor large areas and deploy agents to where they will be most effective. However, the apprehension of cross-border violators is still performed by USBP agents and other law enforcement agents. In the more densely populated areas within the Rio Grande Valley Sector, physical barriers represent the most effective means to control illegal entry into the United States, as noted above. The use of technology alone would not provide a practical solution to achieving effective control of the border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need as described in Section 1.2 and will not be carried forward for further detailed analysis. 14 2.3.3 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 During the public scoping process, an alternative was proposed to maintain a 200- to 300-yard-wide mowed area outside the Rio Grande floodplain and plant a 100-yard-wide hedge of dense, short native thorny scrub brush (a hedge row) within the mowed area. This alternative would also incorporate technology such as sensors, cameras, and lights pointed towards the Rio Grande from the cleared area. The primary benefit associated with this alternative would be its ability to provide suitable habitat for the endangered ocelot (Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis) and jaguarundi (Herpailurus (=Felis) yaguarondi), which would find suitable habitat along the riverbank travel corridor and within the hedge. The hedge could also serve to connect the LRGVNWR units into a larger habitat area. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 The primary deficiency with this alternative is that a hedge would not be as durable as a fence (pathways could be cut or burned through or under the hedge), it would be relatively slow to grow, and it might require more maintenance than a fence. USBP experience indicates that cross-border violators are willing to traverse dangerous terrain to avoid being caught. A 100yard-wide hedge could become a haven where they could hide. If a cross-border violator was to become injured and trapped in the hedge, USBP agents would likely have to cut through the hedge to rescue the person, damaging or destroying the hedge in the process. For these reasons, this alternative was determined to not meet the screening criteria of USBP operational requirements, is not a viable alternative, and was not carried forward for further detailed analysis. 37 2.3.4 38 39 40 41 During the public scoping process, an alternative was proposed to construct a fence in the middle of the Rio Grande. This alternative would consist of installing poles in the river with cables stretched between the poles. A screen fence could be suspended from the cables and anchored to the river bottom. This alternative Native Thorny Scrub Hedge in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure Fence Within the Rio Grande Draft EIS November 2007 2-12 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 was not considered in detail due to multiple concerns, including technical uncertainty, regulatory and permitting challenges, cost considerations, the likelihood of significantly altering the natural flow of the river and impacting additional aquatic resources, and the potential to cause violations of international treaty obligations. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the screening criteria of USBP operational requirements and will not be carried forward for additional analysis. 8 9 2.3.5 Brownsville Weir and Reservoir Project in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 During the public scoping process, the proposed Brownsville Weir and Reservoir Project was identified as an alternative in lieu of portions of the proposed tactical infrastructure. The Public Utilities Board of Brownsville, Texas, is proposing to construct a weir and reservoir system on the Rio Grande as a water conservation project. Under this alternative, it was suggested that the resulting reservoir would create a body of water large enough that it would serve as an effective deterrent to cross-border violators. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 The Brownsville Weir and Reservoir Project (Department of Army Permit Number 21977) would not create a permanent body of water large enough to serve as an effective deterrent to illegal border crossing. The reservoir was designed as a temporary retention basin, not a permanent detention basin. It would only fill with water during localized heavy rain events or during upstream releases from the Falcon or Amistad Reservoirs, which are further up the Rio Grande basin. The temporal nature of this option means it would only exist during wet years, and be nonexistent during drought conditions. Even when full, the reservoir project would not significantly increase the river width and would represent only a 100yard obstacle at its widest point when full of water. This alternative also might flood sabal palm groves, flood the riparian vegetation along more than a dozen miles of the river, disturb the movements of the jaguarundi and ocelot along the river, and disturb a key estuary where the Rio Grande enters the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, a larger water barrier might not deter cross-border violators but rather only lead to a potentially larger numbers of drownings. For these reasons, this alternative was determined not to meet the screening criteria of USBP operational requirements, was not considered a viable alternative, and will not be carried forward for further detailed analysis. 35 2.3.6 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 During the public scoping process, an alternative was proposed to reconstruct river levees as 18-foot-high reinforced earthen barriers. USBP considered an alternative of constructing concrete barriers into the levees and installing an additional fence on top of those concrete barriers. There are numerous legal obstacles to this alternative, such as concerns over levee ownership and maintenance, which were identified by the U.S. Section of the IBWC during coordination. The U.S. Section of the IBWC also informed USBP that it would Raising Levees in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure Draft EIS November 2007 2-13 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 not support any construction near the international boundary that increases, concentrates, or relocates overland drainage flows into Mexico or the United States. Therefore, because of legal and infrastructure uncertainties, this alternative did not meet the screening criteria of USBP operational requirements, was not considered a viable alternative, and will not be not carried forward for further detailed analysis. 7 2.4 8 9 Table 2-2 presents a summary comparison of the action alternatives carried forward for analysis in the EIS. 10 Table 2-2. Comparison of Action Alternatives SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ACTION ALTERNATIVES Alternative 2 Route A Route B 21 individual tactical infrastructure sections comprised of pedestrian fence, patrol roads, and access roads 21 individual tactical infrastructure sections comprised of pedestrian fence, patrol roads, and access roads 21 individual tactical infrastructure sections comprised of primary and secondary pedestrian fence constructed 130 feet apart, patrol roads between fences, and access roads Proposed Total Route Length 69.87 miles 69.84 miles 69.84 miles Proposed Project Corridor 60 feet 60 feet 150 feet Acreage of Proposed Project Corridor 508 acres 508 acres 1,270 acres Description 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative 2.5 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED, LEAST-DAMAGING PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE CEQ’s implementing regulation 40 CFR 1502.14(c) instructs EIS preparers to “Identify the agency’s preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft statement and identify such alternative in the final statement unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference.” USBP has identified the environmentally preferred, least-damaging practicable alternative as Alternative 2, Route B. Draft EIS November 2007 2-14 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Implementation of Alternative 2, Route B would meet USBP’s purpose and need described in Section 1.2. The No Action Alternative would not meet USBP’s purpose and need. Alternative 2, Route A would meet the purpose and need described in Section 1.2, but it would cause environmental impacts greater than the impacts identified for Alternative 2, Route B. Alternative 3 would meet USBP’s purpose and need described in Section 1.2 but would have greater environmental impacts compared to the Preferred Alternative. USBP might need to implement this alternative at some point in the future depending on future USBP operational requirements. While USBP believes that this level of tactical infrastructure is not required at this time it is a viable alternative and will be carried forward for detailed analysis. Draft EIS November 2007 2-15 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1 Draft EIS November 2007 2-16 SECTION 3 Affected Environment Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 1 2 3.1 INTRODUCTION 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 All potentially relevant resource areas were initially considered in this EIS. In compliance with NEPA, the CEQ guidelines, and DHS MD 5100.1, the following evaluation of environmental impacts focuses on those resource areas and conditions potentially subject to impacts and on potentially significant environmental issues deserving of study, and deemphasizes insignificant issues. Some environmental resource areas and conditions that are often selected for analysis in an EIS have been omitted from detailed analysis in this EIS. Some were eliminated from detailed examination because of their inapplicability to this proposal. The following paragraphs provide the basis for such exclusions. 12 13 14 Climate. The Proposed Action would neither affect nor be affected by the climate. However, air emissions and their impacts on air quality are discussed in Section 3.2 and Section 4.2. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Sustainability and Greening. EO 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management (January 24, 2007) promotes environmental practices, including acquisition of biobased, environmentally preferable, energy-efficient, water-efficient, and recycled-content products, and maintaining cost-effective waste prevention and recycling programs in Federal facilities. The Proposed Action would use minimal amounts of resources during construction and maintenance. Therefore, the Proposed Action would have negligible impacts on sustainability and greening. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Construction Safety. Construction site safety is largely a matter of adherence to regulatory requirements imposed for the benefit of employees and implementation of operational practices that reduce risks of illness, injury, death, and property damage. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the USEPA issue standards that specify the amount and type of training required for industrial workers, the use of protective equipment and clothing, engineering controls, and maximum exposure limits with respect to workplace stressors. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Construction workers at any of the proposed construction sites would be exposed to greater safety risks from the inherent dangers at construction sites. Contractors would be required to establish and maintain safety. The proposed construction would not expose members of the general public to increased safety risks. Therefore, because the proposed construction would not introduce new or unusual safety risks, and assuming construction protocols are carefully followed, detailed examination of safety is not included in this EIS. Draft EIS November 2007 3-1 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 3.2 AIR QUALITY 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards. In accordance with Federal CAA requirements, the air quality in a given region or area is measured by the concentrations of various pollutants in the atmosphere. The measurements of these “criteria pollutants” in ambient air are expressed in units of parts per million (ppm), milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3), or micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). The air quality in a region is a result of not only the types and quantities of atmospheric pollutants and pollutant sources in an area, but also surface topography, the size of the topological “air basin,” and the prevailing meteorological conditions. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The CAA directed USEPA to develop, implement, and enforce strong environmental regulations that would ensure clean and healthy ambient air quality. To protect public health and welfare, USEPA developed numerical concentration-based standards, or National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), for pollutants that have been determined to impact human health and the environment. USEPA established both primary and secondary NAAQS under the provisions of the CAA. NAAQS are currently established for six criteria air pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate matter (including particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter [PM10] and particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter [PM2.5]), and lead (Pb). The primary NAAQS represent maximum levels of background air pollution that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety to protect public health. Secondary NAAQS represent the maximum pollutant concentration necessary to protect vegetation, crops, and other public resources along with maintaining visibility standards. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 The Federal CAA and USEPA delegated responsibility for ensuring compliance with NAAQS to the states and local agencies. The State of Texas has adopted the NAAQS as the Texas Ambient Air Quality Standards (TAAQS) for the entire state of Texas. Table 3.2-1 presents the primary and secondary USEPA NAAQS that apply to the air quality in the State of Texas. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has established air pollution control regulations. These regulations are contained in Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Title 30. The TCEQ has also promulgated rules regulating the emissions of toxic substances which are defined as those chemicals listed in TAC Title 30, Chapter 113 plus any other air pollutant that is considered a health hazard, as defined by OSHA. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 These air pollutant control programs are detailed in State Implementation Plans (SIPs), which are required to be developed by each state or local regulatory agency and approved by USEPA. A SIP is a compilation of regulations, strategies, schedules, and enforcement actions designed to move the state into compliance with all NAAQS. Any changes to the compliance schedule or plan (e.g., new regulations, emissions budgets, controls) must be incorporated into the SIP and approved by USEPA. Draft EIS November 2007 3-2 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Table 3.2-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 1 Pollutant Standard Value Standard Type CO 8-hour Average a 1-hour Average (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm a 3 Primary and Secondary 35 ppm (40 mg/m ) Primary 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Primary and Secondary 0.08 ppm (157 µg/m3) Primary and Secondary NO2 Annual Arithmetic Mean O3 8-hour Average b 1-hour Average c 0.12 ppm 3 (240 µg/m ) Primary and Secondary 1.5 µg/m3 Primary and Secondary 50 µg/m3 Primary and Secondary Pb Quarterly Average PM10 Annual Arithmetic Mean d 24-hour Average a 3 150 µg/m Primary and Secondary 15 µg/m3 Primary and Secondary 3 Primary and Secondary PM2.5 Annual Arithmetic Mean e 24-hour Average f 35 µg/m SO2 Annual Arithmetic Mean 24-hour Average 3-hour Average a a 0.03 ppm (80 µg/m3) 0.14 ppm 3 0.5 ppm Primary (365 µg/m ) 3 (1,300 µg/m ) Primary Secondary Source: USEPA 2007a Notes: Parenthetical values are approximate equivalent concentrations. a Not to be exceeded more than once per year. b To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. c The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is ” 1. As of June 15, 2005, USEPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas except the 14 8-hour ozone nonattainment Early Action Compact Areas. d To attain this standard, the expected annual arithmetic mean PM10 concentration at each monitor within an area must not exceed 50 µg/m3. e To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the annual arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 µg/m3. f To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 µg/m3. 2 3 4 USEPA classifies the air quality in an air quality control region (AQCR), or in subareas of an AQCR according to whether the concentrations of criteria pollutants in ambient air exceed the primary or secondary NAAQS. All areas Draft EIS November 2007 3-3 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 within each AQCR are therefore designated as either “attainment,” “nonattainment,” “maintenance,” or “unclassified” for each of the six criteria pollutants. Attainment means that the air quality within an AQCR is better than the NAAQS, nonattainment indicates that criteria pollutant levels exceed NAAQS, maintenance indicates that an area was previously designated nonattainment but is now attainment, and unclassified means that there is not enough information to appropriately classify an AQCR, so the area is considered in attainment. 8 9 10 11 12 13 The General Conformity Rule requires that any Federal action meet the requirements of a SIP or Federal Implementation Plan. More specifically, CAA conformity is ensured when a Federal action does not cause a new violation of the NAAQS; contribute to an increase in the frequency or severity of violations of NAAQS; or delay the timely attainment of any NAAQS, interim progress milestones, or other milestones toward achieving compliance with the NAAQS. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 The General Conformity Rule applies only to actions in nonattainment or maintenance areas and considers both direct and indirect emissions. The rule applies only to Federal actions that are considered “regionally significant” or where the total emissions from the action meet or exceed the de minimis thresholds presented in 40 CFR 93.153. An action is regionally significant when the total nonattainment pollutant emissions exceed 10 percent of the AQCR’s total emissions inventory for that nonattainment pollutant. If a Federal action does not meet or exceed the de minimis thresholds and is not considered regionally significant, then a full Conformity Determination is not required. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Title V of the CAA Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 requires states and local agencies to permit major stationary sources. A major stationary source is a facility (i.e., plant, base, or activity) that can emit more than 100 tons per year (tpy) of any one criteria air pollutant, 10 tpy of a hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tpy of any combination of hazardous air pollutants. However, lower pollutant-specific “major source” permitting thresholds apply in nonattainment areas. For example, the Title V permitting threshold for an “extreme” O3 nonattainment area is 10 tpy of potential volatile organic compound (VOC) or nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. The purpose of the permitting rule is to establish regulatory control over large, industrial-type activities and monitor their impact on air quality. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations also define air pollutant emissions from proposed major stationary sources or modifications to be “significant” if (1) a proposed project is within 10 kilometers of any Class I area, and (2) regulated pollutant emissions would cause an increase in the 24-hour average concentration of any regulated pollutant in the Class I area of 1 µg/m3 or more [40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(iii)]. A Class I area includes national parks larger than 6,000 acres, national wilderness areas and national memorial parks larger than 5,000 acres, and international parks. PSD regulations also define ambient air increments, limiting the allowable increases to any area’s baseline air contaminant concentrations, based on the area’s class designation (40 CFR 52.21(c)). Draft EIS November 2007 3-4 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 Greenhouse Gases. Many chemical compounds found in the Earth’s atmosphere act as “greenhouse gases.” These gases allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. Over time, the trapped heat results in the phenomenon of global warming. 7 8 9 10 In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the CAA. The Court declared that the USEPA has the authority to regulate emissions from new cars and trucks under the landmark environment law. 11 12 13 14 Many gases exhibit these “greenhouse” properties. The sources of the majority of greenhouse gases come mostly from natural sources but are also contributed to by human activity. Additional information on sources of greenhouse gases is included in Appendix K. 15 Route A 16 17 18 19 20 21 The Proposed Action is within the southernmost portions of Starr County, Hidalgo County, and Cameron County, Texas, within the Brownsville-Laredo Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (BLIAQCR). The BLIAQCR is composed of Cameron County, Hidalgo County, Jim Hogg County, Starr County, Webb County, Willacy County, and Zapata County, Texas. The BLIAQCR is classified as being in attainment/unclassified for all criteria pollutants. 22 Route B 23 24 Route B would also be within the BLIAQCR. Therefore, the affected environment for air quality associated with Route B is the same as described for Route A. 25 3.3 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Sound is defined as a particular auditory effect produced by a given source, for example the sound of rain on a rooftop. Sound is measured with instruments that record instantaneous sound levels in decibels. A-weighted sound level measurement is used to characterize sound levels that can be sensed by the human ear. “A-weighted” denotes the adjustment of the frequency range for what the average human ear can sense when experiencing an audible event. C-weighted sound level measurement correlates well with physical vibration response of buildings and other structures to airborne sound. Impulsive noise resulting from demolition activities and the discharge of weapons are assessed in terms of C-weighted decibels (dBC). 36 37 38 Noise and sound share the same physical aspects, but noise is considered a disturbance while sound is defined as an auditory effect. Noise is defined as any sound that is undesirable because it interferes with communication, is intense NOISE Draft EIS November 2007 3-5 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. Noise can be intermittent or continuous, steady or impulsive, and can involve any number of sources and frequencies. It can be readily identifiable or generally nondescript. Human response to increased sound levels varies according to the source type, characteristics of the sound source, distance between source and receptor, receptor sensitivity, and time of day. How an individual responds to the sound source will determine if the sound is viewed as music to one’s ears or as annoying noise. Affected receptors are specific (i.e., schools, churches, or hospitals) or broad (e.g., nature preserves or designated districts) areas in which occasional or persistent sensitivity to noise above ambient levels exists. Predictors of wildlife response to noise include noise type (i.e., continuous or intermittent), prior experience with noise, proximity to a noise source, stage in the breeding cycle, activity, and age. Potential impacts of noise on wildlife are discussed in Section 4.8. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Most people are exposed to sound levels of 50 to 55 A-weighted decibels (dBA) or higher on a daily basis. Studies specifically conducted to determine noise impacts on various human activities show that about 90 percent of the population is not significantly bothered by outdoor sound levels below 65 dBA (USEPA 1974). Studies of community annoyance in response to numerous types of environmental noise show that A-weighted Day Night Average Sound Level (ADNL) correlates well with impact assessments and that there is a consistent relationship between ADNL and the level of annoyance. 23 24 25 26 Ambient Sound Levels. Noise levels in residential areas vary depending on the housing density and location. As shown in Figure 3.3-1, a suburban residential area is about 55 dBA, which increases to 60 dBA for an urban residential area, and 80 dBA in the downtown section of a city. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Construction Sound Levels. Building construction, modification, and demolition work can cause an increase in sound that is well above the ambient level. A variety of sounds come from graders, pavers, trucks, welders, and other work processes. Table 3.3-1 lists noise levels associated with common types of construction equipment that are likely to be used under the Proposed Action. Construction equipment usually exceeds the ambient sound levels by 20 to 25 dBA in an urban environment and up to 30 to 35 dBA in a quiet suburban area. 34 Route A 35 36 37 38 39 The proposed tactical infrastructure for the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector passes through areas with different acoustical environments. The ambient acoustical environment in the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector is primarily impacted by vehicular traffic, aircraft operations, agricultural equipment, and industrial noise sources. 40 Draft EIS November 2007 3-6 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 Figure 3.3-1. Common Noise Levels 3 Draft EIS November 2007 3-7 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 Table 3.3-1. Predicted Noise Levels for Construction Equipment Construction Category and Equipment Predicted Noise Level at 50 feet (dBA) Clearing and Grading Bulldozer 80 Grader 80–93 Truck 83–94 Roller 73–75 Excavation Backhoe 72–93 Jackhammer 81–98 Building Construction Concrete mixer 74–88 Welding generator 71–82 Pile driver 91–105 Crane 75–87 Paver 86–88 Source: USEPA 1971 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The Rio Grande Valley area is composed of many different cities, towns, and communities. The City of Brownsville is in the eastern section of the Rio Grande Valley project area, and Rio Grande City is on the western edge of the project area. In between these two cities lie the municipalities of McAllen, Alamo, Weslaco, Progreso, Mercedes, Harlingen, and San Benito. Several subdivisions and smaller communities also exist along the border. Each of these cities and towns has its own ambient sound level depending on the size of the municipality and the nearby activities. 10 11 12 13 14 15 State Route (SR) 83 passes in the vicinity of Rio Grande City and SR 281 is adjacent to Progreso, Texas. County Route (CR) 433 traverses the towns of McAllen, Alamo, Weslaco, and Mercedes. SR 77 traverses the cities of Harlingen and Brownsville. CR 56 is also a major transportation route into the Rio Grande Valley. Traffic along each of these roads contributes to the ambient acoustical environment in the Rio Grande Valley. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Brownsville/South Padre Island International Airport is approximately 4 miles east of the city of Brownsville. An average of 126 aircraft operations are performed at the Brownsville/South Padre Island International Airport daily (AirNav 2007a). There is a railroad track on the west side of Brownsville that traverses north from the U.S./Mexico international border. The B&M Railroad, MP Railroad, and Union Pacific Railroad are stationed at this location. In addition, there are numerous industrial facilities in the city. It is estimated that proposed sites near Draft EIS November 2007 3-8 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 Brownsville have ambient noise levels comparable to an urban environment (50–80 dBA). McAllen Miller International Airport is approximately 2 miles south of the city of McAllen (Section O-6). An average of 172 aircraft operations occur daily at McAllen Miller International Airport (AirNav 2007b). 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Along the U.S./Mexico international border in areas west of Brownsville, agricultural activities are prominent. Agricultural equipment used in these areas can produce noise levels up to 100 dBA (OSU 2007). While farms are generally spread out, noise from agricultural activities is likely to extend past the farm boundaries. Agricultural activities contribute to the ambient acoustical environment in the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector. The proposed project corridor also crosses and borders remote wildlife areas such as the LRGVNWR. These areas and the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector in general likely have ambient noise levels that are comparable to rural or suburban areas (25 to 55 dBA) (see Figure 3.3-1). 15 Route B 16 17 18 Route B would be within the same ambient acoustical environment as described for Route A. Therefore, the affected environment associated with Route B is the same as described for Route A. 19 3.4 20 21 22 23 24 25 The term “land use” refers to real property classifications that indicate either natural conditions or the types of human activity occurring on a parcel. In many cases, land use descriptions are codified in local zoning laws. There is, however, no nationally recognized convention or uniform terminology for describing land use categories. As a result, the meanings of various land use descriptions, “labels,” and definitions vary among jurisdictions. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Two main objectives of land use planning are to ensure orderly growth and compatible uses among adjacent property parcels or areas. Compatibility among land uses fosters the societal interest of obtaining the highest and best uses of real property. Tools supporting land use planning include written master plans/management plans and zoning regulations. In appropriate cases, the location and extent of a proposed action needs to be evaluated for its potential impacts on a project site and adjacent land uses. The foremost factor affecting a proposed action in terms of land use is its compliance with any applicable land use or zoning regulations. Other relevant factors include matters such as existing land use at the project site, the types of land uses on adjacent properties and their proximity to a proposed action, the duration of a proposed activity, and its “permanence.” 38 39 40 Recreational resources are both natural and improved lands designated by Federal, state, and local planning entities to offer visitors and residents diverse opportunities to enjoy leisure activities. Natural recreational resources are those LAND USE Draft EIS November 2007 3-9 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 places or amenities set aside as parklands, trails (e.g., hiking, bicycling, equestrian), open spaces, aesthetically pleasing landscapes, and a variety of other locales. Manmade recreational resources can include parks, manmade lakes, recreational fields, or sport or recreational venues. National, state, and local jurisdictions typically have designated land areas with defined boundaries for recreation. Other less structured activities like hunting are performed in broad, less-defined locales. A recreational setting might consist of natural or manmade landscapes and can vary in size from a roadside monument to a multimillion-acre wilderness area. 10 Route A 11 12 13 Major land uses within the Rio Grande Valley include agriculture, rangeland, recreation/special use, urban, and water. Specific land uses in each classification are described below (USACE 1994). 14 15 16 x Agriculture – Specific land uses within this classification include highly developed croplands, pasture, small grains, forage crops, hay production, and orchards. The land may be irrigated or non-irrigated. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 x Rangeland – Specific land use includes the grazing of cattle, horses, sheep, goats, and other domestic animals. This is based on the presence of naturally occurring grasses, grasslike plants and forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing and browsing. This classification would include natural grasslands, savannas, some wetlands, and other areas with the potential to support certain forb and shrub communities under prudent and normally accepted land management practices. 24 25 26 27 x Recreation/Special Use – This land use classification includes barren land, or land with sparse vegetation cover during most of the year. Areas of sand dunes or shifting soil would also be included. This classification includes tourist recreation and natural and wildlife management areas. 28 29 30 31 32 x Urban – Specific land uses within this classification include residential, industrial, transportation, commercial, educational, medical, recreational, open space for environmental protection (i.e., floodway, utility easements, and ROW), and underdeveloped land within political boundaries (i.e., cities, towns, and villages). 33 34 x Water – This land use classification includes naturally occurring and manmade lakes, reservoirs, gulfs, bays, rivers, streams, and coastal wetlands. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 The existing land use in the Rio Grande Valley ranges from well developed urban centers of commerce (i.e., Laredo and Brownsville), to areas of intensive agricultural activities, to extensive areas of recreation and wildlife management activities. The following is a brief description of the existing land use in Cameron, Hidalgo, and Starr Counties (USACE 1994). x Cameron County – A large percentage of Cameron County is devoted to highly intensive and specialized farming (54 percent). Major crops are Draft EIS November 2007 3-10 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure citrus, cool-season vegetables, cotton, and grain sorghum. A large portion of the urban land is devoted to recreation activities. The county supports fishing, hunting, water sports, and a variety of other recreational activities year round. Major recreational activities are centered around South Padre Island and National Wildlife Refuges (i.e., Santa Ana). Major urban areas are Brownsville, Harlingen, and San Benito. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 x Hidalgo County – The major land use is agriculture (63 percent). Agricultural crops include cotton, grains, vegetables, citrus, and sugar cane. Rangeland (26 percent) is used primarily for cattle production. Commercial activities include food processing, shipping, tourism, and mineral operations. Tourism peaks during the winter season and centers around the Bentson-Rio Grande Valley State Park, Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, and other recreational facilities. Major urban areas are McAllen, Pharr, and Edinburg. 15 16 17 18 19 20 x Starr County – Rangeland constitutes 87 percent of the county’s land use with the majority of the activities involving the production of cattle, sheep, hogs, and horses. Most agricultural land (12 percent) is irrigated and is used for the production of sorghum, cotton, and vegetables. Rio Grande City is the county seat and a major urban center. A major recreational area is International Falcon Reservoir. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 The Rio Grande Valley contains numerous recreational/special land use areas. Most of these special land use areas are outside of highly urbanized centers. These lands have been established for various recreational activities but also for flood control, scenic, historic, and wildlife management uses. Figure 3.4-1 presents parks and refuges in the Rio Grande Valley. Appendix F presents detailed maps of the areas surrounding the proposed fence sections. Section 3.11 describes the aesthetics and visual resources of the Rio Grande Valley. 28 Route B 29 30 31 Route B would traverse the same land uses as described for Route A. Therefore, the affected environment associated with Route B is the same as described for Route A. 32 3.5 33 34 35 36 Geology and soils resources include the surface and subsurface materials of the earth. Within a given physiographic province, these resources typically are described in terms of topography, soils, geology, minerals, and paleontology, where applicable. 37 38 39 40 Topography is defined as the relative positions and elevations of the natural or human-made features of an area that describe the configuration of its surface. Regional topography is influenced by many factors, including human activity, 41 Draft EIS GEOLOGY AND SOILS November 2007 3-11 Draft EIS 3-12 5 10 Scale Miles 20 O-2 Fence Section Label Source: USFWS 2007, ESRI StreetMap USA 2005 e r and O-3 G O-4 83 O-5 O-6 O-8 O-9 433 Alamo 107 O-10 O-14 O-13 O-12 O-11 Progreso Weslaco Mercedes M E X I C O O-7 McAllen Mission Te xas Linn S T A T E S 56 O-17 O-16 O-15 O-18 O-19 77 San Benito Harlingen 100 O-20 Brownsville Figure 3.4-1. Parks and Refuges in the Rio Grande Valley U.S./Mexico International Border Parks and Refuges o i Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 0 O-2 Rio Grande City R Proposed Fence Sections O-1 Roma U N I T E D O-21 Gulf of Mexico Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 November 2007 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 seismic activity of the underlying geologic material, climatic conditions, and erosion. Information describing topography typically encompasses surface elevations, slope, and physiographic features (i.e., mountains, ravines, hills, plains, deltas, or depressions). 5 6 7 8 9 Site-specific geological resources typically consist of surface and subsurface materials and their inherent properties. Principal factors influencing the ability of geologic resources to support structural development are seismic properties (i.e., potential for subsurface shifting, faulting, or crustal disturbance), topography, and soil stability. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Soils are the unconsolidated materials overlying bedrock or other parent material. They develop from the weathering processes of mineral and organic materials and are typically described in terms of landscape position, slope, and physical and chemical characteristics. Soil types differ in structure, elasticity, strength, shrink-swell potential, drainage characteristics, and erosion potential, which can affect their ability to support certain applications or uses. In appropriate cases, soil properties must be examined for compatibility with particular construction activities or types of land use. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Prime and unique farmland is protected under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981. Prime farmland is defined as land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and is also available for these uses. Unique farmland is defined as land other than prime farmland that is used for the production of specific high-value food and fiber crops. It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high quality or high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Soil qualities, growing season, and moisture supply are needed for well-managed soil to produce a sustained high yield of crops in an economic manner. The land could be cropland, pasture, rangeland, or other land, but not urban built-up land or water. The intent of the FPPA is to minimize the extent that Federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The FPPA also ensures that Federal programs are administered in a manner that, to the extent practicable, will be compatible with private, state, and local government programs and policies to protect farmland. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 The implementing procedures of the FPPA and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) require Federal agencies to evaluate the adverse impacts (direct and indirect) of their activities on prime and unique farmland, as well as farmland of statewide and local importance, and to consider alternative actions that could avoid adverse impacts. Determination of whether an area is considered prime or unique farmland and potential impacts associated with a proposed action is based on preparation of the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form AD-1006 for areas where prime farmland soils occur and by applying criteria established at Section 658.5 of the FPPA (7 CFR Part 658). The NRCS is responsible for Draft EIS November 2007 3-13 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 overseeing compliance with the FPPA and has developed the rules and regulations for implementation of the Act (see 7 CFR Part 658, 5 July 1984). 3 Route A 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Physiography and Topography. The USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector occupies Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties in Texas along the U.S./Mexico international border. The USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector occurs in a subtropical semi-arid zone in the Gulf Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of Texas. The proposed project corridor would occur in the Coastal Prairies and Interior Coastal Plains subprovinces, of the larger Gulf Coastal Plains. Fence Sections O-7 to O21 occur in the Coastal Plains subprovince, which is characterized by young deltaic sands, silts, and clays that have eroded to nearly imperceptible slopes occupied by flat grasslands. Trees are uncommon except along streams; on coarser underlying sediments of ancient streams; within fencerows; on lands protected as refuges; and along the Rio Grande, where sugarberry, Texas ebony, honey mesquite, Mexican palm trees, and citrus plantations can be found. Sections O-1 to O-7 occur in the Interior Coastal Plains subprovince, which is characterized by alternating belts of resistant uncemented sands among weaker shales that erode into long, sandy ridges. In the proposed project corridor, trees are few, and barretal shrublands dominate (Wermund 2007). The topographic profile of the surrounding area is a nearly level to rolling, slightly to moderately dissected plain that has formed between the Balcones Escarpment to the north, the Rio Grande to the southwest, and the Gulf of Mexico to the southeast. Elevations in the proposed project corridor range from approximately mean sea level (MSL) to 10 feet above MSL along Section O-21 and grade gently higher with slightly steeper topography to the west to approximately 50 to 80 feet above MSL along Section O-1 (TopoZone.com 2007). 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Geology. The surface geology of the Gulf Coastal Plains is characterized by broad subparallel bands of sedimentary rocks deposited in the Tertiary and Quaternary Periods of the Cenozoic Era. The western end of the proposed project corridor is in the Breaks of the Rio Grande, a region of steep-sided, narrow, and deep valleys created as the north-south trending Rio Grande tributaries eroded the resistant Tertiary formations. The Breaks of the Rio Grande terminate near the Starr-Hidalgo County line and define the beginning of the Rio Grande Valley, which consists of Quaternary alluvial sediments. From oldest to youngest (west to east), the Tertiary-deposited sediments include the Jackson Group (made up of the Whitsett, Manning, Wellborn, Caddell, Yazoo, and Moodys Branch formations), the Catahoula and Frio formations undivided, the Goliad Formation, and Uvalde gravels. Quaternary-deposited sediments of the Rio Grande Valley include fluviatile terrace deposits, the Lissie and Beaumont formations, wind-blown deposits, and the most recent alluvium deposits (DHS 2004). 42 43 The Jackson Group consists of volcanic and marine sediments deposited during the Eocene Epoch of the Tertiary Period. It is composed mostly of sandstone Draft EIS November 2007 3-14 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 and tuffaceous clay with some crossbeds of white volcanic ash. The Jackson Group is overlain by the Catahoula and Frio formations, which are composed of mudstone; sandstone; light-brown clays; gray sandy clays; and, in the basal layer, dark greenish sandy clays. Towards the end of the Tertiary period, large river systems deposited calcareous muds formed from Cretaceous-age marls and limestones, over broad areas of the low coastal plain. Overlaying the Catahoula and Frio formations is the Goliad Formation and Uvalde gravels. The Goliad Formation includes clay, sand, marble, and caliche with abundant reworked Cretaceous Period invertebrate fossils; the caliche is locally popular, used to surface roads. The Uvalde gravels are found on interstream ridges and divides and are composed of rounded flint pebbles and cobbles weathered from Lower Cretaceous-age formations (DHS 2004). 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 During the Quaternary period, a series of interglacial and glacial periods produced an active environment of fluviatile deposition and subsequent erosion. Ancient river systems transported enormous quantities of suspended sand and mud and, during interglacial periods, deposited the sediments into accumulating deltas and fluvial plains at the Gulf of Mexico. During glacial periods, the drop in sea level eroded underlying fluvial deposits creating new deltas miles into the gulf. During this time, the ancestral Rio Grande cut through the older Tertiary formations and remnant meander scars in the floodplain were converted into 3 to 10 foot high river terraces composed of unsorted coarse sand and gravel (DHS 2004). 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 The Lissie Formation consists of thick beds of sand interbedded with clay and silt with the clays predominating in the upper part. It contains thin lenses of rounded gravels composed of ferruginous sandstones, quartz, and other siliceous rocks. Large amounts of silicified wood are found among the gravel sheets. This formation is characterized by many undrained circular or irregular depressions and relict windblown sand and clay dunes that are stabilized in a northwesttrending direction. The sands and clays of the Lissie formation are overlain by the bluish-gray clays of the Beaumont Formation, which were deposited by ancient rivers in the form of deltas or natural levees. Broad faint ridges, containing more sand than the flats between them, are the remnants of natural levees that formed as the ancient river shifted across the coastal lowlands. The flat lowlands of the Beaumont Formation form a featureless and often marshy plain, called the Coastal Prairie, as it approaches the Gulf Coast (DHS 2004). 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 The recent alluvial deposits of the Rio Grande Valley are composed of sedimentary rocks resulting from dissection of previous sedimentation and floodplain deposition during the Modern-Holocene Period. In the Pleistocene Epoch, interglacial deltas formed by the Rio Grande were combined into a larger delta that extended farther beyond the current Gulf Coast. The modern coastal barrier island system was formed by the subsidence and compaction of this ancient delta. During the sea level rise of the Holocene, brackish water inundated the ancient valley, creating an estuarine environment that was Draft EIS November 2007 3-15 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 eventually replaced by fertile floodplain deposits of the Rio Grande Valley as it graded to its present level (DHS 2004). 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Soils. Generally the soils occurring in the proposed project corridor are loamy to clayey, moderately to slowly permeable, and occur on nearly level to gentle slopes. None of the soil map units occurring within the portion of the proposed project corridor in Starr County are designated as farmland of importance. Hydric soils are soils that are saturated, flooded, or have ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic (oxygen-deficient) conditions in upper horizons. The presence of hydric soil is one of the three criteria (i.e., hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology) used to determine that an area is a wetland based on the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1 (USACE 1987). 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In Hidalgo County, soils of the Camargo, Cameron, Laredo, Matamoros, Olmito, Reynosa, Rio Grande, and Runn series within the proposed project corridor are classified as prime farmland soils; and soils of the Arents and Raymondville series within the proposed project corridor are classified as prime farmland soils if irrigated. In Cameron County, soils of the Camargo, Cameron, Laredo, Matamoros, Olmito, and Rio Grande series within the proposed project corridor are classified as prime farmland soils; and the Harlingen series and LaredoOlmito complex soils within the proposed project corridor are classified as prime farmland soils if irrigated. In Starr County, no soils that potentially occur within the proposed project corridor are classified as hydric. In Hidalgo County, soils of the Grulla series occur within the proposed project corridor and are classified as partially hydric. In Cameron County, Ustifluvents and soils of the Chargo, Grulla, and Sejita series occur within the proposed project corridor soils and are classified as partially hydric (NRCS 2007). 27 28 29 See Appendix G for maps of soil units within the project area. The properties of soil map units identified within the proposed project corridor in Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties can be found in Appendix H. 30 Route B 31 32 33 34 35 The physiographic, topographic, and geologic resources associated with Route B are similar to Route A. The soil resources of Route B are largely similar to Route A with the exception of the Tiocano soil series of Cameron County which occurs only in the eastern portion of Section O-13 in Route B. This soil series is classified as partially hydric (NRCS 2007). 36 3.6 37 38 39 40 Hydrology and Groundwater. Hydrology consists of the redistribution of water through the processes of evapotranspiration, surface runoff, and subsurface flow. Hydrology results primarily from temperature and total precipitation that determine evapotranspiration rates, topography which determines rate and WATER RESOURCES Draft EIS November 2007 3-16 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 direction of surface flow, and soil properties that determine rate of subsurface flow and recharge to the groundwater reservoir. Groundwater consists of subsurface hydrologic resources. It is an essential resource that functions to recharge surface water and is used for drinking, irrigation, and industrial processes. Groundwater typically can be described in terms of depth from the surface, aquifer or well capacity, water quality, recharge rate, and surrounding geologic formations. 8 9 10 11 Surface Water and Waters of the United States. Surface water resources generally consist of wetlands, lakes, rivers, and streams. Surface water is important for its contributions to the economic, ecological, recreational, and human health of a community or locale. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 The CWA (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) established the Federal authority for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States. Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344) establishes a Federal program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States. The USACE administers the permitting program for authorization of actions under Section 404 of the CWA. Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires that proposed dredge and fill activities permitted under Section 404 be reviewed and certified by the designated state agency that the proposed project will meet state water quality standards. The Federal permit under Section 404 is not valid until it has received Section 401 water quality certification. Section 402 of the CWA authorizes the discharge of any pollutant, or combination of pollutants, into navigable waters of the United States under an NPDES permit. Pursuant to Texas Water Code 26.040 and CWA Section 402, all construction that would result in a soil disturbance of greater than 5 acres requires authorization under the TCEQ Construction General Permit (TXR150000). Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states and USEPA to identify waters not meeting state waterquality standards and to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and an implementation plan to reduce contributing sources of pollution. 30 31 32 33 34 35 Waters of the United States are defined within the CWA of 1972, as amended. USEPA and the USACE assert jurisdiction over (1) traditional navigable waters, (2) wetlands adjacent to navigable waters, (3) nonnavigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-around or have continuous flow at least seasonally, and (4) wetlands that directly abut such tributaries. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 The CWA (as amended in 1977) established the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The objective of the CWA is restoration and maintenance of chemical, physical, and biological integrity of U.S. waters. To achieve this objective several goals were enacted, including (1) eliminate discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985; (2) achieve water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water by 1983; (3) prohibit discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts; (4) provide Draft EIS November 2007 3-17 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Federal financial assistance to construct publicly owned waste treatment works; (5) develop and implement the national policy that areawide waste treatment management planning processes to ensure adequate control of sources of pollutants in each state; (6) establish the national policy that a major research and demonstration effort be made to develop technology necessary to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters, waters of the contiguous zone, and the oceans; and (7) establish the national policy that programs developed and implemented in an expeditious manner so as to enable the goals to be met through the control of both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. The USACE regulates the discharge of dredge and fill material (e.g., concrete, riprap, soil, cement block, gravel, sand) into waters of the United States including wetlands under Section 404 of the CWA and work on or structures in or affecting navigable waters of the United States under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Wetlands are an important natural system and habitat, performing diverse biologic and hydrologic functions. These functions include water quality improvement, groundwater recharge and discharge, pollution mitigation, nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat provision, unique flora and fauna niche provision, storm water attenuation and storage, sediment detention, and erosion protection. Wetlands are considered as a subset of the waters of the United States under Section 404 of the CWA. The term “waters of the United States” has a broad meaning under the CWA and incorporates deepwater aquatic habitats and special aquatic habitats (including wetlands). The USACE defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated with ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (33 CFR Part 328). 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Floodplains. Floodplains are areas of low-level ground and alluvium adjacent to rivers, stream channels, or coastal waters. Such lands might be subject to periodic or infrequent inundation due to runoff of rain or melting snow. Risk of flooding typically hinges on local topography, the frequency of precipitation events, and the size of the watershed upstream from the floodplain. Flood potential is evaluated by FEMA, which defines the 100-year floodplain. The 100year floodplain is the area that has a 1 percent chance of inundation by a flood event in a given year. Certain facilities inherently pose too great a risk to be constructed in either the 100- or 500-year floodplain, including hospitals, schools, or storage buildings for irreplaceable records. Federal, state, and local regulations often limit floodplain development to passive uses, such as recreational and preservation activities, to reduce the risks to human health and safety. 42 43 44 EO 11988, Floodplain Management, requires Federal agencies to determine whether a proposed action would occur within a floodplain. This determination typically involves consultation of appropriate FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps Draft EIS November 2007 3-18 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (FIRMs), which contain enough general information to determine the relationship of the project area to nearby floodplains. EO 11988 directs Federal agencies to avoid floodplains unless the agency determines that there is no practicable alternative. Where the only practicable alternative is to site in a floodplain, a specific step-by-step process must be followed to comply with EO 11988 outlined in the FEMA document “Further Advice on EO 11988 Floodplain Management.” As a planning tool, the NEPA process incorporates floodplain management through analysis and public coordination of the EIS. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Coastal Zone Management. The CZMA of 1972 gives states with federally approved coastal management programs the responsibility of reviewing Federal agency actions and activities to ensure that they are consistent with the state program’s goals and policies. Any project that is in or may affect land and water resources in the Texas coastal zone and that requires a federal license or permit, is a direct activity of a federal agency, or is federally funded, must be reviewed for consistency with the Texas Coastal Management Program. The purpose of the Texas Coastal Management Program (CMP) is to improve the management of the state’s coastal natural resource areas and to ensure the long-term ecological and economic productivity of the coast. The Coastal Coordination Council was established as a forum for coordinating Federal, state, and local programs and activities of the Texas coast (TxGLO 2007). 21 22 23 24 25 26 CBP has determined that a portion of Section O-19, and all of Sections O-20 and O-21 are within the Texas coastal zone. Therefore, a consistency certification and application for consistency review will be made to the Texas CMP office. This review process, overseen by the Texas Consistency Review Coordinator, will compliment the CWA Section 404 permit process, and the CWA Section 401 state water quality certification process, if required. 27 Route A 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Hydrology and Groundwater. The proposed project corridor is in the Rio Grande Drainage Basin, which composes an area of approximately 355,500 square miles. Much of the Rio Grande drainage basin is composed of rural, undeveloped land used primarily for farming and ranching. Water development projects in the Rio Grande Valley have disrupted natural flow regimes, including structures such as Anzalduas Dam, Falcon Dam, and Amistad Dam. Substantial quantities of surface water are diverted from the Rio Grande to meet municipal, industrial, and agricultural demands in Texas and Mexico, with a significant portion used in the Rio Grande Valley for farming and urban applications. Most of the water diverted in the Rio Grande Valley is not returned to the river as irrigation tailwater or treated wastewater effluent because the land naturally slopes away from the river channel. The return flows are usually discharged into constructed drainage ditches/channels and floodways that eventually flow into the Laguna Madre estuary, and ultimately into the Gulf of Mexico (Moore et al. 2002). Draft EIS November 2007 3-19 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The major aquifer in the Rio Grande Valley is the Gulf Coast Aquifer. The aquifer consists of alternating beds of clay, silt, sand, and gravel that are hydrologically connected to form a large, leaky, artesian system. Challenges related to withdrawal of groundwater from the Gulf Coast Aquifer include land-surface subsidence, increased chloride content in the groundwater from the southwestern portion of the aquifer, and saltwater intrusion along the coast (USACE 2000). 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 In Cameron County, the major source of groundwater is the Rio Grande Valley Alluvium Aquifer, which consists of recent deposits of unconsolidated sand, silt, gravel, and clay. This aquifer is close to the Rio Grande in an area bounded by the river on the south and Highway 83 on the north. Water in the Rio Grande Valley Alluvium Aquifer is characterized by high concentrations of chloride, dissolved solids, boron, and sodium. This water does not meet U.S. drinking water standards and is used primarily for agricultural uses (USACE 2000). 15 16 17 18 19 Surface Waters and Waters of the United States. The predominant surface water feature in the area is the Rio Grande (called the Rio Bravo in Mexico). The Rio Grande drainage is one of the longest rivers in North America, and an important river basin to both the United States and Mexico. The allocation of Rio Grande water between the two countries is governed by a treaty signed in 1944. 20 21 22 23 24 25 The main channel of the Rio Grande lies south of the proposed project corridor (Moore et al. 2002). In 1932, an agreement was reached between the United States and Mexico to develop a coordinated plan to protect the Rio Grande Valley against flooding from the Rio Grande in both countries (IBWC 2007b). This agreement was developed by the IBWC and resulted in the Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project (LRGFCP) (IBWC 2007b). 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 The LRGFCP is designed for flood protection of urban, suburban, and highly developed irrigated farm lands in the Rio Grande delta in both countries. The LRGFCP levees are grass-covered earthen structures, with a distance between the U.S. and Mexico levees ranging from approximately 400 feet to 3 miles. The LRGFCP is jointly operated by the U.S. IBWC and Mexican IBWC to convey excess floodwaters of the Rio Grande to the Gulf of Mexico via the river channel and U.S. and Mexican interior floodways (IBWC 2007b). The LRGFCP includes approximately 180 miles of levees in the Rio Grande Valley. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Surface water features that could be potentially classified as waters of the United States in the proposed project corridor include arroyos, resacas, lakes, ponds, drainage canals, channelized streams, and wetlands including those formed from irrigation wastewater flows or groundwater seepage (see Appendix F). Arroyos are deep, narrow intermittently flooded drainages that flow down bluff faces into the Rio Grande. Resacas are oxbow lakes that have formed in historic floodplain channels of the Rio Grande. Dams and levees for flood control and water storage along the Rio Grande have severed the natural surface water connection between the river and most of the resacas, although groundwater flows are Draft EIS November 2007 3-20 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 thought to be intact. Resacas are typically filled by pumping water from the Rio Grande, rainfall, or input of irrigation return flows. 3 4 5 6 7 The proposed project corridor for Sections O-1, O-2, and O-3 are characterized by rugged river banks and steep bluffs, arroyos, and rapid erosion; there are no levees constructed within these sections. The proposed project corridor for Sections O-4 through O-21 are characterized by lakes, ponds, levees, public water canals, irrigation canals, and drainage ditches. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Some surface water features occur adjacent to or within the proposed project corridor associated with Route A (see Appendix F). Approximately 1.01 miles of Section O-1 would follow the Rio Grande to the Arroyo Mesa annex of the LRGVNWR and approximately 0.33 mile would follow the Rio Grande to the Los Negro Creek Annex of the LRGVNWR. Section O-2 crosses arroyos. Approximately 0.70 miles of Section O-3 would follow the Rio Grande boundary of the Los Ebanos annex of the LRGVNWR. Section O-5 would run from the intersection of the northern levee and the Anzalduas Park access road and follow the levee for 1.73 miles, crossing an irrigation canal. Section O-6 would follow the Pharr San Juan Main Canal. Section O-7 would follow the Donna Canal to the Donna pump station. Section O-9 would cross between an irrigation district settling basin and Moon Lake in the Progress Lakes area. Section O-11 would begin at a point where the IBWC levee meets the Santa Maria Canal and would continue following the levee to the La Feria Canal, crossing over the canal. Section O-12 would cross over the Harlingen Canal and follow the north side of the canal. Section O-13 would begin at a point where the IBWC crosses the San Benito Canal. Section O-18 would begin at a point where the IBWC levee intersects the Los Fresnos pump canal on the east side of the canal. Section O-21 would run a short distance along the El Jardin Canal. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Wetlands are also potentially jurisdictional waters of the United States and can be associated with all of the above surface water features. Potential jurisdictional wetlands have been identified along the proposed project corridor based on vegetation and hydrology. Wetland indicator species are listed in Appendix I and include (1) Mule’s Fat Shrubland, (2) Black Willow Woodland/Shrubland, (3) Giant Reed Herbaceous Vegetation, (4) Common Reed Herbaceous Vegetation, (5) Alkali Sacaton Herbaceous Vegetation, (6) Narrowleaf Cattail, and (7) Smartweed Herbaceous Vegetation. A few floating aquatic communities have also become established on some small ponds. A more complete description of these potential wetland communities is presented in Appendix I. Mule’s Fat Shrubland is associated with near to surface groundwater or occasional standing water, characterized by stands in Sections O-3 and O-13. Black Willow Woodland/Shrubland is associated with Rio Grande canals, drainage ditches, and ponds, characterized by stands in Sections O-3, O-8, O-13, O-14, and O-20. Giant Reed Herbaceous Vegetation is associated with ditch and canal banks, standing water in ditches, and near to surface groundwater, characterized by stands in Sections O-2, O-9, and O-14. Common Reed Herbaceous Vegetation was observed in narrow strips along canal banks and is relatively rare within the Draft EIS November 2007 3-21 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 proposed project corridor. Alkali Sacaton Herbaceous Vegetation occupies shallow depressions that likely capture runoff, and was observed only in Section O-4. Narrowleaf Cattail stands occur along perennial water bodies, specifically pond shorelines as characterized in Section O-8. Smartweed Herbaceous Vegetation was observed in the bottom of one canal or large irrigation ditch in Section O-14. 7 8 9 10 11 12 The most current information available to identify wetlands within the proposed project corridor is the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) (USFWS 2007a), presented on the figures provided in Appendix F. No NWI coverage is currently available for Sections O-1, O-2, O-3, O-5, O-6, O-7, and O-8. Approximately 7 acres of wetlands are within the remaining sections of the proposed project corridor of Route A (see Table 3.6-1). 13 14 Table 3.6-1. NWI Identified Wetlands that Occur Within the Proposed Project Corridor for Route A Section Wetland Type Acreage O-4 Freshwater Pond 0.1 O-9 Freshwater Pond negligible Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.8 O-10 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.7 O-13 Riverine 0.4 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.3 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.2 O-15 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 1.4 O-17 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.8 O-18 Freshwater Emergent Wetland negligible O-20 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.6 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.7 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.8 Freshwater Pond 0.2 O-21 Source: USFWS 2007a Note: Wetland acreage is based on NWI data. No NWI coverage is currently available for Sections O-1, O-2, O-3, O-5, O-6, O-7, O-8. 15 16 17 18 19 20 Identification and delineation of waters of the United States (i.e., jurisdictional wetlands and waters) within the proposed project corridor is an ongoing process. Wetland delineations will be finalized once rights of entry (ROEs) and LRGVNWR Special Use Permits have been obtained. The unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional waters and wetlands will be reviewed as part of the USACE Section 404 permit process. The proposed tactical infrastructure would be Draft EIS November 2007 3-22 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 designed to avoid or minimize impacts on wetlands and drainages, and to prevent impounding or otherwise altering waters. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Wetland delineations will be conducted using the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. The parameters required when performing wetland boundary assessment typically include (1) the predominance (greater than 50 percent) of hydrophytic (wetland) vegetation, (2) the presence of hydric (wetland) soils, and (3) evidence of wetland hydrology. In undisturbed field conditions for wetlands, all three of these diagnostic criteria must be present to fulfill wetlands classification criteria (USACE 1987). The Cowardin classification of wetlands will then be used to characterize aquatic resource habitats (wetlands and streams) in the project area. The Cowardin wetland classification uses a hierarchical classification approach, beginning with Systems and Subsystems, and narrows to a more specific level of Classes, Subclasses, and Dominance Types based on habitat types. Each System is a “complex of wetlands and deepwater habitats that share the influence of similar hydrologic, geomorphic, chemical, or biological factors” (Cowardin et al. 1979). There are five Systems in the Cowardin wetland classification nomenclature: Marine, Estuarine, Riverine, Lacustrine, and Palustrine. Once completed, wetland delineations are followed by a jurisdictional determination (JD) by the USACE prior to any construction activities. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 The use of irrigation and application of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides has resulted in the contamination of agricultural drainage ditches and resacas in the Rio Grande Valley. These waters are eventually discharged into the Laguna Madre (USFWS 1991). Because resacas are also integral parts of the urban storm water drainage system in the Rio Grande Valley, they are subject to urban nonpoint source pollution such as pesticides (e.g., chlordane), automotive oil, grease, metals, fertilizers, sewage, and dissolved salts. Resacas are also affected negatively if they receive contaminated river water for municipal water storage or irrigation. In addition, illegal dumping into resacas has contributed to the contamination within these waterways (DOI 1996). 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Floodplains. The proposed project corridor associated with Section O-1 is depicted as occurring in the 100-year floodplain of the Rio Grande, as identified on the January 24, 1978, FEMA FIRM Panel No. 4805750010A for Starr County, Texas. The proposed project corridor associated with Section O-2 is depicted as occurring in the 100-year floodplain of the Rio Grande, as identified on the January 24, 1978, FEMA FIRM Panel Nos. 4805750014A and 4805750015A for Starr County, Texas. Sections O-1 and O-2 are designated as Zone A. Zone A areas on FEMA flood insurance maps indicate areas that correspond to the 100year floodplain determined in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) by approximate methods (FEMA 1987, FEMA undated). Due to the uncertainty of the methodology, it cannot be determined if portions of the proposed project corridor associated with Sections O-1 and O-2 occur in the 100-year floodplain, as they are located on bluffs and the valley rim. As described in Section 3.5.2, the Draft EIS November 2007 3-23 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 topography of these sections is characterized by rugged river banks (at the Rio Grande), arroyos, and heavy erosion with no levees. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The proposed project corridor associated with Section O-3 is also depicted as occurring in the 100-year floodplain of the Rio Grande, as identified on the January 2, 1981, FEMA FIRM Panel No. 4803340375B for Hidalgo County, Texas. Section O-3 would be within FEMA Zone A23, which is one of the flood insurance rate zones that correspond to the 100-year floodplains that are determined in the FIS by detailed methods (FEMA 1987, FEMA undated). The topography and surface waters of Section O-3 are similar to that of Sections O-1 and O-2. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 The proposed project corridor associated with Sections O-4 through O-21 does not lie within the 100-year floodplain. These proposed fence sections would follow either privately owned or the IBWC levee system as discussed in Section 2.3, and would be outside the current FEMA 100-year flood zone and the IBWC international drainage. Areas outside the 100-year flood zone are generally zoned B, C, and X. FEMA defines Zones B, C, and X as zones that correspond to areas outside the 100-year floodplains, areas of 100-year sheet flow flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 100-year stream flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile, or areas protected from the 100-year flood by levees (FEMA 1987, FEMA undated). 21 Route B 22 23 Groundwater and Hydrology. The groundwater and hydrology associated with the proposed project corridor of Route B would be identical to Route A. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Surface Waters and Waters of the United States. There are several differences between the surface water features that occur adjacent or within the proposed project corridors for Routes A and B. Section O-1 of Route B would traverse less riparian areas than Route A. Section O-2 of Route B would avoid some arroyos that would be crossed by Route A. Section O-3 of Route B represents adjustments to avoid some natural riparian areas along the Rio Grande. Section O-5 of Route B represents a slight realignment where the proposed project corridor would cross over the irrigation canal. Section O-7 would end at the Donna Canal, and would not cross over the canal or run along it. Section O-11 for Route B represents an alternative to realignment for crossing La Feria Canal. Section O-21 of Route B represents a slight realignment around El Jardin Canal compared to Route A. 36 37 38 39 40 41 The wetland communities for Sections of O-1 through O-21 of Route B are very similar to Route A. The most current information available to identify wetlands in Route B is the NWI (USFWS 2007a), presented in Appendix F. No NWI coverage is currently available for Sections O-1, O-2, O-3, O-5, O-6, O-7, and O-8. Approximately 7.3 acres of wetlands are within the remaining sections of the proposed project corridor of Route B (see Table 3.6-2). Draft EIS November 2007 3-24 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Table 3.6-2. NWI Identified Wetlands that Occur within the Proposed Project Corridor for Route B 1 2 Section Wetland Type Acreage O-4 Freshwater Pond 0.2 O-9 Freshwater Pond negligible O-10 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.8 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.7 Lake 0.1 O-11 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland O-13 Riverine 0.2 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.3 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.2 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.8 O-15 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.8 O-17 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.8 O-19 Riverine 0.5 O-20 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.9 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland O-21 negligible negligible Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.8 Freshwater Pond 0.2 Source: USFWS 2007a Note: Wetland acreage is based on NWI data. No NWI coverage is currently available for Sections O-1, O-2, O-3, O-5, O-6, O-7, O-8. 3 4 Floodplains. The floodplains associated with the proposed project corridor of Route B would be identical to Route A. 5 3.7 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 VEGETATION Vegetation resources include native or naturalized plants and serve as habitat for a variety of animal species. This section describes the affected environment for native and nonnative vegetation, including the climate that drives the development of plant communities in this region, basic classification of these plant communities, and a summary of plant species and communities documented within the proposed project corridor during surveys conducted in 2007. More detailed information on the vegetation resources documented during field surveys conducted in 2007, including methodologies and classification schemes, is presented in the Draft Biological Survey Report (see Appendix I). Draft EIS November 2007 3-25 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 Route A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The climate within the proposed project corridor is semiarid-subtropical/subhumid within the Modified Marine climatic type, in which summers are long and hot and winters are short, dry, and mild (Larkin and Bomar 1983, Bailey 1995). The marine climate results from the predominant onshore flow of tropical maritime air from the Gulf of Mexico. Onshore air flow is modified by a decrease in moisture content from east to west and by intermittent seasonal intrusions of continental air. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Average temperatures in Brownsville range from a low of 50 degrees Fahrenheit [°F] in January to a low of 76 °F in July, and a high of 64 °F in December to a high of 97 °F in August. Annual low and high temperatures for Brownsville range from 12 °F to 63 °F and 93 °F to 107 °F, respectively. The average annual precipitation of the Rio Grande Delta recorded in Brownsville ranges from 22 to 30 inches (Brownsville recorded 21.68 inches for 2006), and the distribution of rainfall is irregular. Wind speeds are stable ranging from 10.4 miles per hour (mph) to 17.3 mph during the year. A long growing season is experienced for the proposed project region, from 314 to 341 days. The evaporation rate during the summer season is high, about twice the amount of precipitation. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 The vegetation of the Rio Grande Delta of southern Texas has generally been classified under the Dry Domain, Tropical/Subtropical Steppe Division (Bailey 1995). The area surrounding the proposed project corridor is more finely classified as the Southwestern Plateau and Plains Dry Steppe and Shrub Province. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD 2007a) provides discussion and describes vegetation geography to biotic provinces and natural regions using topographic features, climate, vegetation types, and terrestrial vertebrates. This system places the project area in the Tamaulipan Biotic Province, South Texas Brush Country (Rio Grande Basin) Natural Region, and the Level III Ecoregions of the Southern Texas Plains and Western Gulf Coastal Plain. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Occurring within the Rio Grande Valley (technically a delta) of southern Texas and northern Mexico, Tamaulipan Brushland represents a unique ecosystem (USFWS 1988). The characteristic natural vegetation is dense and thorny, and plant species distribution can be correlated with geologic formations. The Rio Grande floodplain supports tall, dense riparian forest, woodland, shrubland, and herbaceous vegetation while the xeric upland areas support mostly spiny shrubs, short-stature trees, and dense nonnative grasslands. Between the 1920s and 1980s more than 95 percent of the native brushland and 90 percent of the riparian vegetation had been converted to agriculture and urban land use (USFWS 1988). In 1988, it was estimated that 98 percent of the lush, subtropical region of the Rio Grande Delta had been cleared of native vegetation in the United States and a large but unknown percentage cleared in Mexico. Draft EIS November 2007 3-26 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NatureServe (2007) has defined ecological systems to represent recurring groups of biological communities that are found in similar physical environments and are influenced by similar dynamic ecological processes such as fire or flooding. Ecological systems represent classification units that are readily identifiable by conservation and resource managers in the field. For this reason, the results of the field surveys conducted in 2007 are presented in terms of ecological systems as defined by NatureServe (2007): (1) Tamaulipan Calcareous Thornscrub, (2) Tamaulipan Mesquite Upland Scrub, (3) Tamaulipan Mixed Deciduous Thornscrub, (4) Tamaulipan Savanna Grassland, (5) Tamaulipan Arroyo Shrubland, (6) Tamaulipan Floodplain, (7) Tamaulipan Palm Grove Riparian Forest, and (8) North American Arid West Emergent Marsh. Further details on these ecological systems, including photodocumentation, are provided in Appendix I. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Habitats observed, sampled, and photographed within the proposed project corridor range from upland thorn-scrub on the western end of Section O-1, upper and mid-valley riparian forest and woodland communities throughout the proposed middle sections, and sabal palm and mid-delta thorn forests within Section O-21. Much of the vegetation cover along the sections consists of nonnative grassland species that are themselves dominant or often support an overstory of honey mesquite, retama, or huisache shrubs or small trees. Agricultural fields occur along much of the corridor as proposed and include sugar cane, sorghum, Johnsongrass, sunflowers, cotton, row crop vegetables particularly onions, citrus trees (grapefruit and orange), or fields that were fallow at the time of site visit. Urban development and private property with single homes occurs adjacent to several tactical infrastructure sections. 26 27 28 29 A description of each plant community observed within the proposed project corridor is provided in Appendix I. Table 3.7-1 provides a summary of the ecological systems observed in the proposed project corridor during the 2007 survey addressed in Appendix I. 30 31 32 33 34 35 Plant species recorded within the proposed project corridor for Sections O-1 through O-21 and their wetland indicator status (NRCS 2007) when appropriate are included in Appendix I. A total of 236 plant species were recorded. Of these 236 species, 129 were found in one fence section, and 6 (huisache, Bermuda grass, prickly pear, switchgrass, buffelgrass, and honey mesquite) were found in all 21 sections. 36 37 38 39 Section O-1 was the most species diverse, with 145 plant species recorded. This was the only section in which Taumalipan Calcareous Thornscrub was observed. This species rich ecological system contributed to the high number of plants recorded for this section. 40 Draft EIS November 2007 3-27 X X Tamaulipan Mesquite Upland Scrub Tamaulipan Mixed Deciduous Thornscrub Draft EIS 3-28 X X Non-native species X X X X X North American Arid West Emergent Marsh Tamaulipan Palm Grove Riparian Forest X Tamaulipan Floodplain X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O-11 X X X X O-12 X O-9 X X X X X O-13 X X X X X O-14 X O-7 X X X O-15 X O-6 X O-10 X X X O-16 X O-8 X X X X O-17 X O-5 X X X X X O-18 X O-4 X X X O-19 X O-3 X X X X O-20 Tamaulipan Arroyo Shrubland O-2 X X X X X O-21 Tamaulipan Savanna Grassland X O-1 Tamaulipan Calcareous Thornscrub Ecological System Fence Sections Table 3.7-1. Ecological Systems Present in Each Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Section Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure November 2007 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 Section O-2 was the second-most diverse with 82 plant species recorded. This section presented all the ecological systems that Section O-1 did, with the exception of the species rich Taumalipan Calcareous Thornscrub; hence its lower diversity. 5 6 7 8 9 Numbers of plant species for Sections O-3 through O-21 ranged from 9 (Section O-19) to 47 (Section O-14), with an average of 30 plant species per fence section. Section O-21 contained Tamaulipan Palm Grove Riparian Forest, the only other ecological system besides Taumalipan Calcareous Thornscrub to be represented in only one section. 10 Route B 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Route B shares the same general habitat descriptions as Route A. However, Route B would avoid some habitat rich areas, including the Arroyo Ramirez annex of the LRGVNWR (Section O-1), the Culebron Banco annex (Section O13), and the Tahuachal Banco annex (Section O-16). In Section O-2, Route B would completely traverse the Los Velas West and Los Velas annexes to the LRGVNWR, whereas Route A would only partially encroach into the Los Velas West annex. 18 3.8 19 20 Wildlife and aquatic resources include native or naturalized animals and the habitats in which they exist. 21 Route A 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 The Rio Grande Valley is a highly distinctive subregion of the South Texas Plains. The South Texas Plains ecoregion consists mostly of level to rolling terrain characterized by dense brush. Usually defined as Cameron, Willacy, Hidalgo, and Starr counties, the Rio Grande Valley contains the only subtropical area in Texas. The Rio Grande Valley brushland is considered an ecological transition zone between Mexico and the United States. This key community supports many rare, threatened, and endangered species and is a stopover for migrating neotropical birds (TPWD 2007a). 30 31 32 33 34 Most of the 70 miles of the proposed project corridor has been heavily disturbed by agriculture and grazing; however, some high-quality habitat was identified during an October 2007 survey (see Appendix I). Unique habitat includes wetlands, riparian areas, arroyos, the LRGVNWR, Texas state parks, and Wildlife Management Areas (WMA). 35 36 37 38 There are presently three National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) in the Rio Grande Valley: the Santa Ana NWR and LRGVNWR, which form a complex rather than two separate entities; and Laguna Atascosa NWR, which is outside the project area. WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES Draft EIS November 2007 3-29 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 Santa Ana NWR contains one of the largest remaining tracts of subtropical riparian forest and native brushland in south Texas and provides habitat for more endangered and threatened species than any other U.S. NWR (USFWS 1988). 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 The LRGVNWR, established February 2, 1979, is a component of a multipartner effort attempting to connect and protect blocks of rare and unique habitat, known locally as a Wildlife Corridor. The Wildlife Corridor partnership includes the USFWS, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), National Audubon Society, and private owners. Found within the lower four counties of Texas, the refuge currently contains more than 90,000 acres and is considered a top priority acquisition area by the USFWS. The refuge provides breeding and foraging habitat for numerous coastal wetland, inland wetland, and upland migratory bird species, and numerous other amphibians, reptiles, and mammal species (USFWS 2007b). Biotic communities located along the survey corridor are described in Section 3.7. 15 16 17 18 19 20 There are several tracts of land owned by TPWD and private conservation organizations throughout the Rio Grande Valley. The TPWD administers the Las Palomas WMA in Cameron, Hidalgo, Presidio, Starr, and Willacy counties. Bentsen-Rio Grande State Park is southwest of McAllen adjacent to the Rio Grande. The National Audubon Society’s Texas Sabal Palm Sanctuary is south of Brownsville along the Rio Grande (USFWS 1988). 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 The fauna representative of the Rio Grande Valley region is characterized as semi-tropical, with some tropical species at the northern limit of their ranges and, additionally, some Chihuahuan desert species. This region was once open grassland with a scattering of shrubs, low trees, and wooded floodplains along rivers. Overgrazing, the suppression of prairie fires, and other changes in land use patterns have transformed most of the grasslands into a thorn forest, covered with subtropical shrubs and trees (CBP 2003). 28 29 30 31 32 Common wildlife species observed during the October 2007 surveys are listed in Appendix I. Ninety-one species of vertebrates were recorded during an October 2007 survey, including 2 species of fish, 7 amphibians, 6 reptiles, 63 birds, and 13 mammals (see Appendix I). Section O-1, as with vegetation, was the most species-rich with 26 wildlife species recorded. 33 34 35 36 37 38 Past collections of fish from the Rio Grande suggest two indigenous faunal assemblages, upstream and downstream. A total of 104 species of fish have been recorded from the Rio Grande (Falcon Reservoir to Boca Chica). The upstream fauna is dominated by minnows and sunfishes, while the downstream fauna includes dominant estuarine and marine species of herrings, drums, and jacks (USACE 1994). 39 40 41 Two fish species, Texas cichlid (Herichthys cyanoguttatus) and mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), were observed in irrigation ditches during an October 2007 survey (see Appendix I). Draft EIS November 2007 3-30 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 Route B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The description of the affected environment for Route B is generally similar to that for Route A. However, Route B would avoid some habitat rich areas, including the Arroyo Ramirez annex of the LRGVNWR (Section O-1), the Culebron Banco annex (Section O-13), and the Tahuachal Banco annex (Section O-16). In Section O-2, Route B would completely traverse the Los Velas West and Los Velas annexes to the LRGVNWR, whereas Route A would only partially encroach into the Los Velas West annex. 9 3.9 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 10 11 12 13 14 Three groups of special status species are addressed in this EIS: Federalthreatened and -endangered species, state-threatened and -endangered species, and migratory birds. Each group has its own definitions, and legislative and regulatory drivers for consideration during the NEPA process; these are briefly described below. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 The ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 et seq.) provides broad protection for species of fish, wildlife, and plants that are listed as threatened or endangered in the United States or elsewhere. Provisions are made for listing species, as well as for recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat for listed species. Section 7 of the ESA outlines procedures for Federal agencies to follow when taking actions that could jeopardize listed species, and contains exceptions and exemptions. Criminal and civil penalties are provided for violations of the ESA. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 7 of the ESA directs all Federal agencies to use their existing authorities to conserve threatened and endangered species and, in consultation with the USFWS, to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Section 7 applies to management of Federal lands as well as other Federal actions that could affect listed species, such as approval of private activities through the issuance of Federal permits, licenses, or other actions. 29 30 31 32 33 Under the ESA, a Federal endangered species is defined as any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The ESA defines a Federal threatened species as any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 34 35 36 37 38 In 1973, the Texas legislature authorized the TPWD to establish a list of endangered animals in the state. State endangered species are those species which the Executive Director of the TPWD has named as being “threatened with statewide extinction.” Threatened species are those species which the TPWD has determined are likely to become endangered in the future (TPWD 2007b). Draft EIS November 2007 3-31 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 In 1988 the Texas legislature authorized TPWD to establish a list of and endangered plant species for the state. An endangered plant is "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its threatened plant is one that is likely to become endangered foreseeable future (TPWD 2007b). threatened one that is range.” A within the 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 TPWD regulations prohibit the taking, possession, transportation, or sale of any of the animal species designated by state law as endangered or threatened without the issuance of a permit. State laws and regulations prohibit commerce in threatened and endangered plants and the collection of listed plant species from public land without a permit issued by TPWD. Listing and recovery of endangered species in Texas is coordinated by the TPWD. The TPWD Wildlife Permitting Section is responsible for the issuance of permits for the handling of listed species (TPWD 2007b). 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 The MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703–712) as amended, implements various treaties for the protection of migratory birds. Under the MBTA, taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds is unlawful without a valid permit. Under EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, the USFWS has the responsibility to administer, oversee, and enforce the conservation provisions of the MBTA, which includes responsibility for population management (e.g., monitoring), habitat protection (e.g., acquisition, enhancement, and modification), international coordination, and regulations development and enforcement. The MBTA defines a migratory bird as any bird listed in 50 CFR 10.13, which includes nearly every native bird in North America. 24 25 26 27 28 The MBTA and EO 13186 require Federal agencies to minimize or avoid impacts on migratory birds listed in 50 CFR 10.13. If design and implementation of a Federal action cannot avoid measurable negative impact on migratory birds, EO 13186 requires the responsible agency to consult with the USFWS and obtain a Migratory Bird Depredation Permit. 29 3.9.1 30 Federal Species 31 32 33 34 Although 19 federally listed species have the potential to occur within the proposed project corridor (Table 3.9-1), the following 14 are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed construction, maintenance, and operation of the tactical infrastructure: 35 36 37 38 39 40 x x x x x x Route A Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Kemp's Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) Draft EIS November 2007 3-32 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 Table 3.9-1. Federal- and State-Threatened and Endangered Species in Texas, by County Common Name Blackfin goby Opossum pipefish Rio Grande silvery minnow River goby Black spotted newt Mexican burrowing toad Mexican treefrog Sheep frog South Texas siren (large form) White-lipped frog Black-striped snake Green sea turtle Hawksbill sea turtle Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle Leatherback sea turtle Loggerhead sea turtle Indigo snake Northern cat-eyed snake Reticulate collared lizard Speckled racer Texas horned lizard Texas scarlet snake Texas tortoise American peregrine falcon Arctic peregrine falcon Brown pelican Cactus ferruginous pygmyowl Common black-hawk Eskimo curlew Gray hawk Least tern Scientific Name FISH Gobionellus atripinnis Microphis brachyurus Hybognathus amarus Awaous banana AMPHIBIANS Notophthalmus meridionalis Rhinophrynus dorsalis Smilisca baudinii Hypopachus variolosus County Federal Status State Status C C S, H, C H, C T T E T S, H, C S S, H, C S, H, C T T T T Siren sp 1 S, H, C T Leptodactylus labialis REPTILES Coniophanes imperialis Chelonia mydas Eretmochelys imbricata Lepidochelys kempii Dermochelys coriacea Caretta caretta Drymarchon corais Leptodeira septentrionalis septentrionalis Crotaphytus reticulatus Drymobius margaritiferus Phrynosoma cornutum Cemophora coccinea lineri Gopherus berlandieri BIRDS Falco peregrinus anatum Falco peregrinus tundrius Pelecanus occidentalis Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum Buteogallus anthracinus Numenius borealis Asturina nitida Sterna antillarum S, H, C T H, C C C C C C S, H, C T T E E E T T Draft EIS E E E E T S, H, C T S, H H, C S, H, C C S, H T T T T T S, H, C S, H, C C E T E E S, H, C T S, H, C C S, H, C S, H, C T E T E E November 2007 3-33 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Common Name Mexican hooded oriole Northern Aplomado falcon Northern beardlesstyrannulet Piping plover Reddish egret Rose-throated becard Sooty tern Texas Botteri’s sparrow Tropical parula White-faced ibis White-tailed hawk Whooping crane Wood stork Zone-tailed hawk Coues’ rice rat Gulf Coast jaguarundi Ocelot Southern yellow bat White-nosed coati Ashy dogweed Johnston’s frankenia South Texas ambrosia Star cactus Texas ayenia Walker’s manioc Zapata bladderpod 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Scientific Name BIRDS (continued) Icterus cucullatus cucullatus Falco femoralis septentrionalis County Federal Status S H, C Camptostoma imberbe S, H, C Charadrius melodus Egretta rufescens Pachyramphus aglaiae Sterna fuscata Aimophila botterii texana Parula pitiayumi Plegadis chihi Buteo albicaudatus Grus americana Mycteria americana Buteo albonotatus MAMMALS Oryzomys couesi Herpailurus (=Felis) yaguarondi Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis Lasiurus ega Nasua narica PLANTS Thymophylla tephroleuca Frankenia johnstonii Ambrosia cheiranthifolia Astrophytum asterias Ayenia limitaris Manihot walkerae Lesquerella thamnophila H, C H, C S, H, C C H, C S, H, C H, C S, H, C S, H, C S, C S, C State Status T E E T T E S, H, C T T T T T T T T E T T T S, H, C E E S, H, C H, C S, H, C E E T T S S C S, H,C H,C S, H S E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Sources: TPWD 2007a and USFWS 2007b Notes: S = Starr County, Texas H = Hidalgo County, Texas C = Cameron County, Texas E = Endangered T = Threatened x x x x Least tern (Sterna antillarum) Northern Aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis septentrionalis) Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) Whooping crane (Grus americana) Draft EIS November 2007 3-34 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 x x x x Ashy dogweed (Thymophylla tephroleuca) Johnston's frankenia (Frankenia johnstonii) South Texas ambrosia (Ambrosia cheiranthifolia) Star cactus (Astrophytum asterias) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Sea turtles and brown pelican are coastal species, occupying habitats geographically separate from the proposed project corridor and any reasonably predictable impacts of fence construction, maintenance, and operation. While the historic ranges of the remaining species included this region of South Texas, available data indicate no known records of these species within or proximal to the proposed project corridor. Therefore, these 14 species are dismissed from further consideration. 12 13 14 15 The following sections provide brief descriptions of the known distribution and habitat preferences of, and threats to, the federally listed species considered further in this EIS. Additional details on the biology of these species are provided in Appendix I. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Gulf Coast jaguarundi (Herpailurus [=Felis] yaguarondi). The Gulf Coast jaguarundi, listed as endangered on June 14, 1976, is a secretive species for which little about its exact distribution in Texas is known. The only documented sighting of a jaguarundi in Texas was a road-killed specimen found in Cameron County. Possible counties where the jaguarundi might exist include Cameron, Duval, Hidalgo, Jim Wells, Kenedy, Kleberg, Live Oak, Nueces, San Patricio, Starr, Willacy, and Zapata. Jaguarundi still roam Latin and South America in greater numbers than seen in the United States (USFWS 1990). 24 25 26 27 28 29 The habitat of the jaguarundi is similar to the ocelot and is found within the Tamaulipan Biotic Province which includes several variations of subtropical thornscrub brush. Potential habitat includes four areas of the Rio Grande Valley: Mesquite-Granjeno Parks, Mesquite-Blackbrush Brush, Live Oak Woods/Parks, and Rio Grande Riparian. Jaguarundi prefer dense thornscrub habitats with greater than 95 percent canopy cover. 30 31 32 33 34 The greatest threat to jaguarundi populations in the United States is habitat loss and fragmentation in southern Texas. The jaguarundi requires a large hunting area and appropriate habitat is being lost to development and agriculture. This creates islands of habitat where the jaguarundi cannot migrate from area to area, leaving them vulnerable. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Ocelot (Leopardus [=Felis] pardalis). The ocelot, listed as endangered on March 28, 1972, is found from the southern extremes of Texas and Arizona and northern Mexico into northern Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Little is known of the exact distribution of the ocelot in Texas. Ocelots recorded by trapping or photo documentation include several areas within five counties: Cameron, Willacy, Kenedy, Jim Wells, and Hidalgo. Counties that have been identified as having potential ocelot habitat include Cameron, Duval, Hidalgo, Jim Wells, Draft EIS November 2007 3-35 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 Kenedy, Kleberg, Live Oak, Nueces, San Patricio, Starr, Willacy, and Zapata (USFWS 1990). 3 4 5 6 7 8 The habitat of the ocelot is found within the Tamaulipan Biotic Province which includes several variations of subtropical thornscrub brush. Potential habitat includes four areas of the Rio Grande Valley: Mesquite-Granjeno Parks, Mesquite-Blackbrush Brush, Live Oak Woods/Parks, and Rio Grande Riparian. Ocelots prefer dense thornscrub habitats with greater than 95 percent canopy cover. 9 10 11 Habitat loss and fragmentation especially along the Rio Grande pose a critical threat to the long-term survival of the ocelot. Efforts are underway to preserve key habitat and biological corridors necessary for ocelot survival (USFWS 1990). 12 13 14 15 16 17 Texas ayenia (Ayenia limitaris). The Texas ayenia was listed as endangered on September 23, 1994. This plant is an endemic species of southern Texas and northern Mexico whose historical range included Cameron and Hidalgo counties, Texas, and the states of Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas in Mexico. The status of Mexican populations is unknown at the time. The only confirmed population of the Texas ayenia lies on private property within Hidalgo County. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Texas ayenia occupies dense subtropical woodland communities at low elevations. The current population occupies a Texas Ebony – Anacua (Pithecellobium ebano-Ehretia anacua) plant community. This plant community occurs on well-drained riparian terraces with canopy cover close to 95 percent. Species found in this community include Ia coma (Bumelia celastrina), brasil (Condalia hookeri), granjeno (Celtis pollicki), and snake-eyes (Phaulothamnus spinesceris). La coma was not documented in the proposed project corridor, but granjeno was common throughout most of the proposed project corridor and cooccurred with brasil and snake-eyes in Sections O-1 and O-2, indicating that these areas might provide suitable habitat for Texas ayenia. However, no Texas ayenia were observed during the October 2007 survey (see Appendix I). 29 30 31 32 Habitat loss and degradation from agriculture or urban development have reduced the Texas Ebony – Anacua vegetation community by greater than 95 percent. Texas ayenia has been reduced to one known population of 20 individuals that is extremely vulnerable to extinction. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Walker’s manioc (Manihot walkerae). Walker’s manioc was listed as endangered on October 2, 1991. This plant is an endemic species of the Rio Grande Valley of Texas and northern Mexico. One population exists in Tamaulipas, Mexico, and one population has been observed in the United States in Hidalgo County, Texas. However, it consists of only one plant (USFWS 1993). High-quality habitat for Walker’s manioc was observed in the proposed project corridor for Section O-1; however, no individuals of this species were found. Draft EIS November 2007 3-36 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 Walker’s manioc usually grows among low shrubs, native grasses, and herbaceous plants, either in full sunlight, or in partial shade of shrubs. It is found in sandy, calcareous soil, shallowly overlying indurated caliche and conglomerate of the Goliad Formation on rather xeric slopes and uplands, or over limestone. 5 6 7 8 More than 95 percent of Walker’s manioc native brush habitat has been cleared in the United States for agriculture, urban development, and recreation. The United States population has been reduced to a single plant that makes the species extremely vulnerable to extinction in the United States (USFWS 1993). 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Zapata bladderpod (Lesquerella thamnophila). The Zapata bladderpod was listed as endangered on November 22, 1999. This plant is an endemic species to southern Texas and possibly northern Mexico. Four populations are known in Starr County: two populations are found on the LRGVNWR and two occur on private land. Three populations are known from Zapata County: two are located on highway ROWs between the towns of Zapata and Falcon and another lies near Falcon Lake (USFWS 2004). High-quality habitat for Zapata bladderpod was observed in the survey corridor for Section O-1; however, no individuals of this species were found. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 The Zapata bladderpod occurs on graveled to sandy-loam upland terraces above the Rio Grande floodplain. It is associated with highly calcareous sandstones and clays. The bladderpod is a component of an open Leucophyllum fretescens – Acacia berlanderi shrubland alliance. The shrublands are sparsely vegetated and include the following species Acacia ridigula, Prosopis sp., Celtis pallida, Yucca treculeana, Zizyphus obtusifolia, and Guaiacum angustifolium (USFWS 2004). 25 26 27 28 29 Habitat modification and destruction from increased road and highway construction and urban development; increased oil and gas exploration and development; and conversion of plant communities to improve pastures, overgrazing, and vulnerability due to low population numbers are all threats to the Zapata bladderpod (USFWS 2004). 30 State Species 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 There are 52 state-listed species that have the potential to occur within or proximal to the proposed project corridors in the southernmost portions of Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties: 4 fish, 6 amphibians, 8 reptiles, 22 birds, 5 mammals, and 7 plants (see Table 3.9-1). Of these, 12 are also federally listed species: 3 birds; 2 mammals; and 7 plants. No Federal threatened or endangered species were observed during an October 2007 survey (see Appendix I). State-listed species observed during an October 2007 survey included the Mexican treefrog (Smilisca baudinii) and the Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum). Potential habitats for the white-lipped frog (Leptodactylus labialis) and Mexican burrowing toad (Rhinophrynus dorsalis) were observed in Sections O-8 and O-2, respectively. Draft EIS November 2007 3-37 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 The following paragraphs provide brief descriptions of the distribution and habitat of state-listed species for which individuals or suitable habitat were observed during the October 2007 survey (see Appendix I). 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mexican treefrog (Smilisca baudinii). The Mexican treefrog is found along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and inland from South Texas into northern Mexico. In Texas, it is found in the extreme southern tip of the state. This nocturnal frog prefers subhumid regions and breeding occurs year-round with rainfall. It is seen near streams and in resacas. It finds shelter under loose tree bark or in damp soil during the heat of the day (University of Texas 1998). This species was observed in Section O-10. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum). The Texas horned lizard ranges from the south-central United States to northern Mexico, throughout much of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and New Mexico. It can be found in arid and semiarid habitats in open areas with sparse plant cover. Because horned lizards dig for hibernation, nesting, and insulation purposes, they commonly are found in loose sand or loamy soils (TPWD 2007c). This species was observed in Section O-2. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 White-lipped frog (Leptodactylus labialis). The white-lipped frog is found in the extreme southern tip of Texas. This frog’s habitat consists of various moist places including roadside ditches, irrigated fields, and low grasslands. This nocturnal frog burrows in the damp soil during the day and forages at night. Breeding takes place in the Spring with heavy rains (University of Texas 1998). Potential habitat for this species was observed in Section O-8, but no individuals were found (see Appendix I). 25 26 27 28 29 30 Mexican burrowing toad (Rhinophrynus dorsalis). The Mexican burrowing toad is found in extreme South Texas. This nocturnal toad prefers low areas with loose soil (e.g., cultivated fields) and feeds on termites and ants. Breeding occurs after heavy rains (University of Texas 1998). Potential habitat for this species was observed in Section O-2, but no individuals were found (see Appendix I). 31 Migratory Birds 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 The Rio Grande Valley provides important habitat for migratory birds. The Central and Mississippi flyways meet here and the most southern tip of Texas is also the northernmost range for many bird species (USFWS 2001). Nearly 500 bird species, including neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, raptors, and waterfowl, can be found in the Rio Grande Valley. For species such as the plain chachalaca, green jay, great kiskadee, and least grebe, this is the only area in the nation in which they can be observed (USFWS 2001). Draft EIS November 2007 3-38 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 3.9.2 Route B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The description of the affected environment for Route B is generally similar to that for Route A. However, Route B would avoid some habitat rich areas, including the Arroyo Ramirez annex of the LRGVNWR (Section O-1), the Culebron Banco annex (Section O-13), and the Tahuachal Banco annex (Section O-16). In Section O-2, Route B would completely traverse the Los Velas West and Los Velas annexes to the LRGVNWR, whereas Route A would only partially encroach into the Los Velas West annex. 9 3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES 10 11 12 13 14 15 Cultural resources are commonly subdivided into archaeological resources (prehistoric or historic sites where human activity has left physical evidence of that activity but no structures remain standing), architectural resources (buildings or other structures or groups of structures that are of historic, architectural, or other significance), and traditional cultural resources (e.g., traditional gathering areas, locations referenced in origin myths or traditional stories). 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Archaeological resources comprise areas where human activity has measurably altered the earth or where deposits of physical remains of human activity are found. Architectural resources include standing buildings, bridges, dams, and other structures of historic, architectural, engineering, or aesthetic significance. Traditional cultural resources include traditional cultural properties (TCPs), which are properties eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) that Native Americans or other groups consider essential for the preservation of traditional cultures. Examples of TCPs are archaeological resources, prominent topographic features, habitat, plants, minerals, or animals and their physical location or resource referent. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 The NRHP is the official listing of properties significant in U.S. history, architecture, or prehistory, and includes both publicly and privately owned properties. The list is administered by the National Park Service (NPS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior. Cultural resources that are listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP (36 CFR 800.16(l)) are called historic properties. Properties are determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP by the Secretary of the Interior (NPS) or by consensus of a Federal agency official and the SHPO. Generally, resources must be more than 50 years old to be considered for listing in the NRHP. More recent resources, such as Cold War-era buildings, might warrant listing if they have the potential to gain significance in the future or if they meet “exceptional” significance criteria. NRHP-listed properties of exceptional national significance can also be designated as National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) by the Secretary of the Interior. 39 40 Buildings, structures, sites, objects, or districts are property types that might be historic properties. To be listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource Draft EIS November 2007 3-39 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 must be one of these property types, generally should be at least 50 years of age or older, and must meet at least one of the four following criteria (36 CFR 60.4): 3 4 x The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of history (Criterion A). 5 6 x The resource is associated with the lives of people significant in the past (Criterion B). 7 8 9 10 x The resource embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represents the work of a master; possesses high artistic value; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components might lack individual distinction (Criterion C). 11 12 x The resource has yielded, or could be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D). 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 In addition to meeting at least one of the above criteria, a historic property must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Integrity is defined as the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, as evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics it possessed in the past and its capacity to convey information about a culture or group of people, a historic pattern, or a specific type of architectural or engineering design or technology. Resources that might not be considered individually significant can be considered eligible for listing on the NRHP as part of a historic district. According to the NPS, a historic district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects that are historically or aesthetically united by plan or physical development. 25 Route A 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Area of Potential Effect. According to 36 CFR Part 800, the Area of Potential Effect (APE) of a Federal undertaking is defined as the geographical area within which impacts on historic properties might occur if such properties hypothetically exist. The APE should account for both direct and indirect impacts. 36 CFR 800.5(a)(2) specifically cites visual impacts and changes to the setting of a historic property where the setting contributes to the significance of the property as adverse. Other possible adverse impacts include damage or destruction of historic properties due to grading, construction, noise, or vibrations. 34 35 36 37 38 39 Under Alternative 2, direct construction impacts would occur within a 60-footwide corridor that accounts for grading of vegetation and fence construction. Under Alternative 3, the construction APE would directly affect a 150-foot-wide corridor. A larger APE has been developed for both Alternatives 2 and 3 for impacts to architectural resources. Topography, type and density of vegetation and intervening development, orientation of streets and properties in relation to Draft EIS November 2007 3-40 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 the alternatives, traffic patterns, and surrounding development all are factors to be considered in the definition of this latter APE. 3 4 5 Several Native American tribes with ancestral ties to lands within the Rio Grande Valley Sector have been contacted for input into the cultural resources survey as required under NHPA (see Appendix B). 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Archaeological and Historical Overview. The history of the Rio Grande Valley is rich, unique, and important. The Rio Grande has been a critical conduit for trade and transportation, and a natural border between interests to the north and the south. Evidence of human occupation in the region is abundant. The area’s archaeological record is dominated by open-air sites, burned rock middens, lithic artifact scatters, clay dunes in the Rio Grande delta, and shell middens near the coast. These sites are difficult to identify and date because of heavy erosion, shallow soil horizons, and extensive artifact removal by collectors. The lack of excavation of deeply stratified subsurface sites means that the chronology of the south Texas plains is poorly understood. 16 17 The pre-Contact history of the South Texas plains can be divided into three general cultural periods: 18 19 20 21 22 1. The Paleoindian period represents the first documented human occupation of the region. Evidence of the earliest Paleoindian complexes, Clovis and Folsom, has been found throughout South Texas, although most of this evidence is from surface collections of the distinctive fluted points that characterize these complexes. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 2. The Archaic period in South Texas is divided into the early, middle, and late subperiods based on subtle changes in material cultural and settlement patterns. During this period, hunting and gathering continued as the primary means of subsistence, but populations responded to fluctuations in regional climate by exploiting an increasingly wide range of plant and animal resources and geographic settings for settlement and subsistence. Late Archaic sites are relatively common in the project area, suggesting increasing population density through time (Hester et al. 1989). 31 32 33 34 3. The Late Prehistoric period (A.D. 700–European Contact) is welldocumented in the region and is characterized by the appearance of pottery and the bow and arrow, although point typologies have not been formalized (Hester et al. 1989). 35 36 37 38 39 The post-Contact history of the region is typically broken into the Spanish colonial period (ca. 1519–1822), Early Anglo-European period (1822–1845), the Texas Republic period (1836–1846), and the American period (1848–present). A detailed discussion of these periods can be found in Appendix J, Preliminary Cultural Resources Findings. Draft EIS November 2007 3-41 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Known Resources within the APE. The proposed project corridor would cross two historic districts that are designated NHLs: the Roma Historic District and Fort Brown. It would extend adjacent to or within the bounds of four additional NRHP-listed properties: Fort Ringgold Historic District, Louisiana-Rio Grande Canal Company Irrigation System Historic District (including Hidalgo Pumphouse), Neale House, and Old Brulay Plantation. It would be in the general vicinity of many other NRHP-listed properties, such as the Rancho Toluca Historic District, the La Lomita Historic District, the Gems Building, and the Stillman House. It is known that additional architectural resources eligible for the NRHP but not formally nominated for listing also occur in the vicinity of the proposed project corridor. Other resources that meet the NRHP eligibility criteria but that have not been inventoried or evaluated are expected. Historic-era property types in the Rio Grande Valley area include historic residential, commercial, and institutional buildings both in settled communities and in rural contexts; military forts; transportation resources (ferry crossing and ferry, suspension bridge); cemeteries; religious complexes; industrial resources (irrigation systems and associated water pumphouses); and farmsteads, plantations, and ranch complexes. These might occur as standing structures or historic archaeological sites. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In general, historic archaeological sites might be expected to include forts, shipwrecks, early Republic and American-period sites, homesteads, industrial archaeological sites such as potteries and early irrigation and agricultural sites and features, and historic trash scatters. It also is possible that early Spanish and Mexican colonial remains might be found. Additional types of historic archaeological sites might be identified upon further research. Two historical archaeological sites previously recorded within the APE are listed on the NRHP (Fort Ringgold and Fort Brown, the latter designated an NHL). A detailed discussion of these historic resources can be found in Appendix J. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Previously reported prehistoric archaeological resources within a mile of the proposed project corridor are primarily open-air campsites and lithic scatters. Temporal and cultural affiliations of the sites are unclear, and few sites are very extensive. The recorders did not evaluate the NRHP eligibility of most of them. Additional prehistoric sites are expected to be found. Should any sites be found through archaeological surveys, they will be considered for various treatment options such as redesigning the project or data recovery. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 An archaeological survey of a 150-foot-wide corridor for each proposed tactical infrastructure section (inclusive of the direct impact APEs for both Alternatives 2 and 3) is in progress, as well as an architectural survey. The goal of these surveys is to identify historic properties potentially affected by the Proposed Action. The preliminary findings of surveys within the proposed tactical infrastructure sections completed to date are presented in Appendix J. The completed surveys and final findings will be provided in the Final EIS. Information about previously recorded archaeological, historical, and architectural sites within the 150-foot survey corridor and within a 1-mile radius of the corridor Draft EIS November 2007 3-42 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 was gathered from the Texas Historical Commission (THC) Historic Sites Atlas and Archaeological Sites Atlas. This information was plotted on project maps, aerial photographs, and topographic maps to identify areas of interest for further identification and evaluation. 5 6 7 Consultations with tribes is ongoing; as of November 2007, no resources of traditional, religious, or cultural significance to Native American tribes have been identified within the APE (direct construction impacts) (see Appendix B). 8 Route B 9 10 11 12 The historic context and cultural resource setting for Route B is generally the same as that described for Route A. However, to the extent that the impacts to specific cultural resources may be different along Route B, those specific resource differences are described in Section 4.10.2. 13 3.11 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 USBP does not currently have a standard methodology for analysis and assessment of impacts on visual resources. Accordingly a standard methodology developed by another Federal agency was adopted for the analysis and assessment of impacts on visual resources for this EIS. Methodologies reviewed included those developed by the NPS, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). It was determined that the FHWA methodology was the most applicable for this analysis due to its focus on linear corridors that include a variety of features and cross-cut a variety of landscapes. The FHWA methodology examines visual resources in similar ways (texture, contrast, visual quality) as those of NPS and BLM, but unlike those methodologies, the FHWA does not tie the assessment to the management goals for a given parcel of land (i.e., BLM- and NPS-owned land parcels typically have specific management goals and the assessment of impacts on visual resources within a given parcel is tied to the management priorities for those parcels). 29 30 31 32 33 34 The discussion in the following paragraphs summarizes the methology presented in FHWA Publication No. FHWA-HI-88-054: Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (USDOT undated). Under the FHWA approach, the major components of the visual analysis process include establishing the visual environment of the project, assessing the visual resources of the project area, and identifying viewer response to those resources. 35 36 37 38 39 40 Establishing a Visual Environment. Two related steps are performed to characterize the visual environment: (1) develop a framework for visual assessment that will help compare project alternatives and (2) define the physical limits of the visual environment that each alternative might affect. The landscape classification process establishes the general visual environment of a project and its place in the regional landscape. The starting point for the classification is an Draft EIS November 2007 3-43 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 understanding of the landscape components that make up the regional landscape, which then allows comparisons between landscapes. Regional landscapes consist of landforms (or topography) and land cover. It should be noted that land cover is not equivalent to land use, as that term is defined and used in Section 3.4. Land cover is essential of identification of what features (e.g., water, vegetation, type of man-made development) dominate the land within a given parcel. Examples of land cover would include agricultural field, housing development, airport, forest, grassland, and reservoir. While there is some overlap with land use, land cover does not distinguish function or ownership of parcels. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Relatively homogenous combinations of landforms and land cover that recur throughout a region can be considered landscape types. To provide a framework for comparing the visual impacts of the project alternatives, regional landscape is divided into distinct landscape units; these are usually enclosed by clear landform or land cover boundaries and many of the views within the unit are inward-looking. Landscape units are usually characterized by diverse visual resources, and it is common for several landscape types to be in view at any one time. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Assessing the Visual Resources. An assessment of the visual resources within a project area involves characterization of the character and quality of those resources. Descriptions of visual character can distinguish at least two levels of attributes: pattern elements and pattern character. Visual pattern elements are primary visual attributes of objects; they include form, line, color, and texture. Awareness of these pattern elements varies with distance. The visual contrast between a project and its visual environment can frequently be traced to four aspects of pattern character: dominance, scale, diversity, and continuity. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Visual quality is subjective, as it relies on the viewer’s enjoyment or interpretation of experience. For example, there is a clear public agreement that the visual resources of certain landscapes have high visual quality and that plans for projects in those areas should be subject to careful examination. Approaches to assessing visual quality include identifying landscapes already recognized at the national, regional, or local level for their visual excellence (e.g., NHLs, National Scenic Rivers); asking viewers to identify quality visual resources; or looking to the regional landscape for specific resource indicators of visual quality. One evaluative approach that has proven useful includes three criteria: vividness (the visual power or memorability of the landscape), intactness (the visual integrity of the natural and man-made landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements), and unity (the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole). A high value for all three criteria equates to a high visual quality; combinations of lesser values indicate moderate or low visual quality. It should be noted that low visual quality does not necessarily mean that there will be no concern over the visual impacts of a project. In instances such Draft EIS November 2007 3-44 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 as urban settings, communities might ask that projects be designed to improve existing visual quality. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Identifying Viewer Response. An understanding of the viewers who might see the project and the aspects of the visual environment to which they are likely to respond is important to understanding and predicting viewer response to the appearance of a project. The receptivity of different viewer groups to the visual environment and its elements is not equal. Viewer sensitivity is strongly related to visual preference; it modifies visual experience directly by means of viewer activity and awareness, and indirectly by means of values, opinions, and preconceptions. Because viewers in some settings are more likely to share common distractions, activities, and awareness of their visual environment, it is reasonable to distinguish among project viewers located in residential, recreational, and industrial areas. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Visual awareness is the extent to which the receptivity of viewers is heightened by the immediate experience of visual resource characteristics. Visual change heightens awareness, for example, a landscape transition, such as entering a mountain range or a major city, can heighten viewer awareness within that particular viewshed. Measures that modify viewer exposure, such as selective clearing or screening, can also be deliberately employed to modify viewer awareness. Viewers also tend to notice and value the unusual, so they might see more value in preserving the view towards a particularly dramatic stand of trees than the view towards more ubiquitous landscape features. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Local values and goals operate indirectly on viewer experience by shaping view expectations, aspirations, and appreciations. For example, at a regional or national level, viewers might be particularly sensitive to the visual resources and appearance of a particular landscape due to its cultural significance, and any visual evidence of change might be seen as a threat to these values or resources. Concern over the appearance of the Proposed Action often might be based on how it will affect the visual character of an area rather than on the particular visual resources it will displace. 31 32 33 34 Aesthetics is the science or philosophy concerned with the quality of visual experience. One cannot meaningfully assess the impacts of an action on visual experience unless one considers both the stimulus (visual resources) and the response (viewers) aspects of that experience. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Visual Environment. Based on the Physiographic Map of Texas (University of Texas 2006), the proposed project corridor crosses portions of the Coastal Prairies and Interior Coastal Plains subprovinces of the Gulf Coast Plains physiographic province. Within the Coastal Prairies subprovince (Sections O-7 through O-21), young deltaic sands, silts, and clays erode to nearly flat grasslands that form almost imperceptible slopes to the southeast. Minor steep slopes, from 1 foot to as much as 9 feet high, result from subsidence of deltaic sediments along faults. The Interior Coastal Plains subprovince (Sections O-1 Draft EIS November 2007 3-45 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 through O-6) composes alternating belts of resistant uncemented sands among weaker shales that erode into long, sandy ridges. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Primary landform types present within the APEs include the Rio Grande channel, its active floodplain and terraces, the man-made levee and floodway system, arroyos feeding into the Rio Grande, low to moderate height cliffs formed through subsidence, soil erosion, downcutting of arroyos into the soft sediments, various irrigation canals and ditches, vegetation-covered dunes, small ponds, and low sand ridges. Within the relict floodplain are a number of abandoned meander loops, some containing water (ponds) and some only visible as traces on aerial photographs. The terraces and floodplain of the Rio Grande, which are parallel or adjacent to the river, range from extremely narrow landforms to broad level expanses as much as 3 miles wide in places. Flooding on the nearly level terraces along the Rio Grande is controlled by seven watershed structures built under P.L. 566. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Landcover overlying these landforms can be simplified into four primary types: agriculture, park/refuge, developed, and undeveloped. Each type can be broken down further (e.g., developed lands could be separated by the density or type of development, such as town vs. city, or residential vs. commercial). There are also certain features that cross-cut or link landcover types, such as transportation features (e.g., highways, paved and unpaved roads, bridges) or flood control features (e.g., the levee system). 22 23 24 At the macro level of analysis, the Rio Grande Valley is a distinct land unit. Within that larger land unit, combinations of landform types with the range of land cover types form smaller land units: 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 x Park/refuge land unit. This unit includes portions of the Rio Grande floodplain and terraces that have been subject to minimal development, so that the natural vegetation and topography dominate. Landcover types subsumed within this land unit include park/refuge and undeveloped. Landforms include the Rio Grande floodplain and terrace, vegetated dune ridges, arroyos, and cliffs. Transportation features include paved and unpaved roads, bridges, and trail networks; flood control features include the levee and floodway. This land unit can also include occasional structures and buildings. Primary examples are the discontiguous sections of the LRGVNWR (see Figure 3.11-1). This land unit is present within the proposed project corridor Sections O-1, O-2, O-3, O-4, O-5, O7, O-8, O-10, O-11, O-13, O-16, O-18, and O-21. Draft EIS November 2007 3-46 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Figure 3.11-1. Photograph View of Arroyo within Wildlife Refuge (Section O-1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 x Rural land unit. This unit includes the terraces of the Rio Grande where they are overlain by agriculture and range lands; however, the character of the underlying landforms is still clearly visible and plays a role in the placement of overlying features (see Figure 3.11-2). Typical features include field breaks, irrigation features, unpaved roads, occasional farmsteads or ranches typically located in clusters of trees, occasional water towers, and larger metal utility towers. This land unit is present within all 21 proposed tactical infrastructure sections. Figure 3.11-2. Photograph View of Typical Rural Land Unit (Section O-17) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 x Town/Suburban Development land unit. This unit includes the terraces of the Rio Grande where they are overlain by low- to moderate-density development, often connected with gridded road networks (paved and unpaved). The underlying landforms are visible in places but, except for water sources (e.g., ponds, reservoirs, or lakes), the topography and form of the land do not play a significant role in the layout or location of overlying features. Typical features include houses, small outbuildings, driveways, planned landscaping, clumps or lines of trees, small commercial buildings, water towers, and overhead power lines on poles Draft EIS November 2007 3-47 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure rather than towers. Examples would be the town of Los Ebanos in Section O-3 (see Figure 3.11-3), the town of Granjeno in Section O-5, and the subdivisions of Joann and Galaxia in Section O-18. This land unit is present within the proposed project corridor Sections O-1, O-3, O-4, O-5, O-6, O-9, O-14, O-15, O-16, O-17, O-18, O-19, O-20, and O-21. 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 3.11-3. Photograph View of Town of Los Ebanos (Section O-3) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 x Urban/Industrial land unit. This unit includes the terraces of the Rio Grande where they are overlain by moderate- to high-density mixed use development. The underlying landforms are almost completely masked by man-made features and play little or no role in the layout or location of overlying features. Typical features include buildings of varying heights, sizes, and materials; a mixture of gridded and more organic road networks (primarily paved); planned park areas (often near water sources); open paved areas (e.g., parking areas); the larger POEs; industrial and commercial areas; overhead utility lines on poles; elevated roadways and overpasses; and elevated signage. Examples include the city of Roma in Section O-1, Rio Grande City in Section O-2 (see Figure 3.11-4), and Hidalgo in Section O-6. This land unit is present within the proposed project corridor Sections O-2, O-4, O-6, O-10, O-14, O-17, O-19, O-20, and O-21. Draft EIS November 2007 3-48 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Figure 3.11-4. Photograph View of Rio Grande City POE (Section O-2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Character and Quality of Visual Resources. Tables 3.11-1 and 3.11-2 provide summaries of the visual character and quality, respectively, of visual resources observed within the land units within the Rio Grande Valley Sector. Values reflect visual character and visual quality of resources visible from distances of 50 feet to 1,000 feet (see Figure 3.11-5). It should also be noted that, at these distances, direct views of the Rio Grande and active floodplain are typically seen only from the vantage of riverfront parks, refuge trails, bridges across the river (POEs), tall office or residential buildings, or from the top of the levee. For viewers not occupying one of these vantage points, typical views toward the proposed fences are obstructed by the levees, buildings, or vegetation. 11 12 Additionally, the amount of visual clutter between the viewer and the proposed project corridors increases with distance. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 In terms of visual quality, the analysis presumes that any view that includes the Rio Grande constitutes a high-quality view, except for views dominated by industrial or commercial elements (e.g., views of the POEs). Similarly, given that quality of view can be somewhat subjective, it is possible to find at least one lowand one high-quality view within any land unit type. For example, someone with an interest in old railroad bridges might find the view of the bridge in Section O-17 to be memorable, while other viewers might only see a large rusted metal structure blocking an otherwise natural view. Rather than simply provide a range of ratings of low to high for each, the quality of the most common views within a given land unit type was used. 23 24 25 26 In addition to these averaged assessments of visual character and quality of resources within each land unit type, there are a number of specific visual resources considered to be of particular importance because of their natural or cultural value, such as those listed in the following: Draft EIS November 2007 3-49 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 Table 3.11-1. Character of Visual Resources within Typical Rio Grande Valley Land Units (Current Conditions) Land Unit Line Color Form Texture Mostly horizontal and gentle curves Earthy (browns, greens) punctuated by seasonal brightness Mostly curved, organic shapes Low to moderate variety depending on mix of vegetation and inclusion of water elements Earthy colors (bare earth and crops) Rural Primarily horizontal lines (fields, roads, canals), with occasional vertical elements (silos, utility towers, tree lines, buildings) Mixture of angled and curved forms (roads and buildings vs. rolling hills and meandering river) Relatively subtle variations in texture (mostly bare earth or crops) Town/Suburban Development Mixed vertical (trees, utility poles, water towers, buildings) and horizontal (similar heights of buildings, lines of trees or shrubs, roads, lawns) lines Variety of colors due to mix of manmade and natural elements Variety of forms due to mixture of man-made and natural elements Variety of textures due to mix of manmade and natural elements Vertical lines more prominent than horizontal Often a high variety of colors associated with buildings, signs, green spaces Primarily rectilinear forms but can be punctuated by curves from more elaborate architecture or organic shapes of natural elements Variety of textures related to different building materials against natural textures in green spaces Park/Refuge Urban/Industrial Draft EIS November 2007 3-50 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 Table 3.11-2. Quality of Visual Resources within Typical Rio Grande Valley Land Units (Current Conditions) Vividness Intactness Unity Rating Moderate/High Moderate/High Moderate/High Moderate/High Rural Moderate Moderate/High Moderate/High Moderate/High Town/Suburban Development Moderate Low/Moderate Low/Moderate Low/Moderate Urban/Industrial Low to High Moderate Low to High Moderate Park/Refuge 3 4 5 x LRGVNWR (Sections O-1, O-2, O-11, O-13, O-16, O-18, O-20, and O-21) 6 x Roma World Birding Center and Overlook (Section O-1) 7 x Roma Historic District and NHL (Section O-1) 8 x Fort Ringgold Historic District/Site 41SR142 (earthworks) (Section O-2) 9 x Los Ebanos Ferry Crossing (Section O-3) 10 x Peñitas Cemetery (Section O-4) 11 x Bentsen Rio Grande Valley State Park (Section O-4) 12 x La Lomita Historic District (Section O-5) 13 x Town of Granjeno and Granjeno Cemetery (Section O-5) 14 x Old Hidalgo Pumphouse Nature Park (Section O-6) 15 16 x Louisiana-Rio Grande Canal Company Irrigation System Historic District (Section O-6) 17 x Toluca Ranch Historic District (Section O-10) 18 x Sabas Cavazos Cemetery (Section O-13) 19 x Hope Park (Section O-19) 20 x Neale House (Section O-19) 21 x Fort Brown Historic District and NHL (Section O-19) 22 x City of Brownsville Lincoln Park (Section O-20) 23 x Stillman House (Section O-20) 24 x Santa Rosalia Cemetery (Section O-21) 25 x Audubon Texas Sabal Palm Sanctuary (Section O-21) Draft EIS November 2007 3-51 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 Figure 3.11-5. Schematic Showing Visibility of Fencing at Various Distances Draft EIS November 2007 3-52 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 x Berry Farms Cemetery (Section O-21) 2 3 x Old Brulay Plantation Historic District and Brulay Cemetery (Section O-21). 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Viewer Response. The pool of viewers making up the affected environment includes single individuals, such as rural landowners on whose property the fence would be constructed, and groups of individuals such as residents of the towns of Los Ebanos or Granjeno, business owners within the City of Hidalgo, or recreational users of public access recreation areas. Viewers could also include avocational groups such as local historical societies or local chapters of the National Audubon Society that have interests in preserving the settings of cultural or natural resources. These viewers are likely to have both individual responses to specific resources related to their experiences and emotional connection to those resources, as well as collective responses to visual resources considered to be important on a regional, state, or national level. Although individual viewer responses will be captured where possible from viewer comments, for the purposes of this analysis, the pool of affected viewers will be grouped into the following general categories: x - Rural landowners, primarily farmers and ranchers - Town lots and suburban developments - Urban residents 19 20 21 22 x x x 33 34 35 36 37 Recreational viewers - Visitors to parks and wildlife refuges - Tourists visiting towns and cities 30 31 32 Industrial viewers - Rural industries (e.g., pump stations, pipeline monitors) - Town and urban 27 28 29 Commercial viewers - Rural farms, ranches, and isolated businesses - Town-based businesses - Urban businesses 23 24 25 26 Residential viewers x Special interest viewers - Native American tribes Local historical societies Local chapters of conservation societies (e.g., Audubon Society) Park commissions Regulatory agencies (e.g., USFWS, THC) Draft EIS November 2007 3-53 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 x Intermittent viewers (view primarily from transportation corridors) - Commuters - Commercial (e.g., truck drivers, railroad operators, ferry operator). 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Within each of these categories, viewer response will also vary depending on the typical duration of exposure to visual resources and the typical distance from which they view those resources. For example, a residential viewer who currently has an unobstructed view of a high-quality resource from their backyard will be impacted differently than a residential viewer who lives several streets away and already has an obstructed view of those resources. Similarly, a viewer that only views a resource such as the LRGVNWR from the highway as they pass through the region will have a different viewer response relative to that resource than a viewer that regularly hikes the trails within the LRGVNWR. 13 14 3.12 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND SAFETY 15 16 17 Socioeconomic Resources. Socioeconomics is defined as the basic attributes and resources associated with the human environment, particularly characteristics of population and economic activity. 18 19 20 21 22 Socioeconomic data in this section are presented at the community and county levels to characterize baseline socioeconomic conditions in the context of regional and state trends. Data have been collected from previously published documents issued by Federal, state, and local agencies; and from state and national databases (e.g., U.S. Census Bureau). 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Environmental Justice, Protection of Children, and Safety. There are no Federal regulations specifically addressing socioeconomics; however there is one EO that pertains to environmental justice issues. This EO is included in the socioeconomics section because it relates to various socioeconomic groups and the health effects that could be imposed on them. On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. This EO requires that Federal agencies’ actions substantially affecting human health or the environment do not exclude persons, deny persons benefits, or subject persons to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin. The purpose of the EO is to ensure the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no groups of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of Federal, state, tribal, and local programs and policies. Consideration of environmental justice concerns includes race, ethnicity, and the poverty status of populations in the Draft EIS November 2007 3-54 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 vicinity of a proposed action. Such information aids in evaluating whether a proposed action would render vulnerable any of the groups targeted for protection in the EO. 4 5 6 7 8 9 EO 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, addresses the Federal policy of protection of children from exposure to disproportionate environmental health and safety risks. This EO established that each agency has a responsibility to ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards address risk to children that result from environmental health risks or safety risks. 10 Route A 11 12 13 14 15 CBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate tactical infrastructure in the southernmost portions of Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties in Texas. Therefore, these counties constitute the study area for the Region of Influence (ROI). The proposed project corridor would cross multiple land use types, including rural, urban, suburban, and agricultural. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Population Growth and Characteristics. Cameron, Hidalgo, and Starr counties, Texas, have a total population of 1.15 million. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Cameron County has a population of 387,717, and is home to Brownsville, the city with the largest population in the ROI (U.S. Census Bureau 2007a). Hidalgo County has the largest county population of 700,634 in 2006. Starr County at the western end of the ROI is the least populated of the three counties, with an estimated population of 61,780 in 2006 (U.S. Census Bureau 2007a). 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 The population in the ROI has grown rapidly since 1980, increasing by 31 percent in the 1980s and 39 percent in the 1990s (BEA 2007). Over the past 6 years, some portions of the ROI have been among the fastest growing areas in the United States. Both Hidalgo County and Brownsville in Cameron County had a 23 percent increase in population between 2000 and 2006 (U.S. Census Bureau 2007a). Brownsville has had the 24th highest growth rate of any city with more than 100,000 residents in the United States. Table 3.12-1 compares population trends in the ROI with the state of Texas between 1980 and 2006. Table 3.12-2 extrapolates continued trends in the ROI as compared to the rest of Texas through the year 2020. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Cameron County has more than 40 miles of beaches along its eastern side, including the southernmost section of Padre Island. Brownsville, with a 2006 population of 172,437, is the southernmost city in Texas, and is across the Rio Grande from the City of Matamoros, Mexico (U.S. Census Bureau 2007a). Other large cities in the county include Harlingen and San Benito; however, these cities are farther away from the proposed project corridor. Together these three cities account for 68 percent of the county’s population. Cameron County also Draft EIS November 2007 3-55 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 Table 3.12-1. State and County Population Trends Comparison in the ROI 1980 to 2006 State of Texas Year 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2006 Change 1980 to 1990 Change 1990 to 2000 Change 2000 to 2006 3 Cameron County 14,338,208 16,272,722 17,056,755 18,958,751 20,851,820 23,507,783 19.0% 22.2% 12.7% 211,944 245,894 261,728 304,928 335,227 387,717 23.5% 28.1% 15.7% Hidalgo County Starr County 286,540 341,145 387,200 487,593 569,463 700,634 35.1% 47.1% 23.0% 27,666 34,274 40,805 49,598 53,597 61,780 47.5% 31.3% 15.3% Source: BEA 2007 Table 3.12-2. County Population Trends, 2000 to 2020 4 Cameron County Hidalgo County Starr County Year State of Texas 2000 20,851,820 335,227 569,463 53,597 2005 22,928,508 378,905 678,652 60,479 2010 24,330,612 415,307 752,909 67,528 2015 26,156,715 457,255 854,936 74,905 2020 28,005,788 499,380 959,669 82,205 Projected Change 2000 to 2010 16.7% 23.9% 32.2% 26.0% Projected Change 2010 to 2020 15.1% 20.2% 27.5% 21.7% Sources: BEA 2007; U.S. Census Bureau 2006a and 2007b; TSDC 2006 5 6 7 8 9 10 comprises the Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Five other cities and nine towns, including La Feria, South Padre Island, and Bayview, account for another 10 percent of the county population. The remaining county population (22 percent) lives outside of these cities and towns. The county is home to the University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College (U.S. Census Bureau 2007a). 11 12 13 14 In Hidalgo County, the McAllen-Edinburg-Mission MSA includes the entire county area and is made up of the three principal cities of McAllen, Edinburg, and Mission. McAllen and Mission do not border Mexico, but are less than 10 miles from the Mexican city of Reynosa. Other larger cities in the county include Pharr, Draft EIS November 2007 3-56 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 San Juan, and Weslaco. Sixteen other cities have populations ranging from 311 (Granjeno) to 16,287 (Alamo) and make up 15 percent of the county population. The remaining county population lives in outlying rural areas or unincorporated communities and makes up 31 percent of the county’s population (U.S. Census Bureau 2007a). The bulk of the county’s population is in the southern half of the county within 20 miles of the Mexican border. The county is home to the University of Texas–Pan American (U.S. Census Bureau 2007a). 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 The largest cities in Starr County are Rio Grande City and Roma. These cities, plus the smaller La Grulla, are at or near the Mexican border, with the Mexican cities of Camargo and Miguel Aleman just a short distance away. Outside of these three cities, the population of 34,945 represents 57 percent of the county population (U.S. Census Bureau 2007a). The largest employer in the county is Starr Produce with 1,500 to 2,000 employees, followed by the county, school districts and Wal-Mart. Rio Grande City is home to the South Texas Community College, and the University of Texas–Pan American has a campus there. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Population projections through 2010 from the Texas state demography office show a 29 percent growth rate and continued growth of 25 percent through the following decade (TSDC 2006). Key factors contributing to the rapid growth include both domestic and international migration related to the expanding availability of job opportunities, an influx of retirees, and an increasing number of children related to the many younger households that have migrated into the area, particularly in Hidalgo County. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 While the ROI’s population growth has more than doubled since 1980, the ROI’s racial and ethnic characteristic remains predominantly Hispanic (U.S. Census Bureau 2007b) (see Table 3.12-3). While the non-Hispanic population has increased 8 percent in the past 6 years, the Hispanic population has grown by more than 20 percent over the same period (U.S. Census Bureau 2007b). The proportion of Hispanics in the ROI is 88.7 percent, about 2.5 times the proportion of Hispanics in the state of Texas. Estimates for 2006 indicate that the ROI is 9.9 percent non-Hispanic whites, and only 1.3 percent other races (U.S. Census Bureau 2007b). 32 Employment and Income 33 34 35 36 Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties have seen great improvement in the local economy in the past two decades. The total number of jobs in the ROI has increased by 236 percent since 1980, and as of 2005 there were approximately 443,000 jobs in the ROI (BEA 2007). 37 38 39 40 As a result, the unemployment rate has dropped more than 20 percent, to 7.3 percent (BLS 2007). Per capita income (adjusted for inflation) has increased 18 percent in Starr County, 19 percent in Hidalgo County, and 18 percent in Cameron County. Draft EIS November 2007 3-57 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 Table 3.12-3. Racial and Ethnic Characteristics in the ROI, 2000 to 2006 State of Texas Hispanic Change 2000 to 2006 Portion of Total Population: 2006 Estimate 2000 Census 2006 Estimate 20,851,820 23,507,783 12.7% 100.0% 6,669,666 8,385,139 25.7% 35.7% Non-Hispanic Population by Race: White Alone 10,986,965 11,351,060 3.3% 48.3% Black Alone 2,378,444 2,687,401 13.0% 11.4% Asian 567,528 763,381 34.5% 3.2% Other Races 249,217 320,802 28.7% 1.4% Cameron County 335,227 387,717 15.7% 100.0% Hispanic 282,736 333,733 18.0% 86.1% Non-Hispanic Population by Race: White Alone 49,133 49,460 0.7% 12.8% Black Alone 923 1,311 42.0% 0.3% 1,568 1,996 27.3% 0.5% Other Races 867 1,217 40.4% 0.3% Hidalgo County 569,463 700,634 23.0% 100.0% Hispanic 503,100 626,742 24.6% 89.5% Asian Non-Hispanic Population by Race: White Alone 60,033 63,641 6.0% 9.1% Black Alone 1,976 3,133 58.6% 0.4% Asian 3,261 5,126 57.2% 0.7% Other Races 1,093 1,992 82.3% 0.3% 53,597 61,780 15.3% 100.0% 52,278 60,193 15.1% 97.4% Starr County Hispanic Non-Hispanic Population by Race: White Alone 1,111 1,294 16.5% 2.1% Black Alone 8 26 225.0% 0.0% 141 202 43.3% 0.3% 59 65 10.2% 0.1% Asian Other Races Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2007b Note: Census 2000 population differs slightly in the estimates file as compared to the Census 2000 data. Draft EIS November 2007 3-58 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 Several industries have seen substantial growth thus creating local jobs in the ROI. The biggest employers include the private industry, health care, retail and tourism, and local manufacturing. Table 3.12-4 details employment by industrial sector. 5 6 Private employment has increased by 17 percent across the ROI from 2001 to 2005 (as compared to 6 percent for the State of Texas) (BEA 2007). 7 8 9 10 11 The health care industry has been a key economic driver in terms of job growth. With the population 65 years and older increasing by 17 percent from 2000 to 2006 and other increases in demands for health services, this sector has grown by nearly 40 percent in the ROI and now makes up 18 percent of the area’s jobs (BEA 2007). 12 13 14 15 16 17 Retail trade accounts for 13 percent of the ROI’s jobs in 2005, a 12 percent increase since 2001. This expansion has also been important to the regional economy and is due in part to retirees coming into the ROI in the winter and shopping in the border areas. Mexican nationals also cross the border legally to enjoy the broad selection of products at retail outlets in the ROI (BEA 2007, FRDB 2005). 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The local manufacturing sector has declined by nearly 30 percent from 2001 to 2005 in terms of employment (BEA 2007). Manufacturing jobs now make up 4 percent of the ROI’s economy. However, the border economy benefits from maquiladoras, manufacturing and assembly establishments in Mexico that use U.S. inputs, and then import finished products and sub-assemblies via POE crossings in these counties for further distribution. Related to this are jobs in the wholesale trade, transportation, and warehousing industries, which make up another 6 percent of the ROI’s jobs and that have increased by 9 percent since 2001 (BEA 2007). 27 28 29 30 31 Other growth sectors are related to the general boom in housing and population. Construction jobs make up 7 percent of the jobs in the 2005 economy in the ROI, increasing in number by 9 percent since 2001 (BEA 2007). Large increases have also been seen in finance and insurance (22 percent growth) and real estate (28 percent growth) (BEA 2007). 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Cameron County is the home of South Padre Island, which attracts many tourists over the winter and early spring. Besides vacationers at the beach, Cameron County is also home to nine World Bird Centers (developed by the Texas Department of Parks and Recreation to boost tourism in the area) and the National Audubon Society’s (Audubon Texas) Sabal Palms Sanctuary in Brownsville. Tourism-related businesses have experienced an expansion in the past 5 years with growth in the arts, entertainment, and recreation industries at 9 percent and growth in accommodation and food services at 11 percent. These industries now make up about 7 percent of the ROI’s jobs (BEA 2007). Draft EIS November 2007 3-59 Draft EIS 3-60 530,192 Wholesale trade 828,786 Professional and technical services 631,849 Finance and insurance 524,931 262,195 Information Real estate, rental, leasing 469,746 Transportation and warehousing 1,417,748 951,778 Manufacturing Retail Trade 899,172 51,045 Utilities Construction 244,837 Mining 68,253 10,979,216 Private employment Forestry, fishing, related activities, and other 12,807,219 281,727 2,819,880 10,269,066 13,088,946 Texas Nonfarm employment Farm employment Proprietors employment Wage and salary employment TOTAL EMPLOYMENT Sector or Summary Level 6 4 5 2 4 11 4 7 7 0 2 1 84 98 2 22 78 100.0 Percent of Texas Total 4,601 4,958 4,204 1,489 5,628 19,205 4,167 7,808 8,748 322 216 2,897 126,595 154,479 1,714 28,493 127,700 156,193 Cameron County 7,678 6,574 8,171 3,252 8,638 35,027 8,417 9,355 18,234 783 2,282 6,925 215,653 264,309 3,057 51,549 215,817 267,366 Hidalgo County 346 199 284 46 491 2,217 239 211 1,777 45 114 (D) 13,832 19,148 1,217 6,597 13,768 20,365 Starr County Table 3.12-4. Employment by Industrial Sector in the ROI, 2005 11,933 11,333 12,091 4,695 13,775 52,015 12,345 16,952 25,205 1,060 2,384 (D) 328,416 399,640 3,554 73,445 329,749 403,194 ROI Total 3 3 3 1 3 13 3 4 6 0 1 n/a 81 99 1 18 82 100 Percent of ROI Total, 2005 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure November 2007 Draft EIS 3-61 337,769 1,147,922 State government Local government 9 3 1 1 14 6 7 2 9 1 6 1 Percent of Texas Total 20,527 4,021 984 2,352 27,884 10,119 11,406 1,895 28,803 1,479 8,327 323 Cameron County 39,151 5,265 1,530 2,710 48,656 17,294 17,687 2,225 46,870 1,946 13,823 472 Hidalgo County 4,652 132 136 396 5,316 1,733 (D) (D) 4,243 103 626 40 Starr County 55,026 9,154 2,378 4,666 71,224 25,680 (D) (D) 71,430 3,322 21,524 755 ROI Total Source: BEA 2007 Note: D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals. 161,205 1,828,003 Government and government enterprises Military 758,632 Other services, except public administration 181,107 879,593 Accommodation and food services Federal, civilian 200,551 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 1,168,205 178,321 Educational services Health care and social assistance 843,486 69,896 Texas Administrative and waste services Management of companies and enterprises Sector or Summary Level 14 2 1 1 18 6 n/a n/a 18 1 5 0 Percent of ROI Total, 2005 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure November 2007 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 Large increases in jobs have also been seen in information industry, professional and technical services, management companies and enterprises, and administrative and waste services. These four industries have had growth rates of more than 20 percent and together make up 9 percent of the jobs in the ROI (BEA 2007). 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Government employment has increased by 8 percent in the ROI. Federal civilian employment has increased by 7 percent, and these jobs now make up 1 percent of the area’s employment (BEA 2007). State employment over the period has increased by only 1 percent while local government employment has seen the largest increase by 10 percent (BEA 2007). As a portion of total jobs, local government makes up 14 percent of the total economy, and local school districts and other local government entities are among the biggest employers in these counties (BEA 2007). 14 15 16 17 18 19 Although the economy has improved in the ROI, the area remains relatively poor. The unemployment rate in the ROI is high (7.3 percent) when compared to the Texas unemployment rate of 4.9 percent (BLS 2007). Table 3.12-5 shows how the unemployment rate in the ROI compares with the state. The 2005 per capita income of $16,490 for the ROI is about half of the per capita income of the rest of the State of Texas ($32,460) (BEA 2007). 20 Table 3.12-5. State and ROI Labor Force and Unemployment Rate Averages State of Texas Labor Force Unemployment Rate Cameron County Labor Force Unemployment Rate Hidalgo County Labor Force Unemployment Rate Starr County Labor Force Unemployment Rate 2000 2003 2004 2005 2006 10,347,847 10,999,132 11,127,293 11,282,845 11,487,496 4.4% 6.7% 6.0% 5.4% 4.9% 127,011 143,231 143,439 142,204 144,709 7.0% 9.6% 8.8% 7.6% 6.6% 210,984 247,486 257,511 264,251 269,586 9.2% 10.4% 9.1% 7.9% 7.4% 17,722 21,308 21,625 21,471 21,758 16.8% 15.9% 14.5% 13.0% 11.7% Source: BLS 2007 21 22 23 According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates program, the poverty rate among all individuals has dropped in the area from 44.8 percent in 1989 to 30.3 percent in 2004. However, Table 3.12-6 Draft EIS November 2007 3-62 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 shows the ROI’s poverty rate is still almost twice the 16.2 percent poverty rate for the State of Texas (U.S. Census Bureau 2006b). 3 Table 3.12-6. Poverty Rates and Median Income Overall Poverty Rate Child Poverty Rate (Under 18) State of Texas 16.2% 22.7% $41,645 Cameron County 29.4% 40.4% $26,719 Hidalgo County 30.5% 41.2% $26,375 Starr County 34.8% 46.6% $19,775 Geographic Area Median Income (2004 dollars) Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006b 4 Agriculture 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Higher poverty rates in the area are attributed in part to the agriculture industry. Moreover, the counties in the vicinity of the proposed project corridor have a very low median income when compared to the State of Texas. Although nonfarm private sector employment has increased by nearly 17 percent, farm employment has declined by 12 percent from 2001 to 2005 across these three counties, now accounting for slightly more than 1 percent of the area’s 2005 jobs (BEA 2007). Though Texas might be famous for cattle, farm income from crops far outweighs income from livestock in Cameron and Hidalgo counties. In the ROI, crops made up 73 percent of the 2005 farm income as compared to 12 percent for livestock and related products (BEA 2007). In the 2002 Agricultural Census, 41 percent of the farms raised cattle in the ROI, and 56 percent of the land was identified as cropland. Sugar cane is a major crop in the proposed project corridor (USDA 2004). Table 3.12-7 characterizes local farms. 18 Selected Public Services 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Public Education. School enrollment and the demographics of school enrollment generally match those of the population of the three counties. In Cameron County, 10 school districts provide educational services to 98,010 students in 130 schools in school year 2007 (TEA 2006a). In Hidalgo County, 20 school districts, including five charter school districts, provide educational services to 190,501 students in school year 2007. In Starr County, three school districts provide educational services to 16,645 students in 23 schools in school year 2007 (TEA 2006a). Similar to demographics of the area, the demographic characteristics of the students enrolled in these schools are predominantly Hispanic and predominantly low income (TEA 2006b). Table 3.12-8 provides detailed ethnic information by county and school district in the ROI. Draft EIS November 2007 3-63 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Table 3.12-7. Characteristics of Local Agriculture, 2002 1 Texas Counties Description ROI Total Cameron Hidalgo 1,120 2,104 870 4,094 350,437 593,158 570,430 1,514,025 Total Cropland (acres) 253,571 405,094 193,688 852,353 Harvested Cropland (acres) 151,923 277,406 41,759 471,088 1 to 9 Acres 191 393 5 589 10 to 49 Acres 470 866 50 1,386 50 to 179 Acres 184 401 281 866 180 Acres or more 275 444 534 1253 Less than $5,000 603 958 573 2,134 $5,000 to $49,999 294 814 263 1,371 $50,000 or more 223 332 34 589 Farming 666 1,115 492 2,273 Other 454 989 378 1,821 Farms with hired workers 337 671 341 1,349 Farms with 1 worker 201 295 103 599 Farms with 2 or more workers 136 376 238 750 402 614 671 1,687 Number of Farms Acres in Farms Starr Farms by Size, 2002 Farms by Value of Sales, 2002 Principal Occupation, 2002 Hired Farm Labor Select Livestock, 2002 Farms with Cattle/Calves Source: USDA 2004 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Law Enforcement. Law enforcement and other community services are provided by 40 law enforcement agencies in the ROI. Cameron County is served by 16 different agencies with 628 commissioned officers. Hidalgo County is served by 21 different agencies with 1,052 commissioned officers. Starr County is served by 3 different agencies with 77 commissioned officers (TDPS 2006). Table 3.12-9 shows the breakdown of non-Federal law enforcement by county and agency. Draft EIS November 2007 3-64 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Percent Hispanic 2004 Percent White 2004 Percent Other Races 2004 Percent Economically Disadvantage d 2004 Cameron County Brownsville ISD Harlingen CISD La Feria ISD Los Fresnos CISD Point Isabel ISD Rio Hondo ISD San Benito CISD Santa Maria ISD Santa Rosa ISD South Texas ISD Hidalgo County Donna ISD Edcouch-Elsa ISD Edinburg CISD Hidalgo ISD Idea Academy La Joya ISD La Villa ISD McAllen ISD Mercedes ISD Mid-Valley Academy Mission CISD Monte Alto ISD One Stop Multiservice Charter School Pharr-San Juan-Alamo ISD Progreso ISD Sharyland ISD Technology Education Charter High Valley View ISD Vanguard Academy Weslaco ISD Starr County Rio Grande City CISD Roma ISD San Isidro ISD Source: TEA 2006a, TEA 2006b Total Schools School District School Year 2007 Enrollment Table 3.12-8. Ethnic and Racial Distribution by County and Independent School District (ISD) in the ROI 1 2 48,334 17,684 3,186 8,935 2,597 2,292 10,694 633 1,195 2,460 49 24 8 10 4 5 18 5 3 4 98.0% 88.0% 91.0% 93.0% 85.0% 95.0% 98.0% 100.0% 97.0% 76.0% 2.0% 11.0% 9.0% 6.0% 15.0% 5.0% 2.0% 0.0% 3.0% 16.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.0% 93.1% 71.8% 79.2% 85.5% 88.3% 81.9% 83.9% 97.8% 96.8% 53.1% 13,363 5,598 28,772 3,331 2,073 25,130 615 24,570 5,279 252 15,462 603 17 9 36 6 1 27 4 32 10 2 20 2 99.0% 99.0% 97.0% 100.0% 94.0% 100.0% 100.0% 89.0% 99.0% 94.0% 98.0% 96.0% 1.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.0% 1.0% 6.0% 2.0% 3.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 91.3% 90.6% 85.2% 92.2% 82.2% 90.5% 89.8% 69.5% 92.1% 84.2% 84.3% 88.6% 5,536 28,868 1,989 8,208 451 4,099 369 15,933 3 36 5 9 1 5 1 20 97.0% 99.0% 100.0% 85.0% 97.0% 100.0% 93.0% 97.0% 3.0% 1.0% 0.0% 13.0% 3.0% 0.0% 7.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 92.8% 90.0% 94.2% 52.6% 85.8% 94.1% 87.4% 86.5% 9,969 6,417 259 11 10 2 100.0% 100.0% 95.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 84.5% 89.2% 81.1% Draft EIS November 2007 3-65 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 Table 3.12-9. Law Enforcement Agencies and Personnel in the ROI * Commissioned Cameron County Cameron County Sheriff's Office Local Police Departments (15) Total Hidalgo County Hidalgo County Sheriff's Office Local Police Departments (20) Total Starr County Starr County Sheriff's Office Local Police Departments (2) Total Civilian Total 94 534 628 258 234 492 352 768 1,120 217 835 1,052 435 346 781 652 1,181 1,833 33 34 77 57 14 71 90 58 148 Source: TDPS 2006 Note: * Does not include Federal law enforcement. 2 Environmental Justice 3 4 5 The CEQ oversees the Federal government’s compliance with EO 12898 and the NEPA process. Based on CEQ guidance, this EIS uses the following three-step methodology to evaluate potential environmental justice impacts: 6 7 x Identify potential environmental justice populations located in the project area or that could otherwise be affected by the Proposed Action 8 9 x Identify the potential human health and environmental effects of the proposed alternatives 10 11 12 x Assess whether there are potential significant adverse effects on minority and low-income populations that would be disproportionately high and adverse. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A demographic analysis assessed the presence of a potential environmental justice prescribed population living near the project area. Census 2000 information is available for racial, ethnic, and economic characteristics at the census tract level. The census tracts in which the proposed project corridor would be located were identified. All are just north of the Rio Grande. Some of these census tracts have a substantial amount of land and population in areas removed from the proposed project corridor; however, these census tracts have demographic characteristics similar to those of the persons living at or near the proposed construction activities. In some cases, the population in the census tract closest to the project area would seem to be lower in income than the population in the same census tract farther away from the river. Table 3.12-10 identifies the minority populations associated with the project area and its associated composition. Draft EIS November 2007 3-66 Draft EIS 3-67 10.7% Census Tracts Not Included in Project 10.4% Hidalgo County 6.3% 15.3% Census Tracts Not Included in Project Census Tracts Included in Project Area 7.6% 14.5% Cameron County Census Tracts Included in Project Area 2.6% 52.4% Texas 0.6% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.4% 3.6% 69.1% White and Asian and not not Hispanic or Hispanic or Latino (A) Latino (B) United States Geographic Area by Census Tract 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 11.3% 12.0% Black or African American and not Hispanic or Latino (C) 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 1.7% 2.8% 88.1% 93.5% 88.4% 83.5% 92.2% 84.5% 32.0% 12.5% 89.3% 93.7% 89.6% 84.7% 92.3% 85.5% 47.6% 30.9% Total Racial Other Races, Hispanic or and Ethnic Two or More Latino Minorities Races, and not Ethnicity (B) + (C) + Hispanic or (E) (D) + (E) Latino (D) Percentage of Total Population 41.8% 46.1% 42.0% 37.1% 44.8% 37.9% -- -16.7% Difference in Percent Minority Population Above/Below the State Average Table 3.12-10. Racial and Ethnic Population Composition in Geographic Comparison Areas Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure November 2007 0.5% 11.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2002a ROI 0.4% 1.4% Census Tracts Not Included in Project 0.0% 2.0% Census Tracts Included in Project Area 0.3% 1.6% White and Asian and not not Hispanic or Hispanic or Latino (A) Latino (B) Starr County Geographic Area by Census Tract 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Black or African American and not Hispanic or Latino (C) 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 87.6% 98.2% 98.0% 98.1% 88.7% 98.6% 98.0% 98.4% Total Racial Other Races, Hispanic or and Ethnic Two or More Latino Minorities Races, and not Ethnicity (B) + (C) + Hispanic or (E) (D) + (E) Latino (D) Percentage of Total Population 41.1% 51.0% 50.4% 50.8% Difference in Percent Minority Population Above/Below the State Average Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Draft EIS November 2007 3-68 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 As shown in Table 3.12-11, each census tract has a potential environmental justice community based upon its racial and ethnic characteristic of being more than 50 percent minority and also a substantially higher percentage than the general population in both Texas and the United States. Each census tract has a potential environmental justice community based upon the presence of a large proportion of persons with incomes at or below the poverty level and based upon this proportion being meaningfully greater than the proportion of persons with incomes at or below the poverty rate for the general populations in both the State of Texas and the United States. Based upon Census 2000 information, the population living in each of these census tracts meet these two criteria as a potential environmental justice population. 12 13 Table 3.12-11. Census Tract Detail of Demographic Characteristics Relevant to Environmental Justice Geographic Area Proportion of Total Population: Racial and Ethnic Minorities Difference in Proportion of Minority Population above the State Proportion Proportion of Total Population: Below Poverty Level Difference in the Proportion of Low Income Population above the State Proportion Cameron County Census Tracts 119.03 98.0% 50.4% 46.5% 31.2% 121 79.1% 31.5% 35.4% 20.1% 125.05 95.4% 47.8% 34.5% 19.2% 125.07 96.4% 48.8% 42.0% 26.6% 125.08 89.3% 41.7% 29.8% 14.4% 128 97.4% 49.8% 33.5% 18.2% 133.07 100.0% 52.4% 55.2% 39.8% 140.01 93.4% 45.8% 57.6% 42.2% 141 96.9% 49.3% 32.4% 17.1% Hidalgo County Census Tracts 213.01 98.1% 50.5% 43.8% 28.4% 228 96.2% 48.6% 45.6% 30.2% 242.01 98.6% 51.0% 52.1% 36.7% 242.02 87.3% 39.7% 37.1% 21.7% Starr County Census Tracts 9501.02 97.8% 50.2% 42.3% 26.9% 9501.03 97.9% 50.3% 53.9% 38.6% 9502.02 98.4% 50.8% 45.7% 30.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2002a and 2002b Draft EIS November 2007 3-69 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 Route B 2 3 4 5 The affected environment for socioeconomic resources, environmental justice, and safety in the ROI looks at resources at the census tract, community, county, and state level. Therefore, the ROI for Route B would be the same for Route A for socioeconomic, environmental justice, and safety resources. 6 3.13 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Infrastructure consists of the systems and physical structures that enable a population in a specified area to function. Infrastructure is wholly human-made, with a high correlation between the type and extent of infrastructure and the degree to which an area is characterized as “urban” or developed. The availability of infrastructure and its capacity to support growth are generally regarded as essential to the economic growth of an area. Below is a brief overview of each infrastructure component that could be affected by each alternative. 15 Route A 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Water Supply Systems. The principal source of water for irrigation and municipal water in the proposed project corridor is the Rio Grande. Approximately 74,000 acres of agricultural lands are irrigated in the Rio Grande Valley (Fipps and Pope 1998). The irrigation system is characterized by approximately 642 miles of canals, 10 miles of pipelines, and 45 miles of resacas (i.e., former channels or oxbows of the Rio Grande) (Fipps and Pope 1998). Pumps and pump houses are also part of the irrigation system. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Municipal water systems in the Rio Grande Valley take raw water from the water distribution networks of irrigation districts. In Hidalgo and Cameron counties, 39 municipal treatment plants take raw water from 14 irrigation districts. These municipal supply networks consist of 92 miles of lined canals, 168 miles of unlined canals, 25 miles of pipelines, 377 acres of resacas, and 3,845 acres of reservoirs (Fipps 2004). Known water supply infrastructure that occurs in the proposed project corridor is presented in Table 3.13-1. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Drainage Systems. Agricultural irrigation return and storm water runoff in the area of the proposed project corridor in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties drain into the Arroyo Colorado and eventually into the Laguna Madre (TSSWCB undated). Irrigation and storm water runoff is collected in drainage ditches and resacas (USFWS 1991). Numerous agricultural and storm water drainages occur within the proposed project corridor. Known drainage infrastructure that occurs in the proposed project corridor is presented in Table 3.13-1. 37 38 39 40 Municipal Sanitary Sewer Systems. Some municipal sanitary sewer systems in the proposed project corridor discharge into the Rio Grande. Known municipal sanitary sewer infrastructure within the proposed project corridor includes outfall pipes (see Table 3.13-1). Draft EIS November 2007 3-70 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 Table 3.13-1. Known Water Supply, Drainage, and Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Within the Proposed Project Corridor Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Section Infrastructure O-1 Roma intake pipes Roma sewer outfall pipes 1 private water pump O-2 7 private water pumps O-4 Peñitas pump house O-6 Runs along Pharr San Juan Main Canal Old Hidalgo pump house intakes Mac Pump intakes McAllen pump house intakes O-7 Runs along Donna Canal Pipelines O-9 8 irrigation stand pipes Donna pump station 2 irrigation pumps Pipelines Section would end before the settling basin O-11 Section would start at Santa Maria canal La Feria pump house La Feria Canal Irrigation pump and stand pipe Pipelines O-12 Harlingen Canal O-13 San Benito Canal O-14 IBWC pump O-16 Cameron County irrigation pump Private irrigation pumps O-17 Irrigation stand pipes Irrigation pumps O-18 Section would start at Los Fresnos Canal O-19 Pump houses Pumps O-21 El Jardin Canal El Jardin water pump for Brownsville 3 Draft EIS November 2007 3-71 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Solid Waste Management. Solid waste management primarily relates to the availability of landfills to support a population’s residential, commercial, and industrial needs. Alternative means of waste disposal might involve waste-toenergy programs or incineration. In some localities, landfills are designed specifically for, and limited to, disposal of construction and demolition debris. Recycling programs for various waste categories (e.g., glass, metals, papers, asphalt, and concrete) reduce reliance on landfills for disposal. 8 9 10 11 12 13 As of 2005, there were three active municipal landfills in Starr County, three active municipal landfills in Hidalgo County, and one active municipal landfill in Cameron County. The remaining capacity in terms of years for these landfills was determined in 2005, based on compaction rate and the amount disposed in 2005 (TCEQ 2006). The remaining capacity of these landfills as of 2005 is reported in Table 3.13-2. 14 Table 3.13-2. Remaining Capacity of Local Municipal Landfills as of 2005 Landfill Name City of Roma City of La Grulla Starr County Landfill Edinburg Regional Sanitary Landfill Peñitas Landfill BFI Rio Grande Landfill Brownsville County Remaining Capacity (Years) Starr Starr Starr 30 109.67 0.70 Hidalgo 21.70 Hidalgo Hidalgo Cameron 3.58 5.30 80.20 Source: TCEQ 2006 Note: Remaining capacity based on rate of compaction and amount disposed in 2005. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Transportation Systems. The Texas Department of Transportation (TDOT), in cooperation with local and regional officials, is responsible for planning, designing, building, operating, and maintaining the state’s transportation system. Highway systems in the vicinity of the proposed project corridor include SR 83, State Highway 374, U.S. Highway 281, State Highway 415, SR 77, State Highway 48, and State Highway 4. In addition, there are numerous municipal city roads, farm roads, county roads, levee roads, and unpaved roads. 22 23 24 25 26 Electrical and Natural Gas Systems. Electrical transmission lines and natural gas distribution lines that are part of the electrical and natural gas systems for the Rio Grande Valley are in the vicinity of the proposed project corridor. The proposed tactical infrastructure sections in which utilities infrastructure occur are presented in Table 3.13-3. 27 Draft EIS November 2007 3-72 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 Table 3.13-3. Location of Utility Infrastructure Located Within the Proposed Project Corridor Fence Section O-4 O-6 O-8 O-18 Infrastructure 1 Electric Transmission Line; 1 Gas Distribution Line 1 Electric Transmission Line; 3 Gas Distribution Lines 1 Electric Transmission Line; 2 Gas Distribution Lines 1 Electric Transmission Line, Overhead Electrical Power Line 3 4 Route B 5 6 7 8 Water Supply Systems. The general description of irrigation and municipal water supply systems is the same for Route B as it is for Route A. The known water supply infrastructure in or near the proposed project corridor for Route B is the same as Route A. 9 10 11 12 Drainage Systems. The general description of irrigation and storm water drainage systems is the same for Route B as it is for Route A. The known drainage infrastructure in or near the proposed project corridor for Route B is the same as Route A. 13 14 Municipal Sanitary Sewer Systems. The known sanitary sewer infrastructure in or near the proposed project corridor for Route B is the same as Route A. 15 16 Solid Waste Management. The description of solid waste management is the same for Route B as it is for Route A. 17 18 Transportation Systems. The description for transportation systems is the same for Route A as it is for Route B. 19 20 21 22 23 Electrical and Natural Gas Systems. The only difference between electrical transmission lines and natural gas distribution lines within the proposed project corridors of Route A and Route B is in Section O-7. Section O-7 of Route A has no electric transmission or natural gas distribution lines. Section O-7 of Route B has one electric transmission line and one gas distribution line. 24 3.14 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 25 26 27 28 29 30 Hazardous materials are defined by 49 CFR 171.8 as “hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, marine pollutants, elevated temperature materials, materials designated as hazardous in the Hazardous Materials Table (49 CFR 172.101), and materials that meet the defining criteria for hazard classes and divisions” in 49 CFR Part 173. Transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations within 49 CFR. Draft EIS November 2007 3-73 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Hazardous substances are defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) at 42 U.S.C. 9601(14), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and the TSCA. The definition of hazardous substance includes (1) any substance designated pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1321 (b)(2)(A); (2) any element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9602; (3) any hazardous waste; (4) any toxic pollutant listed under 33 U.S.C. 1317(a); (5) any hazardous air pollutant listed under section 112 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7412); and (6) any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture with respect to which the Administrator of USEPA has taken action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2606. The term hazardous substance does not include petroleum products and natural gas. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Hazardous wastes are defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) at 42 U.S.C. 6903(5), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, as “a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may (A) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.” Certain types of hazardous wastes are subject to special management provisions intended to ease the management burden and facilitate the recycling of such materials. These are called universal wastes and their associated regulatory requirements are specified in 40 CFR 273. Four types of waste are currently covered under the universal waste regulations: hazardous waste batteries, hazardous waste pesticides that are either recalled or collected in waste pesticide collection programs, hazardous waste thermostats, and hazardous waste lamps. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Toxic substances are regulated under TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), which was enacted by Congress to give USEPA the ability to track the approximately 75,000 industrial chemicals currently produced or imported into the United States. USEPA screens these chemicals and can require reporting or testing of those that might pose an environmental or human-health hazard. USEPA can ban the manufacture and import of those chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk. Asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are among the chemicals regulated by TSCA. 37 38 39 40 In general, hazardous materials, hazardous substances, and hazardous wastes include elements, compounds, mixtures, solutions, and substances which, when released into the environment or otherwise improperly managed, could present substantial danger to the public health, welfare, or the environment. 41 42 43 Evaluation of hazardous materials and wastes focuses on underground storage tanks (USTs); aboveground storage tanks (ASTs); and the storage, transport, handling, and use of pesticides, herbicides, fuels, solvents, oils, lubricants, Draft EIS November 2007 3-74 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 asbestos containing material (ACM), and lead-based paint (LBP). Evaluation might also extend to generation, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes when such activity occurs at or near the project site of a proposed action. In addition to being a threat to humans, the improper release of hazardous materials and wastes can threaten the health and well-being of wildlife species, botanical habitats, soil systems, and water resources. In the event of release of hazardous materials or wastes, the extent of contamination varies based on the type of soil, topography, and water resources. 9 Route A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 As discussed in Section 3.4, the area surrounding the proposed impact area is predominantly used for agriculture. Therefore, pesticides and herbicides are currently used. It is assumed that all such substances are applied according to Federal, state, and local standards and regulations. There are no known waste storage or disposal sites within the proposed project corridor (DTSC 2007). ASTs have been observed in Section O-2. There are also private buildings within the proposed project corridor. Depending on the construction date, these buildings could contain ACM or LBP. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment would be conducted in conjunction with any real estate transactions to determine and quantify amounts of ACM or LBP. 20 21 22 23 The TCEQ is authorized by USEPA to regulate and enforce the provisions of RCRA. As such, TCEQ regulates the treatment, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste. TCEQ also administers some site clean-up programs. There are no known hazardous waste sites within the proposed project corridor. 24 Route B 25 26 The affected environment for hazardous materials and wastes under Route B is the same as presented above for Route A. 27 Draft EIS November 2007 3-75 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1 2 Draft EIS November 2007 3-76 SECTION 4 Environmental Consequences Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 1 2 4.1 INTRODUCTION 3 4 5 6 This section presents an analysis of the potential direct and indirect impacts each alternative would have on the affected environment as characterized in Section 3 and by the data in the technical appendices. Each alternative was evaluated for its potential to affect physical, biological, and socioeconomic resources. 7 8 The following discussion elaborates on the nature of the characteristics that might relate to various impacts: 9 10 11 12 13 14 x Short-term or long-term. These characteristics are determined on a caseby-case basis and do not refer to any rigid time period. In general, shortterm impacts are those that would occur only with respect to a particular activity or for a finite period or only during the time required for construction or installation activities. Long-term impacts are those that are more likely to be persistent and chronic. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 x Direct or indirect. A direct impact is caused by an alternative and occurs contemporaneously at or near the location of the action. An indirect impact is caused by an alternative and might occur later in time or be farther removed in distance but still be a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the action. For example, a direct impact of erosion on a stream might include sediment-laden waters in the vicinity of the action, whereas an indirect impact of the same erosion might lead to lack of spawning and result in lowered reproduction rates of indigenous fish downstream. 23 24 25 26 27 28 x Negligible, minor, moderate, or major. These relative terms are used to characterize the magnitude or intensity of an impact. Negligible impacts are generally those that might be perceptible but are at the lower level of detection. A minor impact is slight, but detectable. A moderate impact is readily apparent. A major impact is one that is severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial. 29 30 31 32 33 34 x Significance. Significant impacts are those that, in their context and due to their intensity (severity), meet the thresholds for significance set forth in CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.27). This EIS meets the agencies’ requirements to prepare a detailed statement on major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment (42 U.S.C. 102.2(c)). 35 36 37 38 39 40 x Adverse or beneficial. An adverse impact is one having adverse, unfavorable, or undesirable outcomes on the man-made or natural environment. A beneficial impact is one having positive outcomes on the man-made or natural environment. A single act might result in adverse impacts on one environmental resource and beneficial impacts on another resource. Draft EIS November 2007 4-1 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 x Context. The context of an impact can be localized or more widespread (e.g., regional). 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 x Intensity. The intensity of an impact is determined through consideration of several factors, including whether an alternative might have an adverse impact on the unique characteristics of an area (e.g., historical resources, ecologically critical areas), public health or safety, or endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat. Impacts are also considered in terms of their potential for violation of Federal, state, or local environmental law; their controversial nature; the degree of uncertainty or unknown impacts, or unique or unknown risks; if there are precedentsetting impacts; and their cumulative impact (see Section 5). 12 4.2 AIR QUALITY 13 14 15 16 17 18 Environmental consequences on local and regional air quality conditions near a proposed Federal action are determined based upon the increases in regulated pollutant emissions compared to existing conditions and ambient air quality. Specifically, the impact in NAAQS “attainment” areas would be considered significant if the net increases in pollutant emissions from the Federal action would result in any one of the following scenarios: 19 20 x Cause or contribute to a violation of any national or state ambient air quality standard 21 22 x Expose sensitive concentrations 23 24 x Represent an increase of 10 percent or more in an affected AQCR emissions inventory 25 x Exceed any Evaluation Criteria established by a SIP. 26 4.2.1 27 28 29 30 31 Under the No Action Alternative, USBP would not construct or maintain new tactical infrastructure along the 21 sections in the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector and operational activities would remain unchanged. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would not create any additional impacts on air quality beyond those that are already occurring, as described in Section 3.2. 32 4.2.2 33 Route A 34 35 36 Regulated pollutant emissions associated with Route A would not contribute to or affect local or regional attainment status with the NAAQS. Route A activities would generate air pollutant emissions from the proposed construction projects, receptors to substantially increased pollutant Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Routes A and B Draft EIS November 2007 4-2 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 maintenance activities, and the operation of generators to supply power to construction equipment. BMPs would include a Dust Control Plan. 3 4 5 6 7 Proposed Construction Projects. Minor, short-term, adverse impacts would be expected from construction emissions and land disturbance associated with Route A. The proposed project would result in impacts on regional air quality during construction activities, primarily from site-disturbing activities and operation of construction equipment. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 The construction projects would generate total suspended particulate and PM10 emissions as fugitive dust from ground-disturbing activities (e.g., grading, trenching, soil piles) and from combustion of fuels in construction equipment. Fugitive dust emissions would be greatest during the initial site preparation activities and would vary from day to day depending on the construction phase, level of activity, and prevailing weather conditions. The quantity of uncontrolled fugitive dust emissions from a construction site is proportional to the area of land being worked and the level of construction activity. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Construction operations would also result in emissions of criteria pollutants as combustion products from construction equipment. These emissions would be of a temporary nature. The NAAQS emissions factors and estimates were generated based on guidance provided in USEPA AP-42, Volume II, Mobile Sources. Fugitive dust emissions for various construction activities were calculated using emissions factors and assumptions published in USEPA’s AP42 Section 11.9. The emissions for CO2 were calculated using emission coefficients reported by the Energy Information Administration (EIA 2007). 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 For purposes of this analysis, the project duration and affected project site area that would be disturbed (presented in Section 2) were used to estimate fugitive dust and all other pollutant emissions. The construction emissions presented in Table 4.2-1 include the estimated annual construction PM10 emissions associated with Route A. These emissions would produce slightly elevated short-term PM10 ambient air concentrations. However, the impacts would be temporary, and would fall off rapidly with distance from the proposed construction sites. As seen in Table 4.2-1, the emissions of NAAQS pollutant is high and could contribute to the deterioration of the air quality in the region. However, the impact of this alternative on air quality does not exceed 10 percent of the regional values. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 The construction emissions presented in Table 4.2-1 include the estimated annual emissions from construction equipment exhaust associated with Route A in Calendar Year (CY) 2008 and operation of agricultural mowers and dieselpowered generators. Early phases of construction projects involve heavier diesel equipment and earthmoving, resulting in higher NOx and PM10 emissions. Later phases of construction projects involve more light gasoline equipment and surface coating, resulting in more CO and VOC emissions. However, the Draft EIS November 2007 4-3 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 Table 4.2-1. Estimates of Total Proposed Construction Emissions from Route A in Tons Per Year NOx VOC CO CO2 SOx PM10 Construction Emissions 470.443 70.127 549.588 55.00 9.409 662.118 Maintenance Emissions 0.042 0.005 0.021 0.20 0.010 0.005 Generator Emissions 22.777 1.859 4.907 100.0 1.498 1.601 Total Alternative 2 Route A Emissions 493.263 71.992 554.516 155.200 10.917 663.724 Federal de minimis Threshold NA NA NA NA NA NA BLIAQCR Regional Emissions 44,137 73,577 317,422 995,000 2,940 132,788 Percent of BLIAQCR Regional Emissions 1.118 0.098 0.175 0.016 0.369 .499 Description 3 Source: USEPA 2007b 4 5 impacts would be temporary, fall off rapidly with distance from the proposed construction site, and would not result in any long-term impacts. 6 7 8 9 10 11 Maintenance Activities. The pedestrian fence and patrol road would require mowing approximately two times per year to maintain vegetation height and allow enhanced visibility and security. It was assumed that two 40-horsepower (hp) agricultural mowers would mow the vegetation in the project area approximately 14 days per year. No adverse impacts on local or regional air quality are anticipated from these future maintenance activities. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Generators. Route A activities would require six diesel-powered generators to power construction equipment. It is assumed that these generators would be approximately 75 hp and operate approximately 8 hours per day for 190 working days. The emissions factors and estimates were generated based on guidance provided in USEPA AP-42, Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources. According to TAC Title 30, internal combustion engines greater than 500 brake horsepower require an operating permit (TAC 2007). Therefore, the generators that would be associated with Route A activities are exempt from requiring an operating permit from the TCEQ. 21 22 23 24 25 Greenhouse Gases. USEPA has estimated that the total greenhouse emissions for Texas was 189 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) in 1999. Of this, of this an estimated 995,000 tons of CO2 are associated with the BLIAQCR regions. Therefore construction emissions of CO2 represent less than 10 percent of the regional emissions (USEPA 2007c). Draft EIS November 2007 4-4 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 After construction is completed, normal border patrol schedules would continue. The vehicles used for surveillance of the existing border area are generating CO2 that is accounted for in the Texas greenhouse gas inventory. No new sources of CO2 would result from Route A. Therefore, no net increase of greenhouse emissions would be expected. Emissions factors, calculations, and estimates of emissions are shown in detail in Appendix K. 7 8 9 10 11 12 Summary. Table 4.2-1 illustrates that the emissions from Route A would be much less than 10 percent of the emissions inventory for BLIAQCR (USEPA 2007b). The estimated annual CO2 emissions of power plants within the BLIAQCR is 775,000 tons while vehicles add another estimated 220,000 tons. Therefore, no adverse impacts on regional or local air quality are anticipated from implementation of Route A. 13 14 According to 40 CFR Part 81, there are no Class I areas in the vicinity of the Route A. Therefore, Federal PSD regulations would not apply. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 In summary, no significant adverse impacts on regional or local air quality are anticipated from implementation of Route A. A conformity determination in accordance with 40 CFR 93-153(1) is not required, as the total of direct and indirect emissions from Route A would not be regionally significant (e.g., the emissions are not greater than 10 percent of the BLIAQCR emissions inventory). Emissions factors, calculations, and estimates of emissions for Alternative 2 Route A are shown in detail in Appendix K. 22 Route B 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 The air quality impacts associated with Route B would be expected to be the same as those depicted for Route A. This is because the overall length of the proposed project corridors and construction emissions for Route A and Route B would be similar. Therefore, the analysis presented for Route A is applicable to Route B. Table 4.2-2 illustrates that the emissions from Route B would be less than 10 percent of the BLIAQCR inventory (USEPA 2007b). Emissions factors, calculations, and estimates of emissions for Alternative 2 Route B are shown in detail in Appendix K. 31 4.2.3 32 33 34 Alternative 3 would generate air pollutant emissions from the proposed construction projects, maintenance activities, and the operation of generators to supply power to construction equipment. 35 36 37 38 39 Proposed Construction Projects. Major short-term adverse impacts would be expected from construction emissions and land disturbance as a result of implementing Alternative 3. The proposed project would result in impacts on regional air quality during construction activities, primarily from site-disturbing activities and operation of construction equipment. Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative Draft EIS November 2007 4-5 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 Table 4.2-2. Estimates of Total Proposed Construction Emissions from Route B in Tons Per Year NOx VOC CO CO2 SOx PM10 Construction Emissions 470.443 70.127 549.588 55.00 9.409 662.118 Maintenance Emissions 0.042 0.005 0.021 0.20 0.010 0.005 Generator Emissions 22.777 1.859 4.907 100.0 1.498 1.601 Total Alternative 2 Route B Emissions 493.263 71.992 554.516 155.200 10.917 663.724 Federal de minimis Threshold NA NA NA NA NA NA BLIAQCR Regional Emissions 44,137 73,577 317,422 995,000 2,940 132,788 Percent of BLIAQCR Regional Emissions 1.118 0.098 0.175 0.016 0.369 0.499 Description 3 Source: USEPA 2007b 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 The construction projects would generate total suspended particulate and PM10 emissions as fugitive dust from ground-disturbing activities (e.g., grading, trenching, soil piles) and from combustion of fuels in construction equipment. Fugitive dust emissions would be greatest during the initial site preparation activities and would vary from day to day depending on the construction phase, level of activity, and prevailing weather conditions. The quantity of uncontrolled fugitive dust emissions from a construction site is proportional to the area of land being worked and the level of construction activity. 12 13 14 15 16 17 Construction operations would also result in emissions of criteria pollutants as combustion products from construction equipment. These emissions would be of a temporary nature. The emissions factors and estimates were generated based on guidance provided in USEPA AP-42, Volume II, Mobile Sources. Fugitive dust emissions for various construction activities were calculated using emissions factors and assumptions published in USEPA’s AP-42 Section 11.9. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 For purposes of this analysis, the project duration and affected project site area that would be disturbed (presented in Section 2) was used to estimate fugitive dust and all other criteria pollutant emissions. The construction emissions presented in Table 4.2-3 include the estimated annual construction PM10 emissions associated with Alternative 3. These emissions would produce slightly elevated short-term PM10 ambient air concentrations. However, the impacts would be temporary, and would fall off rapidly with distance from the proposed construction sites. Draft EIS November 2007 4-6 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 Table 4.2-3. Estimates of Total Proposed Construction Emissions from Alternative 3 in Tons Per Year NOx VOC CO CO2 SOx PM10 Construction Emissions 2,927.48 436.388 3,419.94 137.50 58.550 1,713.357 Maintenance Emissions 0.127 0.015 0.064 2.0 0.030 0.015 Generator Emissions 22.777 1.859 4.907 100.0 1.498 1.601 Total Alternative 3 Emissions 2,950.39 438.26 3,424.958 239.50 60.078 1,714.973 Federal de minimis Threshold NA NA NA NA NA NA BLIAQCR Regional Emissions 44,137 73,577 317,422 995,000 2,940 132,788 6.68 0.596 1.079 0.024 2.04 1.292 Description Percent of BLIAQCR Regional Emissions 3 Source: USEPA 2007b 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Specific information describing the types of construction equipment required for a specific task, the hours the equipment is operated, and the operating conditions vary widely from project to project. For the purposes of this analysis, these parameters were estimated using established methodologies for construction and experience with similar types of construction projects. Combustion by-product emissions from construction equipment exhausts were estimated using USEPA’s AP-42 emissions factors for heavy-duty, diesel-powered construction equipment. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 The construction emissions presented in Table 4.2-3 include the estimated annual emissions from construction equipment exhaust associated with Alternative 3 in CY 2008 and operation of agricultural mowers and dieselpowered generators. As with fugitive dust emissions, combustion emissions would produce slightly elevated air pollutant concentrations. Early phases of construction projects involve heavier diesel equipment and earthmoving, resulting in higher NOx and PM10 emissions. Later phases of construction projects involve more light gasoline equipment and surface coating, resulting in more CO and VOC emissions. However, the impacts would be temporary, fall off rapidly with distance from the proposed construction site, and would not result in any long-term impacts. 22 23 24 25 26 Maintenance Activities. The pedestrian fence and patrol road would require mowing approximately two times per year to maintain vegetation height and allow enhanced visibility and security. It was assumed that six 40-hp agricultural mowers would mow the vegetation in the project area approximately 14 days per year. Emissions from these agricultural mowers would be minimal. No adverse Draft EIS November 2007 4-7 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 impacts on local or regional air quality are anticipated from these future maintenance activities. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Generators. Alternative 3 would require six diesel powered generators to power construction equipment. It is assumed that these generators would be approximately 75 hp and operate approximately 8 hours per day for 190 working days. Emissions from these diesel generators would be minimal. Operational emissions associated with Alternative 3 would not result in an adverse impact on air quality. The emissions factors and estimates were generated based on guidance provided in USEPA AP-42, Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources. According to TAC Title 30, internal combustion engines greater than 500 brake horsepower require an operating permit (TAC 2007). Therefore, the generators under Alternative 3 are exempt from requiring an operating permit from the TCEQ. 14 15 16 17 18 19 Summary. Since the BLIAQCR is within an area classified as being in attainment for all NAAQS criteria pollutants, General Conformity Rule requirements are not applicable to Alternative 3. Table 4.2-3 illustrates that the emissions from Alternative 3 would be less than 10 percent of the BLIAQCR inventory (USEPA 2002b). Table 4.2-3 illustrates that the emissions from Route B would be less than 10 percent of the BLIAQCR inventory (USEPA 2007b). 20 21 According to 40 CFR Part 81, there are no Class I areas in the vicinity of Alternative 3. Therefore, Federal PSD regulations would not apply. 22 23 24 25 26 Greenhouse Gases. USEPA has estimated that the total greenhouse emissions for Texas was 189 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) in 1999. Of this, of this an estimated 995,000 tons of CO2 are associated with the BLIAQCR regions. Therefore construction emissions of CO2 represent less than 10 percent of the regional emissions (USEPA 2007c). 27 28 29 30 31 32 After construction is completed, normal border patrol schedules would continue. The vehicles used for surveillance of the existing border area are generating CO2 that is accounted for in the Texas greenhouse gas inventory. No new sources of CO2 would result from Alternatives 3. Therefore, no net increase of greenhouse emissions would be expected. Emissions factors, calculations, and estimates of emissions are shown in detail in Appendix K. 33 4.3 34 4.3.1 35 36 37 Under the No Action Alternative, current activities as described in Section 3.3 would be the dominant source of noise and there would be no short- or long-term changes to the noise environment. NOISE Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Draft EIS November 2007 4-8 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 4.3.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B 2 Route A 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Short-term moderate adverse impacts would be associated with Route A. Sources of noise from the implementation of Route A would include blasting, operation of construction equipment, and noise from construction vehicles. Noise from construction activities and vehicle traffic can impact wildlife as well as humans. Impacts on nesting, feeding, and migration could all occur on various species due to construction noise. For specific information regarding impacts on wildlife from noise, see Section 4.8.2. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Construction Noise. The construction of the fence sections and related tactical infrastructure, such as the patrol and access roads and construction staging areas, would result in noise impacts on populations in the vicinity of the proposed sites. Construction of the fence sections and the patrol roads adjacent to the fence would result in grading and construction noise. Populations that could be impacted by construction noise include adjacent residents, personnel visiting one of the wildlife refuges or recreation areas, or employees in nearby office or retail buildings. Noise levels for the construction of Route A were calculated using equipment typical of construction projects. Noise from construction assumes several different pieces of construction equipment operating simultaneously (see Table 3.3-1). Because noise attenuates over distance, a gradual decrease in noise level occurs the further a receptor is away from the source of noise. Construction noise levels would decrease as the distance increases from the source. At 50 feet the noise level would be 85 dBA, at 300 feet the noise level would be 70 dBA, and at 5,280 feet (i.e., 1 mile) the noise level would be 45 dBA. 25 26 27 28 29 30 Implementation of Route A would have temporary impacts on the noise environment from the use of heavy equipment during construction activities. However, noise generation would last only for the duration of construction activities and would be isolated to normal working hours (i.e., between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.). Therefore, it is anticipated that implementation of Route A would have negligible impacts as a result of the construction activities. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Route A would impact residential areas as well as recreational facilities and wilderness areas. In general, users of recreational facilities and sites anticipate a quiet environment. Noise from construction would impact the ambient acoustical environment around these sites. While construction would be a temporary source of noise, and no significant impacts would be anticipated at recreational sites or wilderness areas, noise from construction would reach areas that are anticipated to have low levels of ambient noise. 38 39 40 41 Vehicular Noise. Noise impacts from increased construction traffic would be temporary in nature. These impacts would most likely be confined to normal working hours (i.e., between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.) and would last only as long as the construction activities were ongoing. Most of the major roadways in the Draft EIS November 2007 4-9 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 vicinity pass by residential areas. Therefore, it is anticipated that Route A would have short-term minor adverse noise impacts as a result of the increase in traffic, most notably in the areas around Brownsville, McAllen, Progreso, Santa Maria, and Relampago. 5 Route B 6 7 8 9 The noise impacts associated with Route B would be expected to be the same as those described above for Route A because the overall length of the proposed project corridor and duration of construction activities for Route A and Route B would be similar. 10 4.3.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative 11 12 13 14 15 16 Short-term moderate adverse impacts would be expected under Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3, primary and secondary fences would be constructed 130 feet apart along the same route as Alternative 2, Route B. Noise impacts from Alternative 3 would be slightly greater than those discussed under Alternative 2. Residences would be closer to the secondary fence; therefore, noise impacts from construction equipment would be slightly higher than under Alternative 2. 17 4.4 18 4.4.1 19 20 21 22 In some locations, land values and land uses (including potential development) are currently adversely affected by illegal border crossings. Under the No Action Alternative, land uses and values as described in Section 3.4 may continue to be adversely affected and degradation could increase. 23 4.4.2 24 Route A 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Constructing the proposed tactical infrastructure would result in long-term minor adverse impacts on land use. The severity of the impact would vary depending on the need for rezoning to accommodate the fence sections, and patrol roads. USBP might be required to obtain a permit or zoning variance based on local restrictions and ordinances. Short-term minor adverse impacts would occur from construction. Impacts on land use would vary depending on potential changes in land use and the land use of adjacent properties. 32 33 34 35 36 For the purposes of this EIS, a land use analysis was conducted using the National Land Cover Dataset. The National Land Cover Dataset is the first land cover mapping project with a national (conterminous) scope. It is likely the most widely used land cover dataset in the United States and no other national land cover mapping program had ever been undertaken. The National Land Cover LAND USE Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Routes A and B Draft EIS November 2007 4-10 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 Dataset provides 21 different land cover classes for the lower 48 states. The 21 different land cover classes were generalized into the following 4 categories: agricultural, developed, parks and refuges, and undeveloped. The proposed project corridor is classified by approximately 22 percent agricultural, 47 percent developed, 10 percent parks and refuges, and 21 percent undeveloped land. 6 7 8 Table 4.4-1 outlines the proposed tactical infrastructure section by the existing communities within or adjacent to Route A that would potentially be affected by the proposed tactical infrastructure. 9 Table 4.4-1. Communities Potentially Affected by Route A Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Section Number 10 11 12 Community Affected O-1 Roma O-2 Rio Grande City O-3 Los Ebanos O-4 Peñitas O-5 Granjeno O-6 Hidalgo O-7 Agriculture south of Donna O-8 Agriculture south of Donna O-9 Progreso Lakes Community O-10 Progreso O-11 Agriculture south of Santa Maria O-12 Los Indios O-13 Los Indios O-14 Los Indios O-15 La Paloma O-16 Encatada-Ranchito El Calaboz O-17 San Pedro/River Bend Community O-18 Brownsville O-19 Brownsville O-20 Brownsville O-21 Brownsville Construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure sections would require the government to acquire various interests in land. Under current law, the Secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to contract for or buy an interest in land Draft EIS November 2007 4-11 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 that is adjacent to or in the vicinity of the international land border when the Secretary deems the land essential to control and guard the boundaries and borders of the United States (8 U.S.C. 1103(b)). 4 5 6 7 Because the proposed tactical infrastructure sections would traverse both public and private lands, various methods could be used to acquire the necessary interests in land. These methods include, among other things, acquiring permanent easements, ROW, or outright purchase. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 For those proposed tactical infrastructure sections that are on Federal lands, the most likely means of acquisition would be an ROW obtained from the relevant Federal land manager. On private land, the government would likely purchase the land or some interest in land from the relevant land owner. Acquisition from private landowners is a negotiable process that is carried out between the government and the landowner on a case-by-case basis. The government also has the statutory authority to acquire such interests through eminent domain. 15 16 17 18 Agricultural lands within the 60-foot proposed project corridor would not be available for future crop production. In addition, residential, industrial, commercial, and undeveloped lands within proposed project corridor would not be available for future development. 19 20 21 Landowners whose properties would be affected could receive a gate within the fence that would allow them to access other portions of their property to reduce potential inconvenience. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Short-term minor indirect adverse impacts on recreation would be expected during the construction activities associated with Route A. However, impacts would be localized and short-term. Long-term minor adverse impacts on recreation would be expected after construction because access to recreational areas along the proposed tactical infrastructure sections could be limited or restricted to potential users. Long-term indirect beneficial impacts on recreational areas could occur as a result of decreased cross border violators coming into these recreational areas. In addition, by reducing the amount of illegal traffic within and adjacent to the project area, disturbance to lands on the U.S. side of the proposed fence would be reduced. 32 33 34 35 36 37 Land use in the areas between the 21 proposed fence sections could be adversely impacted by the deterrent impacts the fence sections would have by the funneling of illegal cross border activities into those areas. Since the locations of the proposed tactical infrastructure sections are based on USBP operational requirements including the ability to make apprehensions, adverse impacts would be expected to be minor. Draft EIS November 2007 4-12 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 Route B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Similar impacts to those described above for Route A would be expected. The figures in Appendix F show the locations of the proposed tactical infrastructure sections and the proximity of adjacent and intersecting land. For the purposes of this EIS, a land use analysis was conducted using the National Land Cover Dataset. The proposed project corridor is classified by approximately 22 percent agricultural, 46 percent developed (1 percent less than Route A), 9 percent parks and refuges (1 percent less than Route A), and 23 percent undeveloped land (2 percent more than Route A). 10 4.4.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Alternative 3 would have similar impacts to Alternative 2. The figures in Appendix F show the location of the proposed tactical infrastructure sections and the proximity of adjacent and intersecting land. For the purposes of this EIS, a land use analysis was conducted using the National Land Cover Dataset. The proposed project corridor is classified by approximately 28 percent agricultural, 41 percent developed, 9 percent parks and refuges, and 22 percent undeveloped land. 18 4.5 19 4.5.1 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The No Action Alternative would result in continuation of the existing condition of geologic resources, as discussed in Section 3.5.1. No impacts on geologic resources would occur as a result of the construction, operation, or maintenance of proposed tactical infrastructure. In the areas of the proposed tactical infrastructure sections, cross border violators tend to trample footpaths, leading to a minor long-term adverse impact on soils due to compaction. This condition would continue under the No Action Alternative. 27 4.5.2 28 Route A 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Physiography and Topography. Short- and long-term minor adverse impacts on the natural topography would be expected. Grading, contouring, and trenching associated with the installation of the proposed tactical infrastructure sections would impact approximately 508 acres, which would alter the existing topography. However, the existing topography of much of the proposed project corridor was previously altered to construct the levees, provide access roads, and to level agricultural fields for irrigation. 36 37 Geology. Short- and long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts on geologic resources could occur at locations if bedrock is at the surface and blasting would GEOLOGY AND SOILS Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Routes A and B Draft EIS November 2007 4-13 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 be necessary to grade for fence placement or patrol road development. Geologic resources could affect the placement of the fence or patrol roads due to the occurrence of bedrock at the surface, or as a result of structural instability. Sitespecific geotechnical surveys would be conducted prior to construction to determine depth to bedrock. In most cases, it is expected that project design and engineering practices could be implemented to mitigate geologic limitations to site development. 8 9 10 11 Soils. Short-term minor direct adverse impacts on soils would be expected. Soil disturbance and compaction due to grading, contouring, and trenching associated with the installation of the proposed tactical infrastructure sections would impact approximately 508 acres. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 The proposed construction activities would be expected to result in an increase in soil erosion, especially in the western portion of the proposed project corridor associated with Route A (in Sections O-1, O-2, and O-3). This area is characterized by low ridges with moderately steep-sided bluffs with narrow arroyos. Soil disturbance on steep slopes has the potential to result in excessive erosion due to instability of the disturbed soils and high runoff energy and velocity. Sediments washed from construction sites would be carried to and deposited in the Rio Grande. In addition, wind erosion has the potential to impact disturbed soils where vegetation has been removed due to the semi-arid climate of the region. Construction activities would be expected to directly impact the existing soils as a result of grading, excavating, placement of fill, compaction, and mixing or augmentation necessary to prepare the sites for development of the fence sections and patrol roads and associated utility lines. Following construction activities, the areas disturbed would be revegetated with native species to the maximum extent practicable to reestablish native plant communities and help stabilize soils. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Because proposed construction within most proposed tactical infrastructure sections would result in a soil disturbance of greater than 5 acres, authorization under TCEQ Construction General Permits (TXR150000) would be required. Construction activities subject to these permits include clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling or excavation, but do not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permits require the development and implementation of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs). 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 The SWPPPs should contain one or more site maps that show the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPPs must list BMPs the discharger will use to protect storm water runoff along with the locations of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPPs must contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for nonvisible pollutants to Draft EIS November 2007 4-14 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Part III.F of the Construction General Permit describes the elements that must be contained in an SWPPP. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Long-term minor direct adverse impacts on prime farmland soils in Hidalgo and Cameron counties would occur as a result of construction activities. No soils associated with farmland of local, unique, or statewide importance are identified for Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties. In areas not currently being used for agriculture, the proposed project corridor would be linear and limited in extent, therefore any impacts on the areas considered prime farmland would be considered minor. In the areas where crops, such as sorghum and sugar cane, are currently being grown in the proposed project corridor, construction would result in the permanent loss of existing cropland. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Soils in open areas between the 21 proposed tactical infrastructure sections would be adversely impacted by the funneling of cross border violators into the areas where there would be no fence. Increased foot traffic between fence sections would reduce vegetation, disturb soils, and lead to increased soil erosion. Since the locations of the 21 fence sections were based on USBP operational requirements including the ability to make apprehensions, the extent of the disturbance would be limited and the impacts would be minor, long-term, and adverse. 22 Route B 23 24 25 26 Route B would result in similar environmental impacts on physiographic, topographic, geologic, and soils resources as described above for Route A. Slight differences in prime farmland soil acreages impacted would be anticipated as a result of implementing Route B. 27 4.5.3 28 29 30 31 32 The Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative would result in similar environmental impacts on physiographic, topographic, geologic, and soils resources as described above for Alternative 2. However, the magnitude of the impacts would affect a larger area, due to the additional fence and overall wider corridor. Approximately 1,270 acres would be impacted. 33 4.6 34 4.6.1 35 36 37 38 Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented. As a result, there would be no change from baseline conditions, as described in Section 3.6. Impacts on water resources could continue to occur, such as the impacts of regional drought or other natural events affecting precipitation Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative WATER RESOURCES Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Draft EIS November 2007 4-15 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 patterns. In addition, adverse impacts associated with water contamination due to cross border violators would continue. 3 4.6.2 4 Route A Alternative 2: Routes A and B 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Hydrology and Groundwater. Short- and long-term negligible direct adverse impacts on the hydrology of the Rio Grande would be expected to occur as a result of the grading and contouring associated with Route A in Sections O-1, O-2, and O-3. Grading and contouring would be expected to alter the topography and remove vegetation of approximately 105 acres within the floodplain of the Rio Grande, which could in turn increase erosion potential and increase runoff during heavy precipitation events. Revegetating the area with native vegetation following construction along with other BMPs to abate runoff and wind erosion could reduce the impacts of erosion and runoff. Additionally, the small increase in impervious surface within the floodplain would result in negligible increases in the quantity and velocity of storm water flows to the Rio Grande. As required by the Texas Construction General Permit (TXR150000), BMPs would be developed as part of the required SWPPPs to manage storm water both during and after construction. Therefore, impacts would be expected to be negligible. 20 21 22 23 24 No impacts on hydrology would be expected for Sections O-4 through O-21. These sections would be constructed and operated behind the levee system, outside the Rio Grande floodplain. Most of the levee system is operated by the IBWC, but small segments of the levee system (i.e., in Section O-19) are privately owned. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Short-term direct minor adverse construction-related impacts on groundwater resources in Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties would also be expected. During construction, water would be required for pouring concrete, watering of road and ground surfaces for dust suppression, and for washing construction vehicles. Water use for construction would be temporary, and the volume of water used for construction would be minor when compared to the amount used annually in the area for municipal, agricultural, and industrial purposes. 32 33 34 35 36 The potential for short-term negligible adverse impacts on groundwater related to an increase in stormwater runoff would also occur. Implementation of storm water and spill prevention BMPs developed consistent with the SWPPPs and other applicable plans and regulations would minimize potential runoff or spillrelated impacts on groundwater quality during construction. 37 38 39 40 Surface Water and Waters of the United States. Short- and long-term direct and indirect negligible adverse impacts on water quality would be expected. Implementation of Route A would increase impervious surface area and runoff potential. Approximately 508 acres of soil would be disturbed due to grading, Draft EIS November 2007 4-16 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 contouring, and trenching. Surface water that would be affected either directly or indirectly include the Rio Grande, arroyos (Section O-2), an irrigation canal (Section O-5), the Donna Canal (Section O-7), a settling basin and Moon Lake (Section O-9), the Santa Maria Canal (O-11), the Harlingen Canal (Section O12), the San Benito Canal (O-13), Los Fresnos pump canal (Section O-18), and El Jardin Canal (Section O-21). 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Construction activities within most of the proposed tactical infrastructure sections associated with Route A would disturb more than 5 acres of soil, and therefore would require authorization under the Texas Construction General Permits (TXR1500000). The Construction General Permits would require preparation of SWPPPs. The SWPPPs would include erosion and sediment control and storm water BMPs for activities resulting during and after construction. Based on these requirements, adverse impacts associated with storm water runoff on surface water quality would be reduced to negligible impacts. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Impacts on surface water and wetlands that are potentially jurisdictional waters of the United States would be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts that cannot be avoided would be minimized and BMPs would be established to comply with all applicable Federal, state, and local regulations. Potential impacts include filling wetlands and moving the alignment of irrigation canals and drainage ditches. Currently, wetland vegetation is routinely removed mechanically from canal banks as a maintenance action to improve flow and reduce water loss to evapotranspiration. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 If wetland impacts cannot be avoided, USBP would obtain CWA Section 404 Permits and RHA Section 10 Permits, as applicable, from the USACE-Galveston District. As part of the permitting process, USBP would develop, submit, and implement a wetlands identification, mitigation, and restoration plan to avoid or minimize impacts and compensate for unavoidable impacts. The plan would be developed in accordance with USACE guidelines and in cooperation with USEPA. The plan would outline BMPs from pre-construction to post-construction activities to reduce impact on wetlands and water bodies. As part of the Section 404 permit application process, USBP will also request certification from TCEQ under Section 401 (a) of the CWA to ensure that actions will comply with state water quality standards. This certification must be received for the Section 404 authorization to be valid. Based on NWI data, a total of approximately 7 acres of wetlands would be impacted under Route A. The unavoidable impacts on waters and wetlands will be reviewed as part of the USACE 404 permit process. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Floodplains. Impacts on floodplains would be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Acknowledging the potential shortfalls of the methodology to estimate the floodplain limits in Sections O-1 through O-3, potential short- and long-term minor adverse impacts on the Rio Grande floodplain would occur as a result of construction activities. Section O-1 impacts would include 5.26 miles of floodplain, Section O-2 would include 7.30 miles of floodplain, and Section O-3 would include 1.86 miles of floodplain. The permanent width of the impact area Draft EIS November 2007 4-17 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 would be 60 feet (see Figure 2-4); therefore, Route A would impact approximately 105 acres of floodplains along Sections O-1, O-2, and O-3. No impacts on floodplains or IBWC international floodways would be expected in Sections O-4 through O-21. These sections would be constructed and operated behind the levee system, outside the Rio Grande floodplain. Most of the levee system is operated by the IBWC, but small segments of the levee system (i.e., in Section O-19) are privately owned. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 In accordance with the FEMA Document, Further Advice on EO 11988, Floodplain Management, USBP has determined that Sections O-1 through O-3 cannot be practicably located outside the floodplain. The current floodplain extends past local communities and roads strategic to the operations of USBP. In order to operate outside the existing floodplain, USBP would have to move all operations northward several miles in some areas. This would not meet USBP mission needs. The increase in impervious surface associated with fence Sections O-1, O-2, and O-3 would have no impact on the IBWC international drainage, which starts in Peñitas, Texas, in Hidalgo County. USBP would mitigate unavoidable impacts on floodplains using planning guidance developed by the USACE. 19 Route B 20 21 22 23 24 Hydrology and Groundwater. Impacts on the hydrology of the Rio Grande under Route B would be similar to those under Route A for Sections O-1 through O-3. No impacts on hydrology would be expected in Sections O-4 through O-21. The impacts of Route B on groundwater would be identical to the impacts described above for Route A. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Surface Waters and Waters of the United States. Impacts on surface waters and waters of the United States under Route B would be similar to those under Route A. Sedimentation and erosion impacts would be identical to the impacts under Route A. Surface waters that would be affected under Route B include the Rio Grande (Sections O-1, O-3, and O-6), arroyos (Section O-2), an irrigation canal (Section O-5), the Donna Canal (Section O-7), the settling basin and Moon Lake (Section O-9), the Santa Maria Canal (Section O-11), the Harlingen Canal (Section O-12), the San Benito Canal (Section O-13), Los Fresnos pump canal (Section O-18), and El Jardin Canal. There are several differences between the impacts on surface water features that occur adjacent or within the proposed project corridor for Route B, as compared to Route A. Section O-1 of Route B would impact less riparian areas than Route A. Section O-2 in Route B would avoid some arroyos that would be impacted by Route A. Where practicable, Section O-3 of Route B would avoid impacts on some natural riparian areas along the Rio Grande. 40 41 42 As with Route A, impacts on surface water and wetlands that are potentially jurisdictional waters of the United States would be avoided to the maximum extent practicable under Route B. Impacts that cannot be avoided would be Draft EIS November 2007 4-18 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 minimized and BMPs enacted that would comply with all applicable Federal, state, and local regulations. Potential impacts include filling wetlands and moving the alignment of irrigation canals and drainage ditches. Currently, wetland vegetation is routinely removed mechanically from canal banks as a maintenance action to improve flow and reduce water loss to evapotranspiration. Based on NWI data, a total of approximately 7.3 acres of wetlands would be impacted under Route B. The unavoidable impacts on waters and wetlands will be reviewed as part of the USACE 404 permit process. 9 10 Floodplains. Impacts on floodplains under Route B would be the same as described for Route A. 11 4.6.3 12 13 14 15 16 Hydrology and Groundwater. Impacts on hydrology in Sections O-1, O-2, and O-3 under Alternative 3 would be similar, but slightly greater than the impacts described under Alternative 2. The primary and secondary fence sections proposed under Alternative 3 would result in a larger increase in impervious surface. 17 18 19 20 21 Impacts on groundwater under Alternative 3 would be slightly greater than the impacts under Alternative 2 because the area of surface disturbance would be greater under this alternative. Disturbance at the ground surface would not affect groundwater aquifers directly, and post-construction runoff patterns could result in minor groundwater recharge. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Surface Waters and Waters of the United States. Alternative 3 would result in impacts on surface waters and waters of the United States similar to those described for Alternative 2. However, the magnitude of the impacts would affect a larger area due to the additional fence and wider corridor. Approximately 1,270 acres of soils would be disturbed due to grading, contouring, and trenching. As described in Section 3.6.1, Texas Construction General Permits would be required to address the development and implementation of SWPPPs with BMPs to reduce the impacts of storm water runoff. A larger area of wetlands would also be impacted under this alternative. Additionally, CWA Section 404, CWA Section 401(a), and RHA Section 10 authorizations will be obtained, as required, for unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional waters of the United States. A wetlands mitigation and restoration plan to compensate for unavoidable impacts will be developed by the applicant and submitted to the USACE-Galveston District Regulatory Branch for approval prior to implementation. Appropriate mitigation would be developed to compensate for unavoidable impacts. 37 38 39 40 41 Floodplains. Impacts on floodplains in Sections O-1, O-2, and O-3 under Alternative 3 would be slightly greater than those described under Alternative 2. The primary and secondary sections proposed under Alternative 3 would result in an increase in impervious surface, contributing slightly more surface runoff to the Rio Grande and its associated floodplain. Section O-1 would include 3.75 miles Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative Draft EIS November 2007 4-19 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 of floodplain, Section O-2 would include 8.74 miles of floodplain, and Section O-3 would include 1.90 miles of floodplain. The permanent width of the impact area would be 150 feet (see Figure 2-5) and would impact approximately 262 acres of floodplains along Sections O-1, O-2, and O-3. No impacts on floodplains or IBWC international floodways would be expected for Sections O-4 through O-21. These sections would be constructed and operated behind the levee system, outside the Rio Grande floodplain. Most of the levee system is operated by the IBWC, but small segments of the levee system (i.e., in Section O-19) are privately owned. 10 4.7 VEGETATION 11 4.7.1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Under the No Action Alternative, vegetation would continue to be influenced by Federal, state, and nonprofit resource agency and private land management plans, development, agricultural crop production, wildfires, drought, and floods. Native vegetation stands would continue to be adversely affected due to trampling by recreationists (primarily hunters), cross border violators, and USBP agents in pursuit of cross border violators and vehicles used off-trail during apprehension. 19 4.7.2 20 Route A 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 A 60-foot-wide corridor containing the proposed pedestrian fence and patrol road associated with Route A would be cleared during construction and a portion maintained following construction to support long-term maintenance, sight distance, and patrol activities. For the proposed length of approximately 70 miles, the proposed project corridor totals approximately 508 acres. Existing land and vegetation composing approximately 508 acres includes urban land, private residences, and agricultural land (approximately 25 percent of the proposed project corridor); nonnative grasslands and herbaceous vegetation (approximately 40 percent of the proposed project corridor); disturbed thornscrub shrublands and woodlands (approximately 25 percent of the proposed project corridor); and disturbed floodplain shrublands, woodlands, and forests (approximately 10 percent of the proposed project corridor). 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 The loss of vegetation from approximately 125 acres of urban and agricultural land would result in short- and long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts due to the potential of the disturbed land to become a nursery for nonnative plant species to propagate and invade surrounding plant communities. Potential impacts due to removal of individual large mature native trees of Texas ebony, sabal palm, eastern cottonwood, sugarberry, and honey mesquite could be reduced by avoidance (avoidance of these large trees would require protection of the soil and root zone at least to the canopy drip-line, a zone up to 50–75 feet Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Routes A and B Draft EIS November 2007 4-20 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 wide), or minimization by transplanting individuals (e.g., of the sabal palms) to areas selected by the USFWS or other resource agencies. However, avoidance or transplant of all such trees would likely not be feasible. Therefore, removal impacts would result in long-term moderate to major adverse impacts, because these trees are virtually irreplaceable. 6 7 8 9 The loss of approximately 200 acres of herbaceous vegetation, more than half of this area dominated by nonnative buffelgrass, Bermuda grass, and windmill grass, would result in short- and long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts due to habitat conversion. 10 11 12 13 14 The loss of approximately 125 acres of disturbed thornscrub shrubland and woodland habitat, predominantly honey mesquite and retama, would result in short- and long-term moderate adverse impacts due to habitat conversion. In the LRGVNWR, a portion of this acreage represents stands that were previously revegetated by the USFWS around 2002 and 2003. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 In the first mile of proposed tactical infrastructure Section O-1, approximately 4.0 acres of Tamaulipan thornscrub that has become established on gravel substrate of hills and ridges would be removed, resulting in long-term major adverse impacts due to habitat conversion by disruption of the substrate. The first 0.85 acres of this habitat has been root-plowed, resulting in an invasion of the nonnative buffelgrass and loss of native vegetation cover, diversity, and community structure. Restoration of this root-plowed habitat with its loss of gravel veneer and need to eliminate invasive grass species would likely not occur. BMPs would include implementation of a Construction Mitigation and Restoration (CM&R) Plan and a Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan. 25 26 27 28 29 30 In the first 0.5 miles of proposed tactical infrastructure Section O-1, sedimentary rock outcrops on south-facing slopes would be avoided during construction, resulting in short- and long-term moderate to major beneficial impacts, due to preservation of a unique habitat that in other sites supports federally listed plant species (e.g., the Zapata bladderpod). Loss of these unique sedimentary rock outcrops would be irreplaceable. 31 32 33 34 35 The loss of approximately 50 acres of disturbed floodplain shrubland, woodland, and forest habitat, predominantly honey mesquite and sugarberry and to a lesser extent sabal palm, would result in short- and long-term moderate to major adverse impacts due to habitat conversion and the size and age of mature floodplain trees. 36 37 38 39 The proposed project corridor would be expected to provide some protection for vegetation in the areas north of proposed project corridor from new, continued, or increased foot traffic impacts by cross-border violators. Such protection would result in short- and long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts. Draft EIS November 2007 4-21 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 In summary, short- and long-term adverse impacts on vegetation would range from negligible to major due to habitat loss and modification. Short- and longterm negligible to moderate (depending upon the location) beneficial impacts would be anticipated due to protection of remaining vegetation north of the proposed project corridor. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Vegetation resources between the 21 proposed tactical infrastructure sections would also be adversely impacted by the funneling of cross border violators into the areas where there would be no fence. Concentrated foot traffic around the ends of the sections would reduce vegetation in those areas. Since the locations of the 21 sections were based on USBP operational requirements including the ability to make apprehensions, the extent of the disturbance would be limited and the impacts would be minor, long-term, and adverse. 13 Route B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Route B would impact approximately 508 acres, similar to Route A. While Route B would cut across the lower portions of Los Velas and Los Velas West annexes of the LRGVNWR (Section O-2), it would entirely avoid the potentially more species-rich Arroyo Ramirez annex (Section O-1), the Culebron Banco annex (Section O-13), and the Tahuachal Banco annex (Section O-16) of the LRGVNWR. Finally, Route B moves the proposed fence alignment from the edge of town to along the levee in the western portion of Section O-19, potentially protecting remaining habitat north of the levee in that area. Indirect impacts on other areas between fence sections would be the same as described under Route A. Short- and long-term adverse impacts on vegetation resulting from development of Route B would be less than those for Route A, but would still fall into the negligible to major range. Short- and long-term beneficial impacts due to protection provided by the fence along Route B would also be anticipated to range from minor to moderate, depending upon the location. 28 4.7.3 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Under the Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative, a 150-foot-wide corridor containing the proposed primary and secondary pedestrian fences and patrol roads would be cleared during construction and would remain cleared following construction to support long-term maintenance, sight distance, and patrol activities. The cleared area totals approximately 1,270 acres over the 70-mile length of the proposed project corridor. Existing land use and vegetation in this 1,270 acres includes urban land, private residences, and agricultural land (approximately 25 percent); nonnative grasslands and herbaceous vegetation (approximately 40 percent); disturbed thornscrub shrublands and woodlands (approximately 25 percent); and disturbed floodplain shrublands, woodlands, and forests (approximately 10 percent). 40 41 The loss of vegetation from approximately 320 acres of urban and agricultural land would result in short- and long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts due Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative Draft EIS November 2007 4-22 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 to the potential for the disturbed land to become a nursery for nonnative plant species to propagate and invade surrounding plant communities. Removal of individual large mature native trees of Texas ebony, sabal palm, eastern cottonwood, sugarberry, and honey mesquite would result in long-term, moderate to major adverse impacts, because they are virtually irreplaceable. Avoidance of these large trees would not be possible under this alternative. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 The loss of approximately 505 acres of herbaceous vegetation, more than half of this area dominated by nonnative buffelgrass, Bermuda grass, and windmill grass, would result in short- and long-term moderate adverse impacts due to permanent habitat conversion. The loss of approximately 320 acres of disturbed thornscrub shrubland and woodland habitat, predominantly honey mesquite and retama, would result in short- and long-term, moderate to major, adverse impacts due to permanent habitat conversion. In the LRGVNWR, a portion of this acreage represents stands that were previously revegetated by the USFWS during 2002 and 2003. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In the first mile of proposed Fence Section O-1, approximately 9.0 acres of thornscrub that has become established on gravel substrate of hills and ridges would be permanently removed, resulting in long-term, major adverse impacts due to habitat conversion by disruption of the substrate and elimination of vegetation cover. In the first 0.5 miles of proposed fence Section O-1, sedimentary rock outcrops on south-facing slopes would be avoided during construction, resulting in short- and long-term moderate to major beneficial impacts due to preservation of a unique habitat that in other sites supports federally listed plant species (e.g., the Zapata bladderpod). Loss of these unique sedimentary rock outcrops would be irreplaceable. 26 27 28 29 30 The loss of approximately 125 acres of disturbed floodplain shrubland, woodland, and forest habitat, predominantly honey mesquite and sugarberry and to a lesser extent sabal palm, would result in short- and long-term, moderate to major adverse impacts due to permanent habitat conversion, the size and age of mature floodplain trees, and the endemicity of the sabal palm. 31 32 33 34 During and following construction of the proposed fence sections, the impacts of fire, drought, and flooding, as described in the No Action Alternative, would occur over time, resulting in short- and long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts on the remaining native and nonnative plant communities. 35 4.8 36 4.8.1 37 38 39 40 Under the No Action Alternative, new tactical infrastructure would not be built and there would be no change in fencing, access roads, or other facilities along the U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations within the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector. Anticipated continuation or even increases in WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Draft EIS November 2007 4-23 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 cross border violator traffic would be expected to have some adverse impacts on habitat for wildlife and aquatic resources. These impacts are anticipated to be short- and long-term, minor, and adverse. 4 4.8.2 5 Route A Alternative 2: Routes A and B 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 A 60-foot-wide corridor containing the proposed pedestrian fence and patrol road associated with Route A would be cleared during construction and a portion maintained following construction to support long-term maintenance, sight distance, and patrol activities. For the period of construction, lay-down areas for materials and equipment would be identified within the disturbed proposed project corridor. Route A would follow the IBWC levee system for the majority of its length; however, some proposed tactical infrastructure sections would encroach on portions of unique or protected habitats. Route A alignment would cross several Texas state parks and WMAs in the Rio Grande Valley and would intersect LRGVNWR at several locations (see Appendix I). Potential threats to wildlife in these areas include habitat conversion, noise, and potential siltation of aquatic habitats. 18 19 20 21 22 For the proposed length of approximately 70 miles, the area within the proposed project corridor that would be cleared of vegetation totals approximately 508 acres. The following paragraphs characterize the amount of each general habitat type that would be temporarily or permanently impacted and the impacts of that habitat conversion on wildlife species. 23 24 25 26 The loss of vegetation from approximately 125 acres of urban and agricultural land would result in short- and long-term negligible adverse impacts on wildlife species due to the disturbed land potentially becoming a nursery for nonnative plant species to propagate and invade surrounding plant communities. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 The loss of approximately 200 acres of herbaceous vegetation, more than half of this area dominated by nonnative buffelgrass, Bermuda grass, and windmill grass, would result in short- and long-term, minor adverse impacts to wildlife due to habitat conversion. The loss of approximately 125 acres of disturbed thornscrub shrubland and woodland habitat, predominantly honey mesquite and retama, would result in short- and long-term moderate adverse impacts on wildlife due to habitat conversion. 34 35 36 37 In the first mile of proposed tactical Section O-1, approximately 4.0 acres of Tamaulipan thornscrub that has become established on gravel substrate of hills and ridges would be removed, resulting in long-term minor adverse impacts on wildlife due to habitat conversion. 38 39 The loss of approximately 50 acres of disturbed floodplain shrubland, woodland, and forest habitat, predominantly honey mesquite and sugarberry and to a lesser Draft EIS November 2007 4-24 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 extent sabal palm, would result in short- and long-term, minor to moderate adverse impacts on wildlife. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 The proposed tactical infrastructure sections would be expected to provide some protection for wildlife and wildlife habitats in the areas north of the proposed project corridor from new, continued, or increased foot traffic impacts by cross border violators. Such protection would result in short- and long-term, minor beneficial impacts on wildlife. However, wildlife and wildlife habitat between the 21 proposed tactical infrastructure sections would be adversely impacted by the funneling of cross border violators into the areas where there would be no fence and concentrated USBP operations. The severity of the impact would vary depending on the quality of the habitat impacted. Cross border violators could be funneled into portions of the LRGVNWR. Section O-1 could funnel cross border violators west into the Arroyo Ramirez annex. Fence section O-2 could funnel cross border violators east into the Los Velas West LRGVNWR. Fence Section O-3 could funnel cross border violators west into the Los Ebanos annex. Between Sections O-5 and O-6 is the Cottam annex which could be adversely impacted by concentrating cross border violators into the area. Section O-10 could funnel cross border violators east into the Relampago annex, and Section O-18 could funnel cross border violators east into the Phillips Banco annex. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Noise created during construction would be anticipated to result in short-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts on wildlife. These impacts would include subtle, widespread impacts from the overall elevation of ambient noise levels during construction. Noise levels after construction are anticipated to return to close to current ambient levels. Elevated noise levels during construction could result in reduced communication ranges, interference with predator/prey detection, or habitat avoidance. More intense impacts would include behavioral change, disorientation, or hearing loss. Predictors of wildlife response to noise include noise type (i.e., continuous or intermittent), prior experience with noise, proximity to a noise source, stage in the breeding cycle, activity, and age. Prior experience with noise is the most important factor in the response of wildlife to noise, because wildlife can become accustomed (or habituate) to the noise. The rate of habituation to short-term construction is not known, but it is anticipated that most wildlife would be permanently displaced from the areas where the habitat is cleared and the fence and associated tactical infrastructure constructed, and temporarily dispersed from areas adjacent to the project areas during construction periods. See Section 4.3.2 for additional details on expected noise levels associated with Routes A and B. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Removal of vegetation and grading during construction could temporarily increase siltation in the river and therefore have short-term minor adverse impacts on fish within the Rio Grande. Under Route A, tactical infrastructure would be adjacent to the river bank, and could result in increased siltation in the Rio Grande. There is one state-listed fish species known to overlap with proposed fence sections in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. The Rio Grande silvery minnow could potentially occur in the Rio Grande in three proposed Draft EIS November 2007 4-25 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 sections (O-18, O-19, and O-21). However, implementation of standard BMPs such as use of silt fences, should reduce this potential impact to negligible. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 In summary, implementation of Route A would be anticipated to have short- and long-term, negligible to moderate adverse impacts on wildlife due to habitat conversion; short-term, minor to moderate adverse impacts on wildlife due to construction noise; and negligible adverse impacts on aquatic habitats due to siltation from construction activities. Minor beneficial impacts would result from protection of wildlife and habitats on the north side of the proposed project corridor. 10 Route B 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Route B would impact approximately 508 acres, similar to Route A. While Route B would cut across the lower portions of Los Velas and Los Velas West annexes (Section O-2), it would entirely avoid the potentially more species-rich Arroyo Ramirez annex (Section O-1), the Culebron Banco annex (Section O-13), and the Tahuachal Banco annex (Section O-16) of the LRGVNWR. Finally, Route B moves the proposed fence alignment from the edge of town to along the levee in the western portion of Section O-19, potentially protecting remaining habitat and the wildlife it supports north of the levee in that area. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Short- and long-term adverse impacts on wildlife due to habitat conversion resulting from development of Route B would be less than those for Route A, but would still fall into the negligible to moderate range. Short- and long-term beneficial impacts due to protection provided by the fence along Route B would also be anticipated to range from minor to moderate, depending upon the location. Similar to the indirect impact discussed under Route A, wildlife and wildlife habitat between the 21 proposed sections of tactical infrastructure would be adversely impacted by the deterrent effect of the fence, the funneling of illegal cross-border violators into the areas where there would be no fence, and concentrated USBP operations. The severity of the impact would vary depending on the quality of the habitat impacted. Sections O-1 and O-2 Route B would avoid potential impacts on the Arroyo Ramirez annex and the Los Velas West annex of the LRGVNWR, respectively. Fence Section O-16 could funnel cross border violators east into the Tahuachal Banco annex, whereas Route A would bisect the refuge. Adverse impacts from Route B on Sections O-3, O-5, O-6, O-10, and O-18 would be the same as Route A. Noise impacts from construction would be similar to those for Route A: short-term, minor to moderate, and adverse. Although portions of the fence would be closer to the river (e.g., Section O-19), potential short-term adverse impacts on aquatic habitats due to siltation are not anticipated to exceed negligible assuming implementation of standard BMPs during construction. Draft EIS November 2007 4-26 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 4.8.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative 2 3 4 The nature of impacts of Alternative 3 would be similar to those of Alternative 2; however, the area impacted (1,270 acres) would be larger, resulting in greater intensity and duration of impacts. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Short- and long-term adverse impacts on wildlife due to habitat conversion resulting from implementation of Alternative 3 would be moderate to major. Short- and long-term beneficial impacts due to protection provided by the fence along Route B would range from minor to moderate, depending upon the location. Noise impacts from construction would be short-term and adverse, but would range from moderate to major in intensity. Given the larger footprint of this alternative and the correlated increased risk of runoff during storm events, the adverse impacts of this alternative on aquatic resources due to siltation could increase. 14 4.9 15 4.9.1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies to consult with the USFWS when actions could affect federally listed species or designated critical habitat. Preconsultation coordination with USFWS is underway for this project. The USFWS has provided critical feedback on the location and design of fence sections to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts on listed species or designated critical habitat. USBP is developing the Biological Assessment in coordination with the USFWS. Potential impacts of fence construction, maintenance, and operation will be analyzed in both the Biological Assessment and BO to accompany the Final EIS. 25 26 27 28 29 Potential impacts on federally listed species are based on currently available data. Impacts are developed from a NEPA perspective and are independent of any impact determinations made for the Section 7 consultation process. Impact categories used in this document cannot be assumed to correlate to potential impact determinations that have not yet been made. 30 4.9.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Under the No Action Alternative, new tactical infrastructure would not be built and there would be no change in fencing, access roads, or other facilities along the U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations within the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector. Anticipated continuation or even increases in cross border violator traffic would be expected to have some adverse impacts on federally listed species, especially plants. These impacts are anticipated to be short- and long-term, minor to moderate, and adverse. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES Federal Species Draft EIS November 2007 4-27 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 4.9.1.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B 2 Route A 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Under Route A, a 60-foot-wide corridor containing the proposed pedestrian and patrol roads would be cleared during construction and a portion maintained following construction to support long-term maintenance, sight distance, and patrol activities. For the period of construction, lay-down areas for materials and equipment would be identified within the disturbed proposed project corridor. Route A would follow the IBWC levee system for the majority of its length; however, some proposed fence sections would encroach on portions of unique or protected habitats. The proposed fence alignment would cross several Texas state parks and WMAs in the Rio Grande Valley and would intersect LRGVNWR at several locations (see Appendix I). Potential threats to federally listed species in these areas include trampling (for plants), habitat conversion, and noise. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Approximately 508 acres of vegetation would be cleared along the proposed project corridor for the Route A. Route A approaches known locations of individuals of Texas ayenia, Walker’s manioc, and Zapata bladderpod. Implementation of Route A would be anticipated to have the potential for shortterm major adverse impacts on these species due to trampling or mortality during fence construction. Long-term negligible to minor beneficial impacts could result from reduction or prevention of cross-border violator traffic through habitats for and populations of these species, but funneling of cross-border violators into occurrences of Texas ayenia, Walker’s manioc, and Zapata bladderpod could have long-term major adverse impacts on these species. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 The loss of approximately 125 acres of disturbed thornscrub shrubland and woodland habitat, predominantly honey mesquite and retama, and of approximately 50 acres of disturbed floodplain shrubland, woodland, and forest habitat, predominantly honey mesquite and sugarberry and to a lesser extent sabal palm, would represent a loss of approximately 150 acres of potential ocelot and jaguarundi habitat. The short- and long-term loss of potential habitat for these species is anticipated to result in short- and long-term, moderately adverse impacts on ocelots and jaguarundi. Long-term beneficial impacts due to protection of habitat provided by the fence along Route A would be anticipated to range from minor to moderate, depending upon the location. 35 36 37 38 For Route A, short-term moderate adverse impacts would be anticipated for ocelots and jaguarundi due to elevated noise levels during construction. These elevated noise levels could interfere with important communications, dispersal of individuals, and predator-prey interactions. Draft EIS November 2007 4-28 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 Route B 2 3 4 5 6 7 Route B would impact approximately 508 acres, similar to Route A. While Route B would cut across the lower portions of Los Velas and Los Velas West annexes of the LRGVNWR (Section O-2), it would entirely avoid the potentially more species-rich Arroyo Ramirez annex (Section O-1), the Culebron Banco annex (Section O-13), and the Tahuachal Banco annex (Section O-16) of the LRGVNWR. 8 9 10 11 12 13 Route B pulls the proposed fence alignment further away from several known locations of Zapata bladderpod and Walker’s manioc. For this reason, Route B impacts on federally listed plants are anticipated to be short-term, moderate, and adverse. Long-term negligible to minor beneficial impacts could result from reduction or prevention of cross-border violator traffic through habitats for and populations of these species. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Short- and long-term adverse impacts on federally listed species due to habitat conversion resulting from development of Route B would be less than those for Route A, but would still fall into the moderate range. Short- and long-term beneficial impacts due to protection provided by the fence along Route B would also be anticipated to range from minor to moderate, depending upon the location. Noise impacts from construction would be similar to those for Route A: short-term, moderate, and adverse. 21 4.9.1.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative 22 23 24 The nature of impacts of Alternative 3 would be similar to those of Alternative 2; however, the area impacted (1,270 acres) would be larger, resulting in greater intensity and duration of impacts. 25 26 27 28 29 30 Short- and long-term adverse impacts on federally listed species due to trampling (plants) and habitat conversion resulting from implementation of Alternative 3 would be major. Short- and long-term beneficial impacts due to protection provided by the fence along Route B would range from minor to moderate, depending upon the location. Noise impacts from construction would still be short-term and adverse, but would increase to moderate to major in intensity. 31 4.9.2 32 4.9.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 33 34 35 36 37 Under the No Action Alternative, new tactical infrastructure would not be built and there would be no change in fencing, access roads, or other facilities along the U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations within the Rio Grande Valley Sector. Anticipated continuation or even increases in crossborder violator traffic would be expected to have some adverse impacts on state- State Species Draft EIS November 2007 4-29 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 listed species. These impacts are anticipated to be short- and long-term, minor to moderate, and adverse. 3 4.9.2.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B 4 Route A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Under the Proposed Action, Route A, a 60-foot-wide corridor containing the proposed new pedestrian fence and access/patrol roads on either side would be cleared during construction and a portion maintained following construction to support long-term maintenance, sight distance, and patrol activities. For the period of construction, lay-down areas for materials and equipment would be identified within the disturbed proposed project corridor. Route A would follow the IBWC levee system for the majority of its length; however, some proposed fence sections would encroach on portions of unique or protected habitats. The proposed fence alignment would cross several Texas state parks and WMAs in the Rio Grande Valley and would intersect LRGVNWR at several locations (see Appendix I). Potential threats to state-listed species in these areas include habitat conversion during fence construction, increased mortality during construction and subsequent use of patrol roads, and noise. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Habitat loss or conversion for state-listed species in Sections O-1, O-2, O-8, and O-10 (i.e., Mexican treefrog, Mexican burrowing toad, Texas horned lizard, whitelipped lizard) would affect a small area and would be of little consequence to statewide viability of these species. BMPs to avoid and minimize impacts, such as pre-construction clearance surveys, are anticipated to reduce potential impacts to minor or lower in intensity. Increased heavy traffic in the short term, and patrol traffic in the long term would be anticipated to have a correlated increased potential for mortality of these species through roadkill. Noise created during construction would be anticipated to result in short-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts on these state-listed species. 28 29 30 31 32 Overall, short-term minor to moderate adverse impacts from construction would be expected, while long-term minor adverse impacts from maintenance and operation would be expected due to potential mortality on associated roads. However, long-term minor beneficial impacts could result from reduced foot traffic in areas on the north side of the proposed project corridor. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 There is one state-listed fish species known to overlap with proposed fence sections in the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector. The Rio Grande silvery minnow could potentially occur in the Rio Grande in three sections (O-18, O-19, and O-21). Removal of vegetation and grading during construction could temporarily increase siltation in the river. However, implementation of standard BMPs, such as use of silt fences, should reduce this potential impact to negligible. Therefore short-term negligible adverse impacts on this species would be expected. Draft EIS November 2007 4-30 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 Habitat conversion and noise impacts on state-listed species in all other fence sections are anticipated to be negligible in both the short and long terms. These sections did not present high-quality habitat for state-listed species, and no species were observed in these sections during the surveys (see Appendix I). 5 Route B 6 7 8 9 10 11 Route B would impact approximately 508 acres, similar to Route A. While Route B would cut across the lower portions of Los Velas and Los Velas West annexes of the LRGVNWR (Section O-2), it would entirely avoid the potentially more species-rich Arroyo Ramirez annex (Section O-1), the Culebron Banco annex (Section O-13), and the Tahuachal Banco annex (Section O-16) of the LRGVNWR. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Because Route B would impact less of Section O-1, which is particularly speciesrich, the impacts as a result of this alternative on state-listed species are anticipated to be less than those for Route A. Route B impacts due to construction would be short-term, negligible to minor, and adverse, while impacts from maintenance and operation would be long-term, negligible to minor, and adverse due to potential mortality on associated roads. However, long-term minor beneficial impacts could result from reduced foot traffic in areas north and south of the proposed project corridor. Impacts from noise for Route B would be similar to those for Route A. 21 4.9.2.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative 22 23 24 The nature of impacts of Alternative 3 would be similar to those of Alternative 2; however, the area impacted (1,270 acres) would be larger, resulting in greater intensity and duration of impacts. 25 26 27 28 29 30 Short- and long-term adverse impacts on state-listed species due to habitat conversion and roadkill mortality resulting from implementation of Alternative 3 would be major. Noise impacts from construction would be short-term and adverse, but would range from moderate to major in intensity. Short- and longterm beneficial impacts due to protection provided by the fence along Route B would range from minor to moderate, depending upon the location. 31 4.9.3 32 4.9.3.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 33 34 35 36 37 Under the No Action Alternative, new tactical infrastructure would not be built and there would be no change in fencing, access roads, or other facilities along the U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations within the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector. Anticipated continuation or even increases in cross border violator traffic would be expected to have some adverse impacts on Migratory Birds Draft EIS November 2007 4-31 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 migratory birds. These impacts are anticipated to be short- and long-term, minor to moderate, and adverse. 3 4.9.3.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B 4 Route A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Under Route A, a 60-foot-wide corridor containing the proposed pedestrian fence and patrol roads would be cleared during construction and a portion maintained following construction to support long-term maintenance, sight distance, and patrol activities. For the period of construction, lay-down areas for materials and equipment would be identified within the disturbed proposed project corridor. Route A would follow the IBWC levee system for the majority of its length; however, some proposed fence sections would encroach on portions of unique or protected habitats. The proposed fence alignment would cross several Texas state parks and WMAs in the Rio Grande Valley and would intersect LRGVNWR at several locations (see Appendix I). Potential threats to migratory birds in these areas include habitat conversion during fence construction, increased mortality during construction and subsequent use of patrol roads, and noise. 17 18 19 20 21 22 Approximately 508 acres of vegetation would be cleared along the proposed project corridor for Route A. Impacts on migratory birds could be substantial, given the potential timing of fence construction. However, implementation of BMPs to avoid or minimize adverse impacts could markedly reduce their intensity. The following is a list of BMPs recommended for reduction or avoidance of impacts on migratory birds: 23 24 25 x Any groundbreaking construction activities should be performed before migratory birds return to the area (approximately 1 March) or after all young have fledged (approximately 31 July) to avoid incidental take. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 x If construction is scheduled to start during the period in which migratory bird species are present, steps should be taken to prevent migratory birds from establishing nests in the potential impact area. These steps could include covering equipment and structures, and use of various excluders (e.g., noise). Birds can be harassed to prevent them from nesting on the site. Once a nest is established, they cannot be harassed until all young have fledged and left the nest site. 33 34 35 x If construction is scheduled to start during the period when migratory birds are present, a supplemental site-specific survey for nesting migratory birds should be performed immediately prior to site clearing. 36 37 38 x If nesting birds are found during the supplemental survey, construction should be deferred until the birds have left the nest. Confirmation that all young have fledged should be made by a competent biologist. Draft EIS November 2007 4-32 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 Because not all of the above BMPs can be fully implemented due to time constraints of fence construction, a Migratory Bird Depredation Permit will be obtained from USFWS. 4 5 6 7 8 Assuming implementation of the above BMPs to the fullest extent feasible, impacts of Route A on migratory birds is anticipated to be short- and long-term, minor, and adverse due to construction disturbance and associated loss of habitat, and long-term, minor, and beneficial due to reduction of foot traffic through migratory bird habitat north of the proposed project corridor. 9 Route B 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Route B would impact approximately 508 acres, similar to Route A. While Route B would cut across the lower portions of Los Velas and Los Velas West annexes of the LRGVNWR (Section O-2), it would entirely avoid the potentially more species-rich Arroyo Ramirez annex (Section O-1), the Culebron Banco annex (Section O-13), and the Tahuachal Banco annex (Section O-16) of the LRGVNWR. In addition, Route B borders instead of intersects the southern boundary of the Phillips Banco annex of the LRGVNWR. 17 18 19 As with Route A, not all of the migratory bird BMPs described above can be fully implemented due to time constraints of fence construction. Therefore, a Migratory Bird Depredation Permit will be obtained from USFWS. 20 21 22 23 24 Assuming implementation of the above BMPs to the fullest extent feasible, impacts of Route B on migratory birds is anticipated to be short- and long-term, minor, and adverse due to construction disturbance and associated loss of habitat, and long-term, minor, and beneficial due to reduction of foot traffic through migratory bird habitat north of the proposed project corridor. 25 4.9.3.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Under this alternative, the proposed project corridor would increase to 130 feet, which is slightly more than double that associated with Alternative 2 (60 feet). Impacts on migratory bird species would be similar to those described for the Alternative 2, but more extensive in nature. Given the extensive habitat disturbance and loss associated with the larger footprint of this alternative, moderate to major short- and long-term adverse impacts would be anticipated. Long-term beneficial impacts due to reduction of foot traffic through habitat north of the proposed project corridor would remain minor. 34 4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES 35 4.10.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 36 37 Under the No Action Alternative, proposed tactical infrastructure would not be built and there would be no change in fencing, patrol roads, or other facilities Draft EIS November 2007 4-33 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 within the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector. Since there would be no tactical infrastructure built, impacts on cultural, historical, and archaeological resources, including historic properties, would continue to be affected by cross border violator activities. 5 4.10.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B 6 Route A 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Section O-1 would extend along the southern boundary of the NHL-designated Roma Historic District and parallel the Rio Grande. The Roma Historic District would incur long-term major adverse impacts associated with Route A construction would atop the bluff at the western and southern edges of the historic district under Route A. The infrastructure would constitute an element out of character with the historic district and alter its historic setting and relationship to the river. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Section O-2 would cross the southern tip of the Fort Ringgold Historic District, including a portion of the archaeological component of the district. The historic buildings of Fort Ringgold are distant from the southern tip of the district, which slopes down to the Rio Grande; the impacts associated with Route A on the viewshed and setting of these buildings is thus minimized. Moreover, there is thick vegetation and intervening buildings between the historic buildings at Fort Ringgold and the Rio Grande to provide considerable visual screening. Proposed grading for access roads and patrol roads on Fort Ringgold might adversely impact archaeological resources. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Section O-3 would be near the Los Ebanos POE and ferry, and within the southern and eastern side of the community of Los Ebanos. The POE, ferry, Las Cuervas ebony, and surrounding area could be eligible for listing in the NRHP as a historic landscape, or for their historical or engineering significance. Route A would be approximately 250 feet from the ferry crossing, and would present substantial impacts on the viewshed and setting of the ferry and POE. Route A also would surround the community of Los Ebanos to its south and east. Because the Rio Grande is very close to the eastern side of the community, there would be long-term major adverse impacts on the viewshed and setting of any historic properties identified within the community. Los Ebanos has a community cemetery located on its western side. Impacts on the Los Ebanos POE, ferry, and community would be long-term, major, and adverse. 35 36 37 38 Section O-5 is approximately one-quarter to one-half mile south of the La Lomita Historic District. Because there is substantial vegetative screening at the southern and eastern portions of the historic district, impacts on the viewshed and setting of this district would be minor to moderate. 39 40 Section O-6 would extend north/south along the western boundary of the Louisiana-Rio Grande Canal Company Irrigation System Historic District. It Draft EIS November 2007 4-34 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 would be constructed adjacent to the Old Hidalgo Pumphouse on its eastern and western sides and continue easterly within the southern portion of the district for a distance of approximately 1.5 miles, crossing into an area of open irrigation canals that are contributing properties of the historic district. The proposed fence would be very visible from Levee Street and nearby streets, and from the Old Hidalgo Pumphouse grounds. However, the view of the fence would be somewhat minimized by the substantial existing landscaping of the pump house grounds. Fence designs or other construction design mitigation measures might be able to further minimize impacts on the pump house. In addition to impacts on the historic pump house, the extension of the infrastructure into the canal system would constitute a direct adverse impact on those features of the historic district. In summary, Route A would have long-term, major, and adverse direct and indirect impacts on the historic district. USBP is committed to working with the City of Hidalgo, community, and THC to identify mitigation design measures to minimize impacts on the historic district and historic Old Hidalgo Pumphouse. 16 17 18 19 20 Section O-10 would pass to the south of and approximately 0.3 miles from Toluca Ranch. Because the southern portion of the property has many mature trees and other vegetation, the house and other buildings would have some screening from the proposed project. Impacts on the viewshed and setting of the historic district would be moderate. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Section O-14 would pass immediately south of the Landrum House, a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark since 1978. The Landrum House is not listed in the NRHP, but would be eligible for the NRHP for its historical and architectural significance. The house was constructed in 1902 for Frances and James Landrum (THC 2007). The house and associated outbuildings would incur longterm, major adverse indirect impacts and potentially some direct impacts should the APE impact any associated archaeological deposit of this property. 28 29 30 Section O-17 is close to (approximately 0.25 miles north) the Sabas Cavazos Cemetery, established in 1878 with the burial of a rancher and businessman, Sabas Cavazos (THC 2007). Route A would not impact this resource. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 In Section O-19, Route A curves northward close to the developed portion of Brownsville, west of the park near the POE, and continues south along the western side of the Fort Brown Historic District, a designated NHL. The proposed fence would be visible from 12th Street and portions of nearby streets. However, the infrastructure related to the POE and the park located west of the POE would somewhat minimize the impact of the proposed fence. The route continues west of the historic buildings of Fort Brown that are now integrated into the University of Texas/Texas Southmost College campus, extends north/south immediately west of the Neale House, and then takes an easterly route along the northern boundary of the historic district along the U.S. section of the IBWC levee. A golf course is located south of the levee and within the boundaries of the NHL historic district. Although there are significant historic properties in the area of Route A, there also is substantial development. The historic buildings of Draft EIS November 2007 4-35 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Fort Brown are part of the university campus with other buildings, landscaping, streets, and parking lots. The historic buildings are located a distance from Route A. The new development provides some measure of visual screening. The integrity of the archaeological component of Fort Brown is unknown, and might have been impacted by prior activities. Additional research will be conducted including consultation with the THC on the potential adverse impacts (direct and indirect) and potential mitigation measures will be identified in the Final EIS. Route A would present major long-term indirect and possibly direct impacts on the Neale House since it would be immediately west of the house. Section O-19 would cause moderate to major, adverse, long-term impacts on the viewshed and setting of historic properties. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Section O-21 would parallel the southern boundary of the Old Brulay Plantation at a distance of approximately 100 feet or less from the historic district complex. Construction of the tactical infrastructure likely would impact the viewshed and setting of this complex, and could also directly impact historical archaeological materials related to the plantation. Impacts would be long-term, major, and adverse. The historic complex could be damaged from construction activities. The Brulay Cemetery is about 1,000 feet to the north of the alignment, but would not be impacted. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Archaeological resources between the 21 proposed tactical infrastructure sections could be adversely impacted by the funneling of cross border violators into the areas where there would be no fence. Increased foot traffic around the ends of sections of fence in remote areas would reduce vegetation, disturb soils, and could uncover and destroy unknown resources. Since the locations of the 21 sections were based on USBP operational requirements, including the ability to make apprehensions, the extent of disturbance should be minor and adverse. BMPs would include an Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Cultural Resources. 28 Route B 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Under Route B, Section O-1, like Route A, would extend along the southern boundary of the Roma Historic District and parallel the river. The two routes are equivalent through the Roma Historic District; therefore, the major long-term adverse impacts from Route B would be the same as Route A. Route B would extend further north into the neighborhood south of bridge. The viewshed and setting of the southern end of the historic district would be adversely affected by the infrastructure as it ascends and is atop the bluff. Historic properties within the residential neighborhood south of the bridge could be directly or indirectly impacted by Route B. 38 39 40 41 42 Section O-2 would cross the southern tip of the Fort Ringgold Historic District, including a portion of the district’s archaeological component. Route B would have the same impacts as Route A. Proposed grading for fencing and patrol roads on Fort Ringgold might adversely impact archaeological resources. Additional archaeological surveys will be conducted to evaluate the nature and Draft EIS November 2007 4-36 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 significance of the Fort Ringgold site in this area, the result of which will be presented in the Final EIS. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Section O-3 is near the Los Ebanos POE and ferry, and within the southern and eastern side of the community of Los Ebanos. Route B extends west of the community of Los Ebanos, south near the area of the ferry, and surrounds the community of Los Ebanos on its south and east. It is further away from the ferry crossing than Route A, but is closer to the western portion of the community. Route B, as proposed, would have substantial impacts on the viewshed and setting of the ferry and POE area, although less than Route A. Adverse impacts on the community of Los Ebanos would be somewhat greater under Route B compared to Route A. Los Ebanos has a community cemetery on its western side. Impacts on Los Ebanos POE, ferry, and community would be long-term, major, and adverse. 14 15 16 17 Section O-5, Route B would have the same impacts on the La Lomita Historic District as Route A. Because there is substantial vegetative screening at the southern and eastern portions of the historic district, impacts on the viewshed and setting of this district are expected to be minor to moderate. 18 19 20 21 22 23 Under Route B, Section O-6 is identical to Route A in the vicinity of the Louisiana-Rio Grande Canal Company Irrigation System Historic District and would have the same impacts as noted in the discussion of this section under Route A. USBP is committed to working with the City of Hidalgo, community, and THC to identify solutions to minimize impacts on the historic district and historic Old Hidalgo Pumphouse. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 In Section O-19, Route B parallels the Rio Grande, while Route A curves northward close to the developed portion of Brownsville. Route B presents a route farther away from many historic properties in Brownsville, although its route might have greater impacts on archaeological resources because it is an area with less development and, therefore, greater potential for undiscovered archaeological resources. Near the POE, Route B adopts the same alignment as Route A. The impacts on known cultural resources associated with selection of Route B in this part of Section O-19 are, therefore, identical to those discussed for Route A. Route B would present major long-term indirect and possibly direct impacts on the Neale House since it would be immediately west of the house. Section O-19, Route B would cause moderate to major, adverse, long-term indirect impacts on historic properties. 36 37 38 Sections O-10, O-14, O-17, and O-21 have the same alignment under Route B as noted under Route A. The impacts on known cultural resources associated with selection of Route B are identical to those discussed for Route A. 39 40 41 Archaeological resources between the 21 proposed tactical infrastructure sections could be adversely impacted by the funneling of cross border violators into the areas where there would be no fence. Increased foot traffic between Draft EIS November 2007 4-37 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 sections of fence in remote areas would reduce vegetation, disturb soils, and could uncover and destroy undiscovered resources. Since the locations of the 21 sections were based on USBP operational requirements, including the ability to make apprehensions, the extent of disturbance should be minor and therefore the adverse impact would be minor, adverse, and permanent. BMPs would include an Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Cultural Resources. 7 4.10.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative 8 9 10 11 12 13 Under Alternative 3 of the Proposed Action, a double-layered fence with the patrol road in the median would require a 130-foot-wide corridor. Impacts from Alternative 3 would be long-term, adverse, and major on historic properties, including the Roma Historic District; Fort Ringgold; Los Ebanos ferry, POE, and community; La Lomita Historic District; Rancho Toluca Historic District; Landrum House; Fort Brown; Neale House; and Old Brulay Plantation 14 4.10.4 Treatment of Historic Properties 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 USBP would identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts on historic properties in consultation with the THC and other parties by complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Other consulting parties, including the THC, federally recognized Native American tribes that might attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties affected by the project, representatives of local governments, landowners, and historic preservation groups and individuals, would be involved. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Mitigation measures could include recordation of affected architectural resources to the standards outlined by the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) or Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), or recovering archaeological data through a data recovery effort. Additionally, there are other treatment options that would be investigated. Methods for avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating impacts on resources of traditional, religious, or cultural significance to Native American tribes will be determined in consultation with tribes having ancestral ties to the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector. 30 4.11 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 The Proposed Action would impact visual resources both directly and indirectly. Construction of tactical infrastructure would result in the introduction of both new temporary (e.g., heavy equipment, supplies) and permanent (e.g., fencing and patrol roads) visual elements into existing viewsheds. Clearing and grading of the landscape during construction, as well as demolition of buildings and structures within the proposed project corridor corridor, would result in the removal of visual elements from existing viewsheds. Finally, the fence sections would create a physical barrier potentially preventing access to some visual resources. Draft EIS November 2007 4-38 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Impacts on aesthetic and visual resources would include short-term impacts associated with the construction phase of the project and use of staging areas, recurring impacts associated with monitoring and maintenance, and long-term impacts associated with the completed action. Impacts can range from minor, such as the impacts on visual resources adjacent to the proposed project corridor when seen from a distance or when views of fences are obstructed by intervening elements (e.g., trees, buildings) to major, such as the intrusion of fence sections into high-quality views within the LRGVNWR or the setting of an NHL. The nature of the impacts would range from neutral for those land units containing lower quality views or few regular viewers, to adverse, for those land units containing high-quality views, important cultural or natural resources, or viewers who would have constant exposure to the fence at close distances. Beneficial impacts are also possible (e.g., addition of the fence increases the unity or dramatic impact of a view, removal of visual clutter within the proposed project corridor clarifies a view, or a viewer positively associates the fence with a feeling of greater security), but are considered to be less common. 17 4.11.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Under the No Action Alternative, proposed tactical infrastructure would not be built and there would be no change in fencing, patrol roads, or other facilities along the U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations within the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector. Therefore, there would be no adverse impact attributable to construction, operation, or maintenance of the proposed tactical infrastructure. Conversely, the potential beneficial impacts of unifying a cluttered landscape in some areas would not be realized, however minor or subjective this beneficial impact might be. 26 4.11.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B 27 28 29 30 31 32 Under Alternative 2, a single line of fence and an associated patrol road would be constructed along either the routing depicted as Route A or Route B (see Appendix F). Although the choice of routing might alter the impacts on specific visual resources within the proposed project corridor (i.e., avoidance of section of park/refuge or culturally significant resource), the broader visual impacts associated with the two routes are comparable. 33 Route A 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Project Characteristics. The primary introduced visual elements associated with Route A are the single line of fencing, gates, patrol roads, access roads, and construction clutter (stockpiles of supplies and heavy equipment during construction). Route A would also potentially remove existing visual elements, such as buildings, vegetation, and subtle landforms (through grading or filling) that occur within the 60-foot permanent proposed project corridor. Finally, the fence would act as a physical barrier between viewers and those views that can Draft EIS November 2007 4-39 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 only be viewed from vantage points on the other side of the fence (e.g., views from the tops of levees). 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Of these, addition of the line of fencing and the associated patrol road, removal of existing elements from the proposed project corridor, and the loss of access to specific visual resources due to the fact that the fence is a barrier would have long-term impacts on visual resources, while the remaining elements would have temporary or short-term impacts limited to the period of construction. The nature (adverse or beneficial) and degree (minor to major) of the long-term impacts can be affected by the appearance of the fencing (width, height, materials, color), the patrol road (paved or unpaved, width), and the access roads (number, paved or unpaved, width). 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Removal of existing visual elements would also constitute a long-term impact. Where the existing element adds to the visual character and quality of the resource, the impact of its removal would be adverse. Where the existing element detracts from the visual character and quality of the resource (e.g., rusted equipment or dead trees), the impact of removal could be beneficial. In all cases, removal of existing elements would have the net result of exposing more of the fence, patrol road, and other tactical infrastructure; in settings where the addition of the fence is considered to have a major adverse impact on visual resources, any benefit accruing from removal of existing elements would be outweighed by the more dominant adverse visual impact of the fence. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The impacts associated with the loss of access to specific visual resources can be affected primarily by the placement of the fence relative to those resources and inclusion of gates that allow access to those resources. USBP has already included provisions for a number of gates to allow access to agricultural fields, businesses, and cemeteries. These gates also allow access to some of the visual resources that would otherwise be blocked. Proposed gate locations are described in Appendix D. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Visual Resource Concerns. In Section 3.11.2, Tables 3.11-1 and 3.11-2 provided a summary of the character and quality of visual resources currently present within the proposed project corridor. Tables 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 show how implementation of Route A would likely alter the character and quality of existing visual resources within each land unit. Figures 4.11-1 through 4.11-4 provide examples of typical impacts; these images show the impacts associated with the addition of a fence constructed using a type of pedestrian fence currently being constructed in other USBP sectors. These photographs provide approximations of the degree of alteration that would result from introduction of the fence and patrol road to these viewsheds. 39 40 41 42 In general, within park/refuge land units, the introduction of the fence and removal of vegetation from the proposed project corridor would likely constitute an adverse impact on the character and quality of visual resources. The degree Draft EIS November 2007 4-40 Color The current fence design parameters call for fencing to be black. The vertical posts in the fence might blend with tree trunks and the transparent mesh “disappear” with distance. The current fence design parameters call for fencing to be black. The vertical posts in the fence might blend with tree trunks and the transparent mesh “disappear” with distance. Line The fence and patrol road also represent horizontal lines, but might disrupt existing layers and gentle curves, particularly where the fence would be taller than surrounding vegetation. Clearing and grading would introduce a visual break in the vegetation pattern. At short distances the fence would introduce a primarily horizontal line that might blend with other dominant horizontal lines like the levee and field breaks. The patrol road and access roads also should blend, both at short and longer distances. With greater distance, the mesh of the fence would “disappear,” making the vertical bollards of the fence the dominant line. These vertical lines might blend where other vertical elements are present (power poles, silos, remote video surveillance system) depending on the height of those elements in each area. The regularity of the lines could contrast with less regular lines. Park/Refuge Rural Land Units The fence and patrol road are rectilinear in form and might result in greater domination of rectilinear forms compared to organic forms when viewed at a distance. The fence and patrol road are rectilinear in form and would contrast with existing forms in this land unit. Form As a man-made, synthetic element, the fence would contrast with the dominant textures of this land unit. The patrol roads and access roads would not significantly alter the viewshed for most rural landscapes, as a number of roads and field breaks are already present in this land unit. As man-made, synthetic elements, the fence and patrol road would contrast with the dominant texture of this land unit. Texture Table 4.11-1. Impact on the Character of Visual Resources within Typical Rio Grande Valley Land Units Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Draft EIS November 2007 4-41 Urban/Industrial Town/Suburban Development Land Units Color The current fence design parameters call for fencing to be black. This coloration might blend or contrast with its surroundings depending on the colors in the foreground and background. The current fence design parameters call for fencing to be black. This coloration might blend or contrast with its surroundings depending on the colors in the foreground and background. Line Because this land unit already includes a mixture of horizontal and vertical lines, the introduction of additional vertical lines would be consistent with the existing landscape from a distance. In closer proximity, however, the height and regularity of the fence line would likely contrast with existing lines. Because this land unit already includes a mixture of horizontal and vertical lines, the introduction of additional vertical lines would be consistent with the existing landscape from a distance. In closer proximity, however, the height and regularity of the fence line would likely contrast with existing lines. Because this land unit contains a larger number of rectilinear forms than the previous land units, the rectilinear forms of the fence and associated roads are more likely to blend with the forms of this land unit. Depending on the forms in the immediate area, though, the massing of the fence (height and length) could blend or contrast with existing forms. Because this land unit contains a larger number of rectilinear forms than the previous land units, the rectilinear forms of the fence and associated roads are more likely to blend with the forms of this land unit. The massing of the fence (height and length) would likely contrast with most other rectilinear forms, however. Form Because this land unit contains a variety of textures, the textures of the fence and associated roads are more likely to blend with the textures of this land unit at least at a distance. Up close, the fence would contrast against natural textures and be more prone to blend with man-made elements. Because this land unit contains a variety of textures, the textures of the fence and associated roads are more likely to blend with the textures of this land unit at least at a distance. Up close, the fence would contrast against natural textures and be more prone to blend with man-made elements. Texture Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Draft EIS November 2007 4-42 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 Table 4.11-2. Quality of Visual Resources within Typical Rio Grande Valley Land Units After Proposed Construction Land Units Vividness Intactness Unity Rating Park/Refuge Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Rural Moderate Moderate/High Moderate Moderate Town/Suburban Development Low/Moderate Low/Moderate Low/Moderate Low/Moderate Urban/Industrial Low to High Low/Moderate Low to High Moderate 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 of the impact would vary depending on the height of surrounding vegetation and the presence of any other visually intrusive elements. For example, where the fence is shorter than the levee and the view towards the levee is obscured by thick vegetation, the fence would have less of a visual impact than in those areas where clearings or shorter vegetation make the fence more visible. In those sections where the park/refuge land unit is visually intruded upon by other land units (i.e., this land unit is concentrated into a small area, as in Sections O-4, O-5, O-6, O-7, O-8, O-10, O-13, and O-16), impacts on visual resources associated with this land unit would be less compared to those in sections that are dominated by the park/refuge unit. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 In rural land units, the fence might blend with other linear features (e.g., levee, field breaks) to the point where the impact is neutral. The degree to which the fence contrasts with its surroundings would vary by season, as mature crops would provide a greater variety of forms and textures, as well as greater screening, of the fence compared to fallow fields. Inclusion of a larger number of other intrusive elements (visual clutter), such as utility poles or towers, water towers, and remote video surveillance system, can also reduce the overall impact on visual resources within this land unit. For this land unit, therefore, impacts could range from minor to major and neutral to adverse. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 In Town/Suburban Development land units, there would likely be greater screening of the fence due to the greater variety of lines, colors, forms, and textures present; however, an 18-foot-tall fence would likely be one of the tallest man-made visual elements in this setting, reducing its ability to blend. As with the visual resources in other land units, the impact of Route A would vary depending on its immediate setting; the more exposed the fence is and the greater the contrast between it and surrounding elements, the greater the visual impact. For this land unit, therefore, impacts could range from minor to major, but would typically be adverse. 32 33 34 35 In Urban/Industrial land units, there would likely be greater screening of the fence due to the greater variety of lines, colors, forms, and textures present, and an increase in the use of other fences and more common occurrence of tall or Draft EIS November 2007 4-43 Figure 4.11-1. Typical Views Towards Proposed Project Corridor, Showing How the Park/Refuge Land Unit Would Appear with a Fence and Patrol Road Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 Draft EIS November 2007 4-44 Figure 4.11-2. Typical Views Towards Proposed Project Corridor, Showing How the Rural Land Unit Would Appear with a Fence and Patrol Road Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 Draft EIS November 2007 4-45 Figure 4.11-3. Typical Views Towards Proposed Project Corridor, Showing How the Town/Suburban Land Unit Would Appear with a Fence and Patrol Road Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 Draft EIS November 2007 4-46 Figure 4.11-4. Typical Views Towards Proposed Project Corridor, Showing How the Urban/Industrial Land Unit Would Appear with a Fence and Patrol Road Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 Draft EIS November 2007 4-47 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 massive forms would increase the ability of the fence to blend with its surroundings. As with the visual resources in other land units, the impact of Route A would vary depending on its immediate setting; the more exposed the fence is and the greater the contrast between it and surrounding elements, the greater the visual impact. For this land unit, therefore, impacts would range from minor to major, and neutral to adverse. The FHWA guidance (USDOT undated) cites examples where addition of a consistent aesthetic element to an urban setting helps create greater unity to the views within the land unit, thus resulting in a beneficial impact. Although this outcome is possible within this land unit type, a review of the settings along the proposed project corridor suggests that the best-case scenario would be a neutral or minor adverseimpact. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Finally, with respect to the impacts on the specific visual resources listed in Section 3.11.1, implementation of Route A, would likely have short- or long-term adverse impacts on the settings of those resources. The greater the distance between the resource and the intrusive visual elements (primarily the fence), and the more intervening visual elements between them, the less the degree of the impact. For example, construction of the fence at a distance of 60 feet from a historic building would typically constitute a major adverse impact, while construction of the fence several hundred feet from the resource with intervening vegetation or buildings would reduce the impact to moderate or minor. Placement of the fence within the boundaries of an NHL or historic district, particularly where there is a high degree of visual continuity between resources (few noncontributing elements) would also be considered a major adverse impact on that resource. A more detailed discussion of the impacts on the settings or viewsheds of specific cultural resources is provided in Section 4.8.2 of this EIS. 26 27 28 29 30 31 Intrusions into the settings or viewshed of many of these resources would need to be avoided, minimized, or mitigated depending on the extent and duration of the impact. Mitigation measures could include HABS documentation of historic resources, use of different fence materials (e.g., use of brick facing on a fence where surrounding buildings are brick construction, or change of color of fencing to blend into natural settings). 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Viewer Response Concerns. In Section 3.11.1, the pool of potential viewers was grouped into several general categories. As noted in that discussion, any single viewer would have some responses to the alteration to the visual resources in each land unit that are based on their own personal experiences and ties to those resources, and other responses tied to more common experiences (group sentiment). Specific comments received from viewers during the scoping process for this EIS identified concerns about visual impacts throughout the proposed project corridor and with some of the specific natural or cultural resources noted above, but did not identify any new visual resources of concern. It should be noted that no explicit poll of viewer responses with respect to impacts on visual resources has been conducted for this EIS. Draft EIS November 2007 4-48 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 In many respects, the principle of “not in my backyard” has a strong correlation with the responses of viewers for whom view of the fence would be regular or constant (i.e., residential, commercial, or industrial viewers). Where the fence would directly impact private property, the viewer response from the landowner is likely to be that Route A would represent a major adverse impact on visual resources visible from their property. There is also a possibility that the viewer response in this instance could be beneficial, based on a feeling of increased safety or security (e.g., fence as protection). Responses from viewers located a greater distance from the fence, particularly if their view of the fence is obstructed by other elements or is simply part of the overall visual clutter, would typically be less intense (minor) and more likely neutral, unless the fence would obstruct a visual resource considered to be of high quality or cultural importance. In general, the closer the proximity of the viewer to the fence, the more likely the response is to be major and adverse. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 For viewers likely to view the fence on a less regular basis (i.e., recreational viewers, special interest viewers, intermittent viewers), viewer responses would be tied to perception of how the tactical infrastructure has altered their access (impede existing views or impede physical access to views) to valued visual resources. Although any of these groups might object on principal to any type of alteration or feel a beneficial response due to a sense of increased security, responses would be more intense and adverse where alterations downgrade the quality or character of existing visual resources. Based on the comments received during the scoping process for this EIS, viewer responses appear to range from minor to major and neutral to adverse. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 As a final point, for viewers accustomed to accessing views available from the levees or from settings other than parks or refuges, the construction of the fence would place a permanent barrier between the viewer and the visual resources in those locales. By presumption, any visual resource regularly sought out by a viewer would constitute a moderate or high quality visual resource; and restricting physical access to those resources would thus constitute a long-term major adverse impact for those viewers. 32 Route B 33 34 35 36 Route B was developed to decrease the extent to which the fence would physically impact certain cultural and natural resources. Selection of this route thus reduces or removes some of the impacts related to access compared to Route A. 37 38 Project Characteristics. The physical characteristics of Route B are similar to those for Route A, discussed above. 39 40 41 Visual Resource Concerns. To the extent that Route B mirrors Route A, the concerns regarding visual resources are identical to those discussed for Route A above. Where Route B deviates from Route A, the deviation is typically done to Draft EIS November 2007 4-49 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 minimize an impact on a natural or cultural resource, resulting in a lesser visual impact relative to that resource. 3 4 5 6 7 8 x Section O-1: Route B would avoid approximately 1.01 miles of the Arroyo Mesa annex of the LRGVNWR, but could potentially impact more residential areas. The avoidance of the LRGVNWR would lessen the impacts on the high-quality views associated with this resource area; however, Route B would impact a greater number of views from private residences. 9 10 11 12 x Section O-2: To avoid some small arroyos, Route B would be extended 1.4 miles; 0.73 miles of this extra distance would cross the LRGVNWR. Route B, therefore, would impact additional visual resources within the LRGVNWR (and towards it from outside the refuge) compared to Route A. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 x Section O-3: Route B represents an adjustment from the originally proposed project corridor to avoid natural areas along the Rio Grande where practical. Route B, therefore, would have fewer direct impacts on the visual resources associated with these natural areas (less removal of natural vegetation within the proposed project corridor), but would continue to visually obstruct views towards the Rio Grande and access to views along the Rio Grande. 20 21 22 23 x Section O-7: Route B represents a shortening of the originally proposed section in anticipation of the proposed Donna Canal POE. Route B would also avoid the Monterrey Banco annex of the LRGVNWR, resulting in a lessening of impacts on visual resources within the refuge. 24 25 26 27 28 29 x Section O-8: Route B represents an extension of the originally proposed section so that it meets the downriver end of the fencing to be placed for the proposed Donna POE. The increased length of fence would obstruct more visual resources compared to Route A. Tying the new fence into another fence would improve the overall consistency of the view at the tiein point. 30 31 32 33 34 x Section O-9: Route B represents an extension of the originally proposed section to the west, following the IBWC levee ROW in an agricultural area. Again, an increase in the length of the section equates to an increased number of impacts on visual resources within that section compared to Route A. 35 36 37 38 39 x Section O-11: Route B would turn north and parallel the west side of the canal, crossing the canal farther north from the La Feria pump station. Should evaluation of the pump station determine that it represents a historic property, avoidance of this structure would have a beneficial impact on the viewshed of that resource. 40 41 42 x Section O-13: Route B represents a realignment of a portion of the section toward the east to avoid the Culebron Banco annex of the LRGVNWR, resulting in a lessening of impacts on visual resources within the refuge. Draft EIS November 2007 4-50 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 x Section O-14: Route B represents additional length added to the eastern end of Route A along the IBWC levee ROW. Again, an increase in the length of the section equates to an increased number of impacts on visual resources within that section compared to Route A. 5 6 7 8 x Section O-16: Route B represents a shortening of the proposed Route A to avoid traversing through approximately 0.20 miles of the Tahuachal Banco annex to the LRGVNWR, resulting in a lessening of impacts on visual resources within the refuge. 9 10 11 12 13 x Section O-18: Route B borders instead of intersects the Phillips Banco annex of the LRGVNWR. Although this route would reduce the impacts on visual resources within the annex, impacts would still exist relative to the views towards the annex from outside and physical access to the annex. 14 15 16 17 18 19 x Section O-19: Route B represents a realignment of the originally proposed project corridor away from an urban area on the edge of Brownsville to closer to the river bank. Route B thus minimizes the impacts on visual resources as seen from urban residences (e.g., the fence is farther away), but would still obstruct views of the Rio Grande from Brownsville and would limit access to current views along the Rio Grande. 20 21 22 23 Viewer Response Concerns. Implementation of Route B would improve viewer responses relative to impacts on specific sensitive resources, such as the LRGVNWR since Route B would avoid some of those resources. Otherwise, the viewer response concerns are comparable to those discussed for Route A. 24 4.11.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Project Characteristics. In addition to those physical characteristics already noted for Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would involve addition of a second line of fencing (permanent element, long-term impact) and remove a greater number of existing visual elements due to the larger proposed project corridor. As with the single line of fencing in Alternative 2, choice of fence colors and material types could affect the nature (adverse, neutral, beneficial) or intensity (minor to major) of the impacts on visual resources in certain land units or viewshed, as could removal of existing visual elements. In general, however, having two lines of fencing amplifies the overall visual impact of Alternative 2, as does the larger proposed project corridor. Impacts related to the physical characteristics of Alternative 3 are, therefore, likely to be major and adverse compared to those of Alternative 2. 37 38 39 40 41 Visual Resource Concerns. Implementation of Alternative 3 would also amplify the impacts on the character and quality of visual resources within each of the land units compared to Alternative 2. The broader proposed project corridor and additional line of fencing would have a greater visual contrast and a greater chance of dominating the view in most settings, although one could argue that Draft EIS November 2007 4-51 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 parallel lines of fencing would potentially add more visual unity to some settings. Long-term impacts on the visual environment associated with Alternative 3 (permanent construction elements) would range from neutral to adverse, and moderate to major. Short-term impacts would also be more adverse and intense (moderate to major) given that construction of a double fence and wider corridor could take more time. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Viewer Response Concerns. Implementation of Alternative 3 would also amplify viewer responses, in most cases changing minor or neutral responses to moderate or major adverse responses. For the viewers with constant or close proximity exposure, a double line of fencing and larger corridor would be perceived as doubly intrusive. The proposed project corridor would intrude more closely on many landowners, increase the number of viewers that would have regular exposure, and would further complicate access to visual resources behind the far line of fencing. For viewers with less regular exposure, Alternative 3 would still likely be perceived as having a greater impact than Alternative 2, simply because it makes impacts on various visual resources more difficult to avoid. 18 19 4.12 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND SAFETY 20 4.12.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change from the baseline conditions. Under this Alternative, illegal immigration, narcotics trafficking, and opportunities for terrorists and terrorist weapons to enter the United States would remain. Over time, the number of crimes committed by smugglers and some cross border violators would increase, and an increase in property damage would also be expected. If Alternative 1 were implemented, short-term local employment benefits from the purchase of construction materials and the temporary increase in construction jobs would not occur. Furthermore, money from construction payrolls that would circulate within the local economy would not be available. 31 4.12.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B 32 Route A 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Socioeconomics. Construction of proposed tactical infrastructure associated with Route A would have minor beneficial direct and indirect impacts on socioeconomics through increased employment and the purchase of goods and services. Project impacts related to employment, temporary housing, public services, and material supplies would be minor, temporary, and easily absorbed within the existing USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector regional resource and socioeconomics infrastructure. Construction would occur over approximately 8 Draft EIS November 2007 4-52 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 months in 2008, with a construction workforce peaking at about 200 workers. There would be no change in the permanent workforce. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 As stated in Section 2.2.2, the preliminary estimate to construct the proposed tactical infrastructure is approximately $210 million. This would represent approximately 8.4 percent of the estimated annual construction expenditures in the three-county region. Because much of the construction cost is in the fabrication of infrastructure components elsewhere in the United States to be shipped in, this would represent a short-term moderate beneficial impact on the local economy. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Changes in economic factors can also impact the social fabric of a community. For example, increases in permanent employment could stimulate the need for new housing units, and, as a result, increase demand for community and social services such as primary and secondary education, fire and police protection, and health care. Because there would be only a short-term increase in local employment, there would be no change in population size under this alternative. Therefore, demand for new housing units and other social services would not be expected. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Population Growth and Characteristics. Negligible short-term adverse and beneficial impacts on population growth and characteristics would be expected. Short-term moderate increases to populations would be expected in construction areas. Due to the large size of the regional construction trades industry, construction is expected to be drawn primarily from the regional workforce, with some project managers and specialized skilled workers brought in by the selected contractor. The temporary need for approximately 200 construction workers can be easily supplied by the three-county construction workforce of more than 25,000. Given the short timeframe for construction, it is unlikely that any nonlocal workers would be accompanied by their families. Therefore, the short-term nature and scale of the construction project would not induce indirect population growth in the region. 30 31 32 33 Construction of the project would require some acquisition of private property, including the potential dislocation of some property owners and tenants. Such dislocation could result in some population relocations within the region, but with little or no net change in the region’s population. 34 35 36 37 38 39 Employment and Income. Minor short-term beneficial impacts, and long-term minor adverse impacts on employment and income would be expected. Each job created by implementation of Route A would generate additional jobs within companies that supply goods and services for the project. Direct and secondary jobs created would be temporary and short-term in nature. The project would not create any long-term employment in the region. 40 41 During the public scoping process, concerns were expressed that the project could hinder legitimate trade activities between the two border economies, and Draft EIS November 2007 4-53 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 that environmental impacts associated with the construction and long-term presence of the project could detract from outdoor recreation and ecotourism, particularly birding—reported to contribute $150 million to the local economy annually. Some pedestrian fence sections would be located on recreational lands. For the most part, the pedestrian fence would be approximately 30 feet from the IBWC levee system. Indirect impacts on socioeconomics from recreation and ecotourism would be tied directly to the user’s perception that Route A has altered their access to valued visual or recreational resources. However, Route A would help to deter cross border violators, which would make the area safer for recreational users, ecotourists, and USBP agents in the immediate area. This could bring more users to the area that have felt it unsafe in the past. The net impacts on recreation and ecotourism are expected to be minor. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 As to retail trade, research indicates cross-border trade is estimated to contribute at least $1.2 billion per year in retail trade in McAllen and Brownsville alone (Coronado and Phillips 2005). The project would not affect the operations of established border crossings and bridges, nor alter procedures affecting the ability of individuals from either the United States or Mexico to continue to travel back and forth as they now do because there is nothing inherent in the design or location of the pedestrian fence sections that would hinder or restrict normal, legal cross-border interaction. As a consequence, no long-term impacts on legitimate regional income or economic structure are anticipated. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 No permanent or long-term impacts on employment, population, personal income, or poverty levels; or other demographic or employment indicators would be expected from construction. Since Route A would not measurably affect the local economy or workforce, no social impacts are expected. There would be a net short-term increase in income to the region, as the funding for the project would come from outside the area, and, as a Federal project, construction workers would be paid the “prevailing wage” under the Davis-Bacon Act, which might be higher than the average wage in the construction industry locally. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Agriculture. Overall the impact on agriculture and agricultural landowners would be adverse, moderate, and long-term. The proposed project would impact agricultural lands in two ways. First, there could be some loss of cropland along the alignment of the proposed pedestrian fence for both construction and the proposed accompanying roadways for USBP vehicles. New tactical infrastructure is expected to permanently affect a corridor 60 feet wide, although the existing levee road would serve this function on the river side of the fence. The proposal provides gates at key locations that are intended to provide landowners with access to their property, but there could be some extra distance in reaching a given field. Installation of a pedestrian fence with gates could have minor adverse impacts on landowner’s access, the movement of machinery and equipment, planting and harvesting, potential problems of access for agricultural service firms (as opposed to owners/lessees), and a resulting increase in costs. Draft EIS November 2007 4-54 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Select Public Services. Minor short-term and long-term beneficial impacts on public services would be expected. Generally, workers spend approximately 25 to 30 percent of their wages locally for food, shelter, and entertainment, which would have an indirect beneficial impact on the local economy. Other indirect impacts would be noticed through the taxes generated by purchases, as well as payroll deductions. However, based on the large size of the ROI the impacts would be minor and dispersed throughout the ROI. The objective of the pedestrian fence is to reduce illegal activity along the border. This could ease the burden of local law enforcement agencies. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Land Use. Minor to moderate adverse indirect impacts would be expected from the imminent dislocation of some families due to property acquisition. Some housing properties would either be removed or visually impaired by the pedestrian fence and adjacent patrol roads. The social aspects of dislocation could be disruptive. Many families in the proposed project corridor have lived there for decades, some even centuries, and have strong emotional ties to the family land and homes. 17 18 19 20 21 22 These impacts would be mitigated to some extent by fair compensation for the acquisition or impairment, and relocation assistance to any displaced families. However, it would still be an adverse impact on those who do not wish to relocate regardless of the level of compensation. Furthermore, renters might receive relocation assistance, but are less likely than property owners to have the resources to resettle in a comparable location. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Environmental Justice, Protection of Children, and Safety. Some adverse disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income populations would be expected. Direct beneficial impacts on safety and the protection of children are expected from the projected deterrence of cross border violators, smugglers, terrorists, and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, and therefore provide for safer communities. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 The proposed infrastructure runs through or adjacent to many rural settlements, small towns, and neighborhoods within larger cities. Property owners and residents would be affected by restricted access, visual intrusion, noise and disruption during construction, and, in some cases, loss of property. In such communities as Los Ebanos (Section O-3), Granjeno (Section O-5), Peñitas (Section O-4), and others, the proposed infrastructure severs or runs at the back edge of residential properties. These communities, and the neighborhoods affected in the larger communities such as Brownsville (Section O-19) and Roma (Section O-1) are of lower income than the Census Tract of which they are a part and are clearly subject to issues of environmental justice. In cases where properties would be acquired or substantially impaired, the impact would be mitigated through purchase at a fair price. 41 42 The proposed tactical infrastructure under this alternative would have short- to long-term direct beneficial impacts on children and safety in the ROI and Draft EIS November 2007 4-55 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 surrounding areas. The addition of tactical infrastructure could increase the safety of USBP agents in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. Route A would help to deter cross-border violators in the immediate area, which in turn could prevent drug smugglers, terrorists, and terrorist weapons from entering the surrounding area. 6 Route B 7 8 9 Population Growth and Characteristics. There are no discernable differences between Routes A and B on the growth rate and characteristics of the population as in neither case is there an increase in the permanent population of the ROI. 10 11 12 13 14 Employment and Income. There is no discernable difference in employment or income between the two routes. To the extent that one is longer than the other, or involves more difficult construction in urban areas, one could involve a slightly different construction work force and expenditures, but at this point, there appear to be no obvious differences. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Agriculture. There are some differences in how the two routes would affect agriculture in terms of land lost and the impairment of access. But the differences vary by route among sections and neither Route A nor Route B consistently impacts agriculture in the same degree or direction. In general, sections that are longer would impact agriculture to a greater degree than would sections that are closer to the river. Thus, Route B would have a greater impact in Sections O-2, O-8, O-9, and O-14 and a lesser impact in Sections O-1 and O-7. 23 24 Select Public Services. There is no discernable difference between Route A and Route B in the impact on schools or law enforcement. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Environmental Justice, Protection of Children, and Safety. There are some moderate differences between the two routes regarding environmental justice, particularly as they affect residential properties. Again, Route A and Route B are not uniformly the same in this respect. For example, in Brownsville (Section O-19) and Los Ebanos (Section O-3), Route B is farther removed from residential properties; but in Roma (Section O-1), Route B impacts properties along Sebastian Street that are avoided by Route A. 32 4.12.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative 33 34 35 36 37 Socioeconomic Resources. Short-term beneficial impacts for this alternative would be similar to those under Alternative 2. This alternative would increase the need for more construction workers and materials. Also, the USACE predicted that the 25-year life cycle costs would range from $16.4 million to $70 million per mile depending on the amount of damage sustained by the fencing (CRS 2006). Draft EIS November 2007 4-56 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Environmental Justice, Protection of Children, and Safety. Impacts under this alternative would be similar to those discussed for Alternative 2. Direct beneficial impacts on safety and the protection of children would be expected as Alternative 3 would be designed with two layers of pedestrian fence along each section. The additional layer of fencing would deter drug smugglers, terrorists, and cross-border violators, and therefore provide for a generally safer ROI and immediate area. Environmental justice issues would be greater for Alternative 3 than for Alternative 2. Alternative 3 has a wider corridor and a more intrusive visual presence affecting the low-income, minority residents who live adjacent to the proposed infrastructure. 11 4.13 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE 12 4.13.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 13 14 15 16 Under the No Action Alternative, no impact on utilities and infrastructure would be expected because the tactical infrastructure would not be built and therefore there is no potential for impacts on utilities and infrastructure as a result of the No Action Alternative. 17 4.13.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B 18 Route A 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Waste Supply Systems. Short-term negligible adverse impacts on the Rio Grande Valley irrigation and municipal water supply systems would be expected as a result of construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure sections near irrigation and municipal water supply infrastructure. Known infrastructure is presented in Table 3.13-1. All water supply infrastructure would be identified prior to construction, and impacts on these systems would be avoided to the maximum extent practical. Canals would be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Pipelines that could not be avoided would be moved. Temporary interruptions in irrigation might be experienced when this infrastructure is moved. No long-term impacts would be expected. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Drainage Systems. Short-term negligible adverse impacts on Rio Grande Valley irrigation and storm water drainage systems would be expected. Known infrastructure is presented in Table 3.13-1. All drainages would be identified prior to construction and impacts on these systems would be avoided to the maximum extent practical. Adherence to proper engineering practices and applicable codes and ordinances would reduce storm water runoff-related impacts to a level of insignificance. In addition, erosion and sedimentation controls would be in place during construction to reduce and control siltation or erosion impacts on areas outside of the construction site. All storm water drainages would be identified prior to construction and impacts on these systems would be minimal. Draft EIS November 2007 4-57 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Municipal Sanitary Sewer Systems. Short-term minor adverse impacts on municipal sanitary systems would be expected. Known infrastructure that could be impacted is presented in Table 3.13-1. All sanitary sewer infrastructure would be identified prior to construction and impacts on these systems would be avoided to the maximum extent practical. Any outfall pipes that would be affected by the proposed construction would be moved. No long-term impacts would be expected. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Solid Waste Management. Short-term minor adverse impacts on solid waste management would be expected. Solid waste generated from the proposed construction activities would consist of building materials such as concrete and metals (conduit and piping). The contractor would recycle construction materials to the greatest extent practical. Nonrecyclable construction debris would be taken to one or more of the Starr, Hidalgo, or Cameron County landfills permitted to take this type of waste. While some of the landfills in the Rio Grande Valley area might be at or near capacity, the remaining landfills have sufficient capacity. Solid waste generated associated with Route A would be expected to be negligible compared to the solid waste currently generated in Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties, and would not exceed the capacity of any landfill. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Transportation Systems. No adverse impacts on transportation systems would be expected. The proposed construction would require delivery of materials to and removal of debris from the construction sites. Construction traffic would comprise a small percentage of the total existing traffic and many of the vehicles would be driven to and kept onsite for the duration of construction activities, resulting in relatively few additional trips. Furthermore, potential increases in traffic volume associated with proposed construction activities would be temporary. Heavy vehicles are frequently driven on local transportation systems. Therefore, the vehicles necessary for construction would not be expected to have a heavy impact on local transportation systems. No road or lane closures would be anticipated. However, if roadways or lanes are required to be closed, USBP would coordinate with TDOT and local municipalities. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Electrical and Natural Gas Systems. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts on the Rio Grande Valley electrical and natural gas systems would be expected. All electrical and natural gas infrastructure would be identified prior to construction and impacts on these systems would be avoided to the maximum extent practical. Any electrical transmission or natural gas distribution lines impacted by construction would be moved. Temporary interruptions in electrical power transmission and natural gas distribution could be experienced when this infrastructure is moved. No long-term impacts would be expected. 39 Route B 40 41 42 The potential impacts of the construction associated with Route B on infrastructure and utilities would be expected to be similar to the potential impacts described above for Route A. Draft EIS November 2007 4-58 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 4.13.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative 2 3 4 5 6 7 The potential impacts of Alternative 3 on infrastructure and utilities are expected to be similar to the potential impacts of Alternative 2. However, the proposed project corridor for Alternative 3 is larger. Therefore, it is possible that a greater number of utility lines could be affected. In addition, more solid waste would be generated under Alternative 3 because two fences would be built rather than one. 8 4.14 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 9 4.14.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 10 11 12 13 Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts on hazardous materials and waste management would be expected because the tactical infrastructure would not be built and would not lead to an increase in use or disposal of hazardous materials or wastes. 14 4.14.2 Alternative 2: Routes A and B 15 Route A 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Short-term negligible adverse impacts would be expected. Products containing hazardous materials (such as fuels, oils, lubricants, pesticides, and herbicides) would be procured and used during construction. It is anticipated that the quantity of products containing hazardous materials used would be minimal and their use would be of short duration. Herbicides would be used along the fence to control herbaceous vegetation. Herbicides would be applied according to USEPA standards and regulations. Therefore, no long-term impacts on humans, wildlife, soils, and water would be expected. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Accidental spills could occur during construction. A spill could potentially result in adverse impacts on wildlife, soils, water, and vegetation. However, only small amounts of hazardous materials are expected. Contractors would be responsible for the management of hazardous materials and wastes. USBP would also require that the contractor keep any necessary materials and equipment onsite to quickly contain any spill or leak. The management of hazardous materials and wastes would include the use of BMPs, a pollution prevention plan, a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan and a storm water management plan. All hazardous materials and wastes would be handled in accordance with applicable Federal, state, and local regulations. 34 35 36 37 38 ASTs have been observed within the proposed project corridor. If it is necessary to remove an AST, removal would be conducted in accordance with all applicable Federal, state, and local regulations. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment would be conducted in conjunction with any real estate transactions associated with the Proposed Action. If ACM and LBP are identified in buildings that need to Draft EIS November 2007 4-59 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 be removed, removal and disposal would be conducted in accordance with all applicable Federal, state, and local regulations. Therefore, no impacts on humans, wildlife, soils, water, and vegetation would be expected as a result of hazardous materials and wastes. Additionally, Alternative 2 would not have an impact on Federal, state, or local hazardous wastes management or pollution prevention programs. 7 Route B 8 9 Impacts associated with hazardous materials and wastes for Route B would be similar to those described above for Route A. 10 4.14.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative 11 12 13 14 15 Short-term minor adverse impacts would be expected. The impacts would be similar to the impacts described for Alternative 2. However, two fence layers would be constructed, so greater quantities of hazardous materials would be used for more construction. The increased risk associated with a potential leak or spill would be minor. 16 Draft EIS November 2007 4-60 SECTION 5 Cumulative Impacts Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CEQ defines cumulative impacts as the “impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time by various agencies (Federal, state, and local) or individuals. Informed decisionmaking is served by consideration of cumulative impacts resulting from projects that are proposed, under construction, recently completed, or anticipated to be implemented in the reasonably foreseeable future. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This cumulative impacts analysis summarizes expected environmental effects from the combined impacts of past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The geographic scope of the analysis varies by resource area. For example, the geographic scope of cumulative impacts on resources such as noise, visual resources, soils, and vegetation is very narrow and focused on the location of the resource. The geographic scope of air quality, wildlife and sensitive species, and socioeconomics is much broader and considers more county- or regionwide activities. Projects that were considered for this analysis were identified by reviewing USBP documents, news releases, and published media reports; and through consultation with planning and engineering departments of local governments, and state and Federal agencies. Projects that do not occur in close proximity (i.e., within several miles) to the proposed tactical infrastructure would not contribute to a cumulative impact and are generally not evaluated further. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Cumulative Fencing, Southern Border. There are currently 62 miles of landing mat fence at various locations along the U.S./Mexico international border (CRS 2006); 14 miles of single, double, and triple fence in San Diego, California; 70 miles of new pedestrian fence approved and currently under construction at various locations along the U.S./Mexico international border; and fences at POE facilities throughout the southern border. In addition, 225 miles of fence are proposed (including the 70 miles proposed in the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector). Proposed new fence sections are being studied for Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Past Actions. Past actions are those that have occurred prior to the development of this EIS. Past actions have shaped the current environmental conditions; therefore, the impacts of these past actions are generally included in the affected environment described in Section 3. For example, most of the proposed tactical infrastructure would follow the IBWC levee ROW or existing USBP patrol roads in the southernmost portions of Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties in Texas. Consequently, some of the proposed sections would be on private lands and cross multiple land use types, including rural, urban, suburban, Draft EIS November 2007 5-1 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 and agriculture that have undergone changes as the result of commercial and residential development. These past actions are now part of the existing environment. Some recent past actions of note are as follows: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 x USBP Operation Rio Grande. This operation was recently implemented on the border to reduce illegal immigration and drug trafficking along the Rio Grande corridor of the USBP McAllen Sector (renamed the Rio Grande Valley Sector), which includes USBP Rio Grande City, McAllen, Mercedes, Harlingen, Brownsville, and Port Isabel stations. USBP Operation Rio Grande included installation of lighting (permanent and portable), road improvement, fencing (5.4 miles of chain-link fencing near POEs in parts of Brownsville and Port Isabel stations), boat ramps, and maintenance mowing (DHS 2004). 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 x Private Residential Developments. For the past several years the Rio Grande Valley has experienced high demand for single-family homes. One example of these planned communities near the U.S./Mexico international border and the Rio Grande is Sharyland Plantation, a 6,000acre master-planned multi-use community started in 1998 in Mission, Texas, near Fence Section O-5. A former citrus plantation, Sharyland Plantation is currently a residential, industrial, and commercial development of more than 1,400 newly constructed homes in 19 neighborhoods ranging from $160,000 to more than a $1 million (Sharyland 2007). South of Sharyland Plantation is the community of Granjeno. 24 25 26 27 28 Present Actions. Present actions include current or funded construction projects, USBP or other agency operations in close proximity to the proposed tactical infrastructure, and current resource management programs and land use activities within the affected areas. The following ongoing actions considered in the cumulative impacts analysis: 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 x Anzalduas POE. The Anzalduas POE is currently under construction in the Granjeno/Mission area. This POE is adjacent to a NWR parcel west of Granjeno and would become an extension of Stuart Road, which intersects farm to market (FM) 494. When completed, Anzalduas POE would contain elevated north- and southbound lanes. This bridge would provide access across two levees and a floodway just below Anzalduas Dam and Anzalduas County Park. The proposed fence Section O-5 would intersect this new roadway by crossing underneath the new Anzalduas POE bridge. 38 39 40 41 42 x University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College Bond Program Projects. In November 2004, the City of Brownsville approved a $68 million bond package that would provide facilities necessary for growing enrollment. The bond is providing the financial resources to build seven projects. Draft EIS November 2007 5-2 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 x Texas Department of Transportation. TDOT has several ongoing road improvement projects scheduled for Cameron, Hidalgo, and Starr counties. However, the area of impacts would likely be minor, as the majority of the construction would be within existing ROWs. Projects include the widening of SR. 83 in Mercedes to a six-lane expressway with a median concrete barrier, and construction of bridges over the floodway and Mercedes Main Canal. The SR 83 Weslaco Project consists of reconstructing the expressway to six lanes from FM 1423 to FM 1015 and the construction of new overpasses. 10 11 12 x Road Construction San Benito. Construction for North Sam Houston Boulevard (FM 345) would expand and overlay the road, at a cost of $7.7 million. Completion is expected in 2009. 13 14 15 16 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions consist of activities that have been proposed or approved and can be evaluated with respect to their effects. The following are reasonably foreseeable future actions that are related to securing the U.S./Mexico international border: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 x SBInet. This is a comprehensive program focused on transforming border control through technology and infrastructure. The goal of the program is to field the most effective proven technology, infrastructure, staffing, and response platforms, and integrate them into a single comprehensive border security suite for DHS. Potential future SBInet projects include deployment of multiple technologies, command and control equipment, pedestrian fence, vehicle barriers, and any required road or components such as lighting and all-weather access roads (Boeing 2007). 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 x Temporary or Permanent Lighting. USBP frequently uses temporary (portable) or permanent lighting in conjunction with fences and patrol roads in urban areas near POEs. Lighting acts as a deterrent to crossborder violators and as an aid to USBP agents. Lighting locations are determined by USBP based on projected operational needs of the specific area. While specific future operational requirements are not currently known and are not reasonably certain to occur, areas that might be suitable for lighting can be identified for the purposes of the cumulative effects analysis. Approximately 450 lights could be required at fence Section O-1 adjacent to the Roma POE, Section O-2 adjacent to the Rio Grande City POE, Section O-3 adjacent to the Los Ebanos Ferry POE, Section O-6 adjacent to the Hidalgo POE, Sections O-9 and O-10 adjacent to the Progreso POE, Section O-10 adjacent to the Pharr POE, Sections O-13 and O-14 adjacent to the Los Indios Bridge POE, Section O-19 adjacent to the Brownsville/Matamoros POE, Section O-19 adjacent to the Gateway POE, and Sections O-20 and O-21 adjacent to the Veterans POE. Standard design for temporary or permanent lights is further discussed in Appendix E. Draft EIS November 2007 5-3 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 Table 5.0-1 presents the reasonably foreseeable future actions by proposed section of tactical infrastructure. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Cumulative Analysis by Resource Area. This section presents the resourcespecific impacts related to the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions discussed above. Only those actions that are additive to the potential impacts associated with the Proposed Action are considered. Table 5.0-2 presents the cumulative impacts by resource area that might occur from implementation of the Proposed Action when combined with other past, present, and future activities that are discussed in more detail below. 10 5.1 AIR QUALITY 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Minor, short-term, adverse cumulative impacts on air quality are expected from the construction of proposed tactical infrastructure in combination with other reasonably foreseeable future actions. As discussed in Section 4.2.2, emissions from construction, maintenance, and operational activities would not contribute to or affect local or regional attainment status with the NAAQS, and be below thresholds established by the USEPA for CAA cumulative impact analysis. Construction equipment would temporarily increase fugitive dust and operation emissions from combustion fuel sources. Since there would be no substantive change in USBP operations, emissions from vehicles would remain constant and there would be no cumulative impact on air quality. 21 5.2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Minor cumulative impacts on ambient noise are expected from the additive impacts of construction, maintenance, and operation of tactical infrastructure and anticipated residential and commercial development activities and infrastructure improvement projects that routinely occur throughout the project area. Noise intensity and duration from construction, maintenance, and operation of tactical infrastructure would be similar to construction activities from residential or commercial development, or road construction and maintenance. Because noise attenuates over distance, a gradual decrease in noise levels occurs the further a receptor is away from the source of noise. Construction, maintenance, and operation of tactical infrastructure would be distant from other substantial noisegenerating activities except in suburban and urban areas. Increased noise from construction of tactical infrastructure could combine with existing noise sources or other construction activities to produce a temporary cumulative impact on sensitive noise receptors. Construction noise would not be louder, but might be heard over a greater distance or over a longer time period. NOISE Draft EIS November 2007 5-4 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 Table 5.0-1. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions by Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Sections for the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Section Number Border Patrol Station Description of Future Action O-3 McAllen Plans are likely to be developed sometime in 2008 for a new POE facility. This plan is only for the POE facility itself. There are no plans to construct a bridge. The plan involves keeping the ferry operational. O-4 McAllen Proposed levee upgrades. According to a recently released document from IBWC, the design phase of this project is scheduled through February 2008. Construction is scheduled from March 2008 through September 2009. Work would be completed by Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1. O-5 McAllen Proposed levee upgrades. Preliminary plans indicate the IBWC would rehabilitate the south floodway levee from the Anzalduas Dam area to the Hidalgo area. Construction is projected to occur from March 2008 through September 2009. Work would be completed by Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1. O-6 McAllen (1) According to the Chairman of the Hidalgo County Water District No. 3, there are plans to build a reservoir just northeast of the McAllen Pump on land currently owned by the district. The plans are to integrate the reservoir into the upgraded levee in this area. Exact timeframes for this project are unknown. (2) IBWC, in conjunction with the City of Hidalgo, is planning on relocating the current levee southward toward the river in the area just east of the Hidalgo POE. These plans have recently become available and indicate the rerouting of the levee from an area near or under the Hidalgo POE Bridge to a point near the Old Hidalgo Pumphouse. The length of this relocation project is approximately 0.65 miles. (3) Additional levee rehabilitation. Construction for Phase 1 of the levee rehabilitation is anticipated to begin in April 2008 from the Common Levee (south floodway levee) to the Hidalgo POE. Construction for Phase 2 is anticipated to commence during December 2008. Phase 2 begins at the Hidalgo POE and runs downriver for approximately 1.5 miles along the levee to the 2nd street canal. Construction for the levee in the Hidalgo area would be performed by IBWC. Draft EIS November 2007 5-5 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Section Number Border Patrol Station Description of Future Action O-8 Weslaco The Donna POE facility would be located south of FM 493. Construction is to start early November 2008. O-14 Harlingen A 40-acre parcel is proposed by TDOT for construction of a state-of-the-art Department of Public Safety inspection station for commercial truck traffic. O-15 Harlingen In La Paloma near FM 732 TDOT would begin construction within the next few years of the expansion of U.S. 281 from La Paloma to Brownsville. The highway would be expanded to a four-lane highway to accommodate international commercial truck traffic. Dates of construction are not known. O-16 Harlingen Construction of a residential subdivision is proposed adjacent to the proposed project corridor in El Ranchito, Texas. Dates of construction are unknown at this time. O-17 Brownsville (1) The Brownsville/Matamoros railroad bridge (Union Pacific) is being relocated just west of River Bend Resort within the next 2 years. (2) ANCLA Design and Construction is considering subdividing land and developing a new neighborhood in the project area. (3) Expansion of U.S. 281 to four lanes. Stakes in the field indicate an expansion of the hardtop of about 2130 feet. (4) USBP is proposing to improve the Russell/Barreda Canal, frequently used by smugglers and aliens to hide. USBP proposes to have it buried (install a pipe underground rather than open canal). O-18 Brownsville (1) Expansion of U.S. 281 from Pharr, Texas, to FM 3248 Alton Gloor. This would be a five-lane highway. (2) New proposed commercial POE Bridge at Flor De Mayo and IBWC levee. (3) USFWS and the City of Brownsville are proposing and planning a Nature Trail Park in this area. O-19 Brownsville (1) A residential subdivision is currently under construction adjacent to the levee/proposed fence area. (2) Brownsville waterfront redevelopment project near Hope Park, on private property. No additional information about this proposal is available at this time. Draft EIS November 2007 5-6 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Section Number O-21 Border Patrol Station Fort Brown Description of Future Action (1) Proposed East Loop, Phase II Project, would begin at U.S. 77/83 and end at FM 1419. The project is a part of the Trans Texas Corridor I-69 that would link the Rio Grande Valley to Denison, Texas. It is slated for construction in 2010 and is being funded by the City of Brownsville and the TDOT. The levee would be redirected and would be placed further south of its current location. The existing levee would become a four-lane highway which would be used to redirect commercial traffic around Brownsville. The City of Brownsville is in the process of finalizing negotiations to purchase land from private landowners in the area. The city has already acquired a majority of the land with the exception of four land parcels. (2) The Mayor of Brownsville and the Brownsville Public Utility Board (PUB) are proposing the construction of a weir and reservoir approximately 6 miles downriver of the Gateway International Bridge. The weir proposal would impound a water reservoir approximately 42 river-miles long, extending from river mile 48 to river mile 90. The reservoir would be within the existing riverbanks and inside the levees that parallel the banks of the river. The USACE has prepared an EA, concluding that the proposal would have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment. The project would impact approximately 65 acres of jurisdictional riverine habitat and wetlands on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande, and 65 acres on the Mexico side of the Rio Grande. The proponent proposes to mitigate this loss through the creation or enhancement of 130 acres of wetlands downstream of the project area. The proponent also proposes to mitigate any impacts by purchasing and protecting a 280 acre tract of land that would form a corridor between the Laguna Atascosa NWR and the Boca Chica NWR that would allow wildlife to travel between the two refuges (BPPUB 2004). 1 Draft EIS November 2007 5-7 Emissions from vehicles and agricultural areas. Current background noise from development. Development of open and agricultural lands. Installation of pipelines and other features. None. Agricultural lands impacted by development. Installation of pipelines and other features. Noise Land Use Geology and Soils Current Background Activities Attainment criteria for all criteria pollutants. Past Actions Air Quality Resource Draft EIS 5-8 Installation of fence posts and other structures. Minor long-term impact from additional infrastructure. Moderate adverse impacts on recreational and agricultural lands. Residential and commercial development permanently alters natural areas and agricultural lands. Installation of pipelines, fencing, and other infrastructure. Short-term adverse impacts from construction equipment and increased traffic. Short-term noise from construction equipment and increased traffic. Short-term noise from construction equipment and increased traffic. USBP purchase of land or easements to construct tactical infrastructure. Natural areas developed for tactical infrastructure. Continued attainment. Cumulative Effects Fugitive dust and increased equipment operation during construction. Known Future Actions Fugitive dust and combustion emissions generation during construction. Alternative 2, Route B Table 5.0-2. Summary of Potential Cumulative Effects Rio Grande Valley Sector Tactical Infrastructure November 2007 Draft EIS 5-9 Adverse impacts in Sections O-1 through O-3. No other impacts. None. Permanently altered by development and safety features such as levees and dams. Floodplains None. Moderate short- term impacts from construction activities, including removal of wetland vegetation and fill of waters of the United States, and temporary degradation of water quality. Minor longterm erosion impacts from infrastructure. Construction erosion and sediment runoff, potential oil spills and leaks. Removal of wetland vegetation and fill of waters of the United States, including wetlands, and temporary degradation of water quality. Construction erosion and sediment runoff, potential oil spills and leaks. Removal of wetland vegetation and fill of waters of the United States, including wetlands, and temporary degradation of water quality. Point and nonpoint discharges including wastewater treatment effluent, agricultural runoff, and storm water have impacted water quality. Point and nonpoint discharges including wastewater treatment effluent, agricultural runoff, and storm water have impacted water quality. Removal of wetland vegetation and fill of waters of the United States, including wetlands. Surface Waters and Waters of the United States Adverse impacts in Sections O-1 through O-3. No other impacts. Minor to moderate short- and long-term impacts. Cumulative Effects Minor to moderate short- and long-term impacts. Known Future Actions None. Alternative 2, Route B Continued degradation of aquifers from pollution. Current Background Activities Degradation of aquifers to historical pollution. Past Actions Hydrology and Groundwater Water Resources Resource Rio Grande Valley Sector Tactical Infrastructure November 2007 Draft EIS 5-10 Moderate to major long-term adverse impacts on cultural resources. Development and infrastructure improvements to be adversely affected cultural resources; some preservation. Development and infrastructure improvements adversely affected cultural resources; some preservation such as Old Hidalgo Pump House and in Roma Historic District. Cultural Resources Minor to moderate loss of green corridor and water access for wildlife. Urbanization and agricultural development degraded habitat for sensitive species. Degraded water quality and urbanization impacted sensitive species. Special Status Species Minor to moderate loss of green corridor and water access for wildlife. Minor to moderate loss of green corridor for wildlife. Urbanization and loss of green corridors impacted habitat and food sources. Wildlife and Aquatic Resources Minor to moderate loss of native species and habitat. Alternative 2, Route B Continued urbanization results in loss of native species. Current Background Activities Degraded historic habitat of sensitive and common wildlife species. Past Actions Vegetation Biological Resources Resource Continued development and infrastructure improvements to adversely affect cultural resources; continued preservation efforts. Loss of habitat for sensitive species and water quality degradation. Loss of green corridor for wildlife. Minor to moderate loss of native species and habitat. Known Future Actions Moderate to major long-term adverse impacts on cultural resources. Current and future activities would continue to delete green corridor and water access for wildlife. Moderate loss of green corridor and water access for wildlife. Moderate adverse impacts on native habitats and vegetation. Cumulative Effects Rio Grande Valley Sector Tactical Infrastructure November 2007 Draft EIS 5-11 None. Minor use of hazardous materials during construction. Minor use of hazardous materials during construction. Use of hazardous substances in vehicles. Possible illegal dumping. Use of hazardous substances in vehicles. Possible illegal dumping. Hazardous Materials and Wastes None. Continued development and maintenance of utilities, infrastructure, and roadways in area. Minor to moderate short-term adverse impacts on local utilities, infrastructure, and roadways during construction. Utilities, infrastructure, and roadways have been upgraded as necessary. Historical development and maintenance of utilities, infrastructure, and roadways in area. Utilities and Infrastructure Minor stimulation of local economies from construction activities. Minor adverse impact on environmental justice or protection of children or human health and safety. Continued strong local economy, high land values, and expansion in counties. Cumulative Effects Minor to moderate short-term and longterm beneficial impacts on local construction. Strong local economy and high land values. Urban development throughout counties. Socioeconomic Resources, Environmental Justice, and Safety Known Future Actions Minor to moderate long-term impacts from permanent infrastructure. Constant static visual interruption at fixed points. Loss of recreational area. Alternative 2, Route B Constant static visual interruption at fixed points. Development of natural areas for community and industry infrastructure. Current Background Activities Historical development of undeveloped lands. Past Actions Aesthetic and Visual Resources Resource Rio Grande Valley Sector Tactical Infrastructure November 2007 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 5.3 LAND USE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Construction of tactical infrastructure would result in minor changes to land use. Recent activities that have most affected land use near the proposed tactical infrastructure are increased commercial and residential development of agricultural and open lands. Moderate cumulative impacts on land use are expected from the additive effects of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, but changes in local land use would continue to be dominated by development. For example, the conversion of 508 acres to support tactical infrastructure is minimal when compared to multiple large developments such as Sharyland Plantation which converted 6,000 acres of agricultural land to residential and commercial use (Sharyland 2007). Recreational lands, residential areas, and agricultural lands would be displaced by the Proposed Action. Future development of residential areas would further alter the current land use. 14 5.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Additive effects include minor changes in topography due to grading, contouring, and trenching; minor soil disturbance; a minor increase in erosion; and a loss of prime farmland. Construction of the tactical infrastructure would not be in close proximity to residential and commercial development and would not interact to cumulatively affect geological resources, including soils. However, each present or reasonably foreseeable future action identified has the potential for temporary erosion from construction activities. 22 5.5 23 24 25 26 Hydrology and Groundwater. Moderate impacts on hydrology and groundwater would occur from the construction of tactical infrastructure when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions due to increased erosion and stream sedimentation. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Surface Water and Waters of the United States. Moderate impacts on surface water and waters of the United States could occur from increased erosion and stream sedimentation. Disturbance from construction and operation of the tactical infrastructure along with residential and commercial development have the potential for additional erosion and stream sedimentation and adverse cumulative effects. However, as discussed in Section 4.6, a Texas Construction General Permit would be obtained to include an SWPPP and sediment control and storm water BMPs to minimize potential impacts. Past actions, including historic and current fishing, vessel traffic, sewage, agricultural runoff, and industrial discharges have generally degraded the quality of water in the lower Rio Grande and have resulted in long-term direct moderate impacts on water quality. The Rio Grande is a CWA Section 303(d) impaired water. 39 40 Wetland losses in the United States have resulted from draining, dredging, filling, leveling, and flooding for urban, agricultural, and residential development. An GEOLOGY AND SOILS WATER RESOURCES Draft EIS November 2007 5-12 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 estimated 4.1 million acres of wetlands existed on the Texas coast in the mid1950s. By the early 1990s, wetlands had decreased to less than 3.9 million acres including 3.3 million acres of freshwater wetlands and 567,000 acres of saltwater wetlands. About 1.7 million acres (52 percent) of the 3.3 million acres of freshwater wetlands were classified as farmed wetlands. The total net loss of wetlands for the region was approximately 210,600 acres, making the average annual net loss of wetlands about 5,700 acres. The greatest losses were of freshwater emergent and forested wetlands (USFWS 1997). Impacts on wetlands would be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Approximately 8 acres of wetlands would be impacted by construction of the tactical infrastructure. USBP would obtain CWA Section 404 permits and mitigate the loss of wetlands. The cumulative impacts on wetlands would be long-term and adverse. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Floodplains. Floodplain resources can be adversely impacted by development, increases in impervious areas, loss of vegetation, changes in hydrology, and soil compaction. Construction, maintenance, and operation of tactical infrastructure has the potential for negligible to minor impacts on floodplains from further loss of vegetation, soil compaction on access roads and patrol roads, and the placement of structures in the floodplains. Floodplains were previously impacted by the construction of the levee system which controls the flow of water over low lying areas. Sections O-1, O-2, and O-3 would further regulate water flow where no levee system exists. When added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, impacts from the new tactical infrastructure would be minor due to the relatively small impact within floodplains. As discussed in Sections 1.5 and 4.6, USBP would follow the FEMA process to flood proof the structures and minimize adverse impacts on floodplain resources. 26 5.6 27 28 29 30 31 Moderate impacts on native species vegetation and habitat are expected from the additive effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Urbanization of the area has directly reduced habitat for sensitive flora species. Indirect impacts from urbanization include changes in floodways, water quality, and the introduction of nonnative species. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Development of land for urban use would continue at an unknown pace resulting in loss of farmland and of wildlife habitat. Construction of new POEs and other border facilities would contribute to this development issue. Conversion of native upland thornscrub to grazing land by using root-plowing and other methods would continue at an unknown pace. One such tract of land was observed. Purchase of land for management as wildlife habitat and for preservation would continue. Lands already purchased are undergoing restoration at various levels of success some of these are being affected by proposed fence construction. Water rights issues could become important and affect agricultural and urban acreages and planning efforts. VEGETATION Draft EIS November 2007 5-13 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 5.7 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Minor to moderate impacts on wildlife and species are expected from the additive effects of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Urbanization of the area has effectively reduced green corridor and water access for wildlife. Cumulative impacts would mainly result from loss of habitat as described in Section 5.7, habitat disturbance and degradation, construction traffic, and permanent loss of green corridors. Displaced wildlife would move to adjacent habitat if sufficient habitat exists. Since the Rio Grande Valley has experienced substantial residential and commercial development, and such development is projected to continue, the amount of potentially suitable habit will continue to decrease, producing a long-term, minor to major adverse cumulative effect. Wildlife could also be adversely impacted by noise during construction, operational lighting, and loss of potential prey species. Species would also be impacted by equipment spills and leaks. The permanent lighting could have minor, adverse cumulative impacts on migration, dispersal, and foraging activities of nocturnal species. 17 5.8 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 As discussed in Section 4.9, USBP has begun Section 7 preconsultation coordination with the USFWS regarding potential impacts on listed species or designated critical habitat. Potential effects of fence construction, maintenance, and operation will be analyzed in both the Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion to accompany the Final EIS. Potential direct and indirect impacts on federally listed species are based on currently available data. Impacts are developed from a NEPA perspective and are independent of any impact determinations made for the Section 7 consultation process. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Special status species are commonly protected because their historic range and habitat has been reduced and will only support a small number of individuals. Construction, maintenance, and operation of tactical infrastructure, when combined with past, present, and future residential and commercial development has the potential to result in minor to major adverse cumulative impacts on these species. Potential threats to federally listed species within the proposed project corridor include trampling (for plants), habitat conversion, and noise. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Approximately 508 acres of vegetation would be cleared along the Alternative 2 corridor. Route A approaches known locations of individuals of Texas ayenia, Walker’s manioc, and Zapata bladderpod. Implementation of Route A would have the potential for short-term major adverse impacts on these species due to trampling or mortality during fence construction. While Route B would cut across the lower portions of Los Velas and Los Velas West annexes of the LRGVNWR (Section O-2), it would entirely avoid the potentially more species-rich Arroyo Ramirez annex (Section O-1), the Culebron Banco annex (Section O-13), and the Tahuachal Banco annex (Section O-16). In addition, Route B borders instead of intersects the southern boundary of the Phillips Banco annex of the SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES Draft EIS November 2007 5-14 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 LRGVNWR. Route B pulls the proposed fence alignment further away from several known locations of Zapata bladderpod and Walker’s manioc. For this reason, Route B cumulative impacts on federally listed plants are anticipated to be short-term, moderate, and adverse. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 The loss of approximately 125 acres of disturbed thornscrub shrubland and woodland habitat, predominantly honey mesquite and retama, and of approximately 50 acres of disturbed floodplain shrubland, woodland, and forest habitat, predominantly honey mesquite and sugarberry and to a lesser extent sabal palm, would represent a loss of approximately 150 acres of potential ocelot and jaguarundi habitat. The long-term, cumulative adverse impact from the loss of potential habitat for these species would be moderate to major. 12 13 14 15 16 17 Habitat loss of state-listed species in Sections O-1, O-2, O-8, and O-10 (i.e., Mexican treefrog, Mexican burrowing toad, Texas horned lizard, whitelipped lizard) would affect a small area and would be a minor, adverse cumulative effect on these species. BMPs to avoid and minimize impacts, such as pre-construction clearance surveys would to reduce potential adverse impacts. 18 19 20 21 22 Cumulative, adverse impacts on migratory birds could be substantial due to the potential timing of fence construction. Implementation of BMPs presented in Section 4.9 could reduce their intensity. However, past loss of habitat combined with potential construction has the potential for long-term, major, adverse cumulative impacts. 23 5.9 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Moderate to major adverse, long-term impacts on cultural resources are expected from the additive effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Past, current, and future commercial and residential development, improvements to infrastructure such as highway and irrigation projects, and the clearing of land for agriculture have caused significant impacts on cultural resources and can be expected to continue to do so. At the same time, some past and present efforts have resulted in the preservation of some historic properties such as the Old Hidalgo Pumphouse and some properties in the Roma Historic District. Similar preservation efforts can be expected to continue. Cumulative effects on historic properties are expected to be moderate to major, adverse, and long-term. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 In compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, cultural resource surveys are underway to identify and evaluate properties listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP that may be affected by the proposed tactical infrastructure. Consultation with Native American tribes would ensure that properties of religious and cultural significance to the tribes are addressed. It is anticipated that additional properties to be determined as eligible for listing in the NRHP will be identified that would be affected. Known historic properties would also be affected. CULTURAL RESOURCES Draft EIS November 2007 5-15 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Impacts on cultural resources (including resources potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP) would be avoided, minimized, or reduced through careful planning, siting, and design of the proposed tactical infrastructure and development of special measures. For example, by locating Section O-1 below the bluff, impacts on the Roma Historic District would be substantially reduced. In other cases, special designs could be developed to reduce effects on historic properties. The integrity of areas that may have significant archaeological resources and be potentially affected by the proposed infrastructure would be studied, such as Fort Ringgold, Fort Brown, and Roma Historic District. Additional archaeological resources are expected to be identified. 11 5.10 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Minor to moderate impacts on aesthetics and visual resources are expected from the additive effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The presence of construction equipment would produce a short-term adverse impact on visual resources. Once installed, the tactical infrastructure would create a permanent and fixed visual interruption at fixed points. Adverse cumulative effects could include temporary construction impacts and the introduction of light poles and increased night illumination during construction. Other commercial and residential development would introduce night illumination into previously open or agricultural lands. Recreational activities such as stargazing would be adversely affected by this cumulative impact in night illumination. 23 24 5.11 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND SAFETY 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Short-term beneficial impacts on local and regional socioeconomic resources are expected from the additive effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Economic benefits would be realized by construction companies; their employers and suppliers; and by Cameron, Hidalgo, and Starr counties through a minor increase in tax receipts for the purchase of goods and services. Construction of tactical infrastructure has the potential for minor beneficial effects from temporary increases in construction jobs and the purchase of goods and services in Cameron, Hidalgo, and Starr counties. Approximately 25,000 workers are employed in the construction industry in the three counties. An increase of 200 construction jobs would represent only about 1 percent of construction jobs, so the cumulative effect would be minimal. Since the construction jobs would be temporary, negligible cumulative effects on population growth, income, or other services would be expected. 38 39 40 The Rio Grande Valley has experienced growth including residential and commercial development. The conversion of 508 acres to support tactical infrastructure is a minimal cumulative impact compared to other development. Draft EIS November 2007 5-16 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 For example, a single development, Sharyland Plantation, converted 6,000 acres of agricultural land to residential and commercial development. 3 4 5 6 7 Some residents might be adversely impacted by the construction and Government purchase of their property. The potential exists that some residents might have been impacted by a previous USBP action to install lights or patrol roads under Operation Rio Grande. Although no residents have been identified as being impacted this way, this would be an adverse cumulative effect. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 The cumulative impacts of USBP activities to reduce the flow of illegal drugs, terrorists, and terrorist weapons into the United States and the concomitant effects upon the Nation's health and economy, drug-related crimes, community cohesion, property values, and traditional family values would be long-term and beneficial, both nationally and locally. Residents of the border towns would benefit from increased security, a reduction in illegal drug-smuggling activities and the number of violent crimes, less damage to and loss of personal property, and less financial burden for entitlement programs. This would be accompanied by the concomitant benefits of reduced enforcement and insurance costs. There could be an adverse cumulative effect on agriculture and other employers of lowincome workers if the labor pool of illegal aliens was substantially reduced. Operation and maintenance of the tactical infrastructure has little potential for cumulative impacts on socioeconomics. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 As discussed in Section 4.12, some tactical infrastructure would be constructed on or adjacent to residential properties. Of the 21 fence sections, 11 are within census bureau tracts in which a portion of the tracts have a higher proportion of minority or low-income residents. Of the proposed 70 miles of tactical infrastructure, substantially less than half is within census bureau tracts that have a higher proportion of minority or low-income residents—therefore the overall impacts of the proposed tactical infrastructure would not fall disproportionately on minority or low-income populations. Of the 16 census tracts identified in Table 3.12-11 that have a higher proportion of minority or low-income residents, 6 of the sections have populations near fence sections that might be adversely impacted by construction or operation of the tactical infrastructure. These are section O-4 (census tract 242.02); O-5 (census tract 213.01); O-13 (census tract 121); O-15 (census tract 125.05); O-19 (census tracts 128, 133.07 and 140.01); and O-21 (census tract 141). Temporary lights approved under Operation Rio Grande along the same alignment as Section O-5 (census tract 213.01) might be installed. New tactical infrastructure when combined with the temporary lights might be a long-term, adverse cumulative impact to this population. 38 5.12 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE 39 40 41 42 Residential and commercial development in Cameron, Hidalgo, and Starr counties has increased demand for utilities such as drinking water, wastewater treatment, natural gas and electric power distribution, and transportation. The construction, maintenance, and operation of tactical infrastructure would have Draft EIS November 2007 5-17 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 minimal demand for utilities and infrastructure, combining to produce a minimal adverse cumulative impact. Minor impacts on roadways and traffic are expected from the additive effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 5 5.13 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 6 7 8 9 Construction, maintenance, and operation of tactical infrastructure would require minimal quantities of hazardous materials and generate small quantities of hazardous wastes. Therefore, minimal cumulative impacts on hazardous materials and wastes would occur. 11 5.14 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 An irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources refers to impacts on or losses to resources that cannot be reversed or recovered, even after an activity has ended and facilities have been decommissioned. A commitment of resources is related to use or destruction of nonrenewable resources, and effects that loss will have on future generations. For example, if prime farmland is developed there would be a permanent loss of agricultural productivity. Construction, maintenance, and operation of tactical infrastructure involves the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of material resources and energy, land and wetland resources, biological resources, and human resources. The impacts on these resources would be permanent. 22 23 24 25 26 Material Resources. Material resources irretrievably utilized for the Proposed Action include steel, concrete, and other building materials (for construction of fence). Such materials are not in short supply, would not limit other unrelated construction activities, and their irretrievable use would not be considered significant. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Energy Resources. Energy resources utilized for the Proposed Action would be irretrievably lost. These include petroleum-based products (e.g., gasoline and diesel) and electricity. During construction, gasoline and diesel would be used for the operation of construction vehicles. During operations, gasoline and diesel would be used to maintain the tactical infrastructure including mowing. USBP operations would not change, and the amount of fuel used to operate government-owned vehicles might decrease slightly due to increased operational efficiencies. Consumption of these energy resources would not place a significant demand on their availability in the region. Therefore, no significant impacts would be expected. 37 38 39 40 Biological Resources. The Proposed Action would result in the irretrievable loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat. In the long term, construction of the tactical infrastructure would result in the loss of 125 acres of potential wildlife habitat, force the relocation of wildlife, and require the removal of natural 10 Draft EIS November 2007 5-18 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 vegetation. This result would be a permanent loss or conversion of decreasing open spaces. Approximately 7.5 acres of wetlands could be permanently impacted by the Proposed Action. However, it is possible to mitigate wetland loss by re-creation of other biologically significant wetlands elsewhere. 5 6 7 8 Human Resources. The use of human resources for construction is considered an irretrievable loss, only in that it would preclude such personnel from engaging in other work activities. However, the use of human resources for the Proposed Action represents employment opportunities, and is considered beneficial. 9 10 5.15 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SHORT-TERM USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 11 12 13 14 15 Short-term uses of the biophysical components of the human environment include direct construction-related disturbances and direct impacts associated with an increase in population and activity that occurs over a period of less than 5 years. Long-term uses of the human environment include those impacts that occur over a period of more than 5 years, including permanent resource loss. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Activities that could result in short-term resource uses that compromise long-term productivity include filling of wetlands, construction of tactical infrastructure on prime farmlands, and development in floodplains. Adverse impacts include destruction of cultural resources, or loss of unique habitats for rare or sensitive species. In the context of Rio Grande Valley, long-term loss of unique habitats for rare or sensitive species would be a significant adverse impact. This could include the loss of threatened or endangered or other special status species of vegetation. Although no direct impacts on special status wildlife are expected, the short- and long-term loss of potential habitat for these species could result in long-term, moderately adverse impacts on ocelots and jaguarundi. 26 Draft EIS November 2007 5-19 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1 Draft EIS November 2007 5-20 SECTION 6 References Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 6. REFERENCES 1 AirNav 2007a AirNav. 2007. “Airport Information for Brownsville/South Padre International Airport.” Available online: . Accessed 17 October 2007. AirNav 2007b AirNav. 2007. “Airport Information for McAllen Miller International Airport.” Available online: . Accessed 17 October 2007. Bailey 1995 Bailey, Robert F. 1995. Ecoregions of the United States. U.S. Forest Service. Available online: . Accessed 4 November 2007. BEA 2007 Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2007. “Regional Economic Information System, Local Area Personal Income 1969 – 2005.” Available online: . Accessed 22 October 2007. BLS 2007 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2007. “Local Area Unemployment Statistics.” Available online: . Accessed 22 October 2007. Boeing 2007 Boeing Integrated Defense System. 2007. SBInet Backgrounder. March 2007. BPUB 2004 Brownsville Public Utilities Board (BPUB). 2004. Weir & Reservoir Project, Brownsville Weir and Reservoir Project Gains Momentum. Available online: . Accessed 8 November 2007. CBP 2003 CBP. 2003. Environmental Assessment for Rio Grande Valley US Border Patrol Sector Headquarters at Edinburg, TX. Prepared by: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District. CBP 2007 CBP. 2007. “Rio Grande Valley Sector Homepage”. Available online: . Accessed 20 September 2007. Cowardin et al. 1979 Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. Available online: . (Version 04DEC98). Draft EIS November 2007 6-1 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure CRS 2006 Congressional Research Service (CRS). 2006. “Report For Congress.” Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border. 12 December 2006. DHS 2004 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 2004. Environmental Impact Statement for Operation Rio Grande. CBP, Washington D.C. April 2004. DOI 1996 DOI. 1996. “Summary of Meeting held on 11 July 1996.” National Biological Service. Available online: . Accessed 19 October 2007. DTSC 2007 California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). 2007. “Project Search Results for Rio Grande.” Available online: . Accessed 20 October 2007. EIA 2007 Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2007. Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program. Available online: . Accessed 4 November 2007. ESRI StreetMap Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 2005. USA 2005 “StreetMap USA”. ESRI® Data & Maps. 01 April 2005. ESRI, Redlands, California, USA. FEMA 1987 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1987. “Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for Project Areas Located in the Rio Grande Valley Area.” Effective 1 July 1987. Available online: . Accessed 17 October 2007. FEMA undated FEMA. Undated. “Definitions of FEMA Flood Zone Designations.” Available online: . Accessed 17 October 2007. Fipps 2004 Fipps, Guy. 2004. The Municipal Water Supply Network of the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Irrigation Technology Center, Texas Cooperative Extension - Texas Agricultural Experimental Station. 5 February 2004. Fipps and Pope Fipps, Guy and Craig Pope. 1998. Implementation of a District 1998 Management System in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Presentation for the U.S. Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, Phoenix, AZ. 30 June 1998. FRBD 2005 Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (FRBD). 2005. “Texas Border Benefits from Retail Sales to Mexican Nationals.” The Face of Texas: Jobs, People, Business, Change. October 2005. Available online: . Accessed 21 October 2007. Draft EIS November 2007 6-2 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Hester et al. 1989 Hester, T. R., S. L. Black, D. G. Steele, B. W. Olive, A. A. Fox, K. J. Reinhard, and L. C. Bement. 1989. From the Gulf to the Rio Grande: Human Adaptation in Central, South, and Lower Pecos Texas. Arkansas Archaeology Survey Research Series No. 33, Wrightsville, Arkansas. IBWC 2005 U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). 2005. Aerial Photography. IBWC 2007a IBWC. 2007. “The International Boundary and Water Commission, Its Mission, Organization and Procedures for Solution of Boundary and Water Problems.” Available online: . Accessed 20 September 2007. IBWC 2007b IBWC. 2007. Environmental Assessment for the Improvements to the Donna-Brownsville Levee System. September 2007. Landrum & Brown 2002 Landrum & Brown, Inc. 2002. “Common Noise Sources.” Available online: . 15 January 2002. Accessed 6 July 2004. Larkin and Bomar 1983 Larkin, T. J., and G. W. Bomar. 1983. Climatic Atlas of Texas. Texas Department of Water Resources, Austin, TX. Moore et al. 2002 Moore, J.G., W. Rast, and W.M. Pulich. 2002. Proposal for an Integrated Management Plan for the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo. Presentation at First International Symposium on Transboundary Water Management, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico. 18-22 November 2002. NAIP 2005 National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP). 2005. Aerial Photography. 26 September 2005. USDA, FSA, APFO Aerial Photography Field Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. NatureServe 2007 NatureServe. 2007. “Ecological System Comprehensive Reports.” Available online: . Accessed 18 October 2007. NRCS 2007 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2007. “National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) Web Soil Survey Version 1.1.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS. Available online: . Accessed 28 September 2007. OSU 2007 Ohio State University (OSU). 2007. “Noise on the Farm Can Cause Hearing Loss.” Available online: . Accessed 20 October 2007. Draft EIS November 2007 6-3 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Sharyland 2007 Sharyland Plantation. 2007. About Sharyland Plantation, Paradise. Available online: . Accessed 4 November 2007. TAC 2007 Texas Administrative Code (TAC). 2007. “Chapter 106, Subchapter W: Turbines and Engines.” Available online: . Accessed 15 October 2007. TCEQ 2006 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2006. “Municipal Solid Waste in Texas: A Year in Review. FY 2005 Data Summary and Analysis.” TCEQ Waste Permits Division. Available online: . Accessed 16 October 2007. TDPS 2006 Texas Department of Public Safety (TDPS). 2006. “2004 Crime in Texas.” TDPS Crime Information Bureau. Available online: . Accessed 22 October 2007. TEA 2006a Texas Education Agency (TEA). 2006. “Enrollment Report, 2006-2007.” Available online: . Accessed 22 October 2007. TEA 2006b TEA. 2006. “Snapshot Download Statistics, District and Charter Detail Data for SY 2003-2004.” Available online: . Accessed 22 October 2007. THC 2007 Texas Historical Commission (THC). 2007. Texas Historic Sites Atlas. Atlas webpages for Landum House, Fort Brown, Sabas Cavazos Cemetery, Neale House, and other mentioned properties. Available online: . Accessed 15 September 2007 to 15 October 2007. (Archaeological sites accessed via restricted access Texas Archaeological Sites Atlas, Texas Historical Commission). Austin, Texas. TopoZone.com TopoZone.com. 2007. “USGS Topographic Maps.” Available 2007 online: . Accessed 17 October 2007. TPWD 2007a Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 2007. “Texas Wildlife Action Plan, Section II-Introduction and Purpose.” Last updated 9 February 2007. Available online: . Accessed 9 October 2007. Draft EIS November 2007 6-4 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure TPWD 2007b TPWD. 2007. “State of Texas Threatened and Endangered Species Regulations.” Available online: . Accessed 9 October 2007. TPWD 2007c TPWD. 2007. “Wildlife Fact Sheet: Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum).” Available online: . Accessed 15 October 2007. Last updated April 11, 2007. TSDC 2006 Texas State Data Center (TSDC). 2006. “Population 2000 and Projected Population 2005 to 2040.” TDSC Office of the State Demographer. Available online: . Accessed 22 October 2007. TSSWCB undated Texas State Soil And Water Conservation (TSSWCB). Undated. Arroyo Colorado Agricultural Nonpoint Source Assessment. Available online: . Accessed 2 November 2007. TxGLO 2007 Texas General Land Office (TxGLO). 2007. Texas Coastal Management Program and Federal Consistency Web page. Last Updated 26 October 2007. Available online: . Accessed 7 November 2007. U.S. Census Bureau 2002a U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. “Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrice P7, Hispanic and Latino by Race: 2000.” Available online: . Accessed 22 October 2007. U.S. Census Bureau 2002b U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. “Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrice H76, Median Value (dollars) for Specified OwnerOccupied Housing Units.” Available online: . Accessed 22 October 2007. U.S. Census Bureau 2006a U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. “Annual Population Estimates and Estimated Components of Population Change for the United States and States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006.” Available online: . Accessed 22 October 2007. U.S. Census Bureau 2006b U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. “Small Area Income & Poverty Estimates, Model-based Estimates for States, Counties and School District, 1995, 1999, 2000 and 2004.” Available online: . Accessed 22 October 2007. Draft EIS November 2007 6-5 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Census Bureau 2007a U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. “Subcounty Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006.” Available online: . Accessed 22 October 2007. U.S. Census Bureau 2007b U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Selected Age Groups and Sex for Counties, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006.” Available online: . Accessed 22 October 2007. University of Texas 1998 University of Texas. 1998. “Herps of Texas – Frogs and Toads.” Available online: . Accessed 15 October 2007. University of Texas 2006 University of Texas. 2006. “The Physiography of Texas.” University of Texas Library System, the Walter Geology Library. 24 July 2006. Available online: . Accessed 15 October 2007. USACE 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. “Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.” Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1 (online edition). Prepared by: Environmental Laboratory. January 1987. Available online: . Accessed 20 October 2007. USACE 1994 USACE. 1994. Environmental Baseline Document in Support of the Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for INS and JTF-6 Activities Along the U.S./Mexico Border. Volume 2: Texas Land Border Study Area. USACE Fort Worth District. March 1999. USACE 2000 USACE. 2000. Environmental Assessment for the Proposed JTF-6 Levee Road Maintenance and Repair Project, Brownsville, Texas. USACE Fort Worth District. April 2000. USDA 2004 USDA. 2004. “2002 Census of Agriculture – Texas State and County Data, Table 1.” Available online: . Accessed 22 October 2007. USDOT undated U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Undated. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. USEPA 1971 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. 31 December 1971. Draft EIS November 2007 6-6 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure USEPA 1974 USEPA. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March 1974. USEPA 2007a USEPA. 2007. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).” Available online: . Accessed 15 October 2007. USEPA 2007b USEPA. 2007. “AirData NET Tier Report for BLIAQCR.” Available online: . Accessed 15 October 2007. USEPA 2007c USEPA. 2007. Texas Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks Inventory. November 2007. USFWS 1988 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. “Tamaulipan Brushland of the Lower Rio Grande Valley of South Texas: Description, Human Impacts, and Management Options.” Biological Report 88, no. 36 (1988). USFWS 1990 USFWS. 1990. Listed Cats of Texas and Arizona Recovery Plan (With Emphasis on the Ocelot). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 131 pp. USFWS 1991 USFWS. 1991. Contaminants Investigation for Irrigation Drainwater in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas. December 1991. USFWS 1993 USFWS. 1993. Walker’s Manioc (Manihot walkerae) Recovery Plan. USDA Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 57 pp. USFWS 1997 USFWS. 1997. Texas Coastal Wetlands, Status and Trends, Mid01950s to Early 1990s. USFWS, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. March 1997. USFWS 2001 USFWS. 2001. “Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge.” Last updated 21 December 2001. Available online: . Accessed 9 October 2007. USFWS 2004 USFWS. 2004. Zapata Bladderpod (Lesquerella thamnophila) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-vii + 30 pp., Appendices A-B. USFWS 2007a USFWS. 2007. National Wetland Inventory. 24 September 2007. United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Draft EIS November 2007 6-7 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure USFWS 2007b USFWS. 2007. “Southwest Region Ecological Services, Endangered Species List, List of Species by County for Texas.” Available online: . Accessed 28 July 2007. Wermund 2007 Wermund, E.G. 2007. Physiography of Texas. University of Texas, the Walter Geology Library. Available online: . Accessed 17 October 2007. 1 2 Draft EIS November 2007 6-8 SECTION 7 Acronyms and Abbreviations Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 7. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 1 Pg/m3 °F ACHP ACM ADNL APE AQCR AST BLIAQCR BLM BMP BO CAA CAAA CBP CEQ CERCLA CFR CO CO2 CR CRS CWA CY dBA dBC DHS EA ECSO micrograms per cubic meter degrees Fahrenheit Advisory Council on Historic Preservation asbestos-containing material A-weighted Day Night Average Sound Level area of potential effect air quality control region aboveground storage tank Brownsville-Laredo Intrastate Air Quality Control Region Bureau of Land Management Best Management Practice Biological Opinion Clean Air Act Clean Air Act Amendments U.S. Customs and Border Protection Council on Environmental Quality Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act Code of Federal Regulations carbon monoxide carbon dioxide County Route Congressional Research Service Clean Water Act calendar year A-weighted decibels C-weighted decibels U.S. Department of Homeland Security EO Environmental Assessment Engineering Construction Support Office Environmental Impact Statement Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Highway Administration Flood Insurance Rate Map Flood Insurance Study farm to market Farmland Protection Policy Act fiscal year Historic American Building Survey Historic American Engineering Record horsepower International Boundary and Water Commission Independent School District Jurisdictional Determination Lead-based paint Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Migratory Bird Treaty Act Management Directive milligrams per cubic meter million metric tons of carbon equivalent miles per hour Metropolitan Statistical Area mean sea level EIS FHWA FIRM FIS FM FPPA FY HABS HAER hp IBWC ISD JD LBP LRGFCP LRGVNWR MBTA MD mg/m3 MMTCE mph MSA MSL Draft EIS November 2007 7-1 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure NAAQS NEPA NHL NHPA NO2 NOA NOI NOx NPDES NPS NRCS NRHP NWI NWR O3 OSHA P.L. Pb PCB PM10 PM2.5 POE ppm PUB PSD RCRA RHA ROD ROE ROI ROW SARA National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Environmental Policy Act National Historic Landmark National Historic Preservation Act nitrogen dioxide Notice of Availability Notice of Intent nitrogen oxide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System National Park Service Natural Resources Conservation Service National Register of Historic Places National Wetland Inventory National Wildlife Refuge ozone Occupational Safety and Health Administration Public Law lead polychlorinated biphenyls particle matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter particle matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter Port of Entry parts per million Public Utility Board Prevention of Significant Deterioration Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Rivers and Harbors Act Record of Decision rights of entry Region of Influence SHPO SIP SO2 SR SWPPP TAAQS TAC TCEQ TCP TDOT THC TMDL TPWD tpy TSCA U.S.C. USACE USBP USEPA USFWS UST VOC WMA Draft EIS right-of-way Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act State Historic Preservation Office State Implementation Plan sulfur dioxide State Route Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Texas Ambient Air Quality Standards Texas Administrative Code Texas Commission on Environmental Quality traditional cultural properties Texas Department of Transportation Texas Historical Commission Total Maximum Daily Load Texas Parks and Wildlife Department tons per year Toxic Substances Control Act United States Code U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Border Patrol U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service underground storage tank volatile organic compound Wildlife Management Areas November 2007 7-2 SECTION 8 List of Preparers Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 8. LIST OF PREPARERS 2 3 4 This EIS has been prepared under the direction of CBP and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District ECSO. The individuals who assisted in resolving and providing agency guidance for this document are: 5 6 Christopher Oh Chief, CBP Environmental Branch 7 8 Charles H. McGregor, Jr. USACE Fort Worth District ECSO 9 10 11 This EIS has been prepared by engineering-environmental Management, Inc. (e²M) under the direction of USBP. The individual contractors that contributed to the preparation of this document are listed below. 12 Domenick Alario 13 B.A. Geography 14 Years of Experience: 2 15 16 17 18 Louise Baxter M.P.A. Public Administration B.S. Political Science Years of Experience: 7 19 20 21 22 Don Beckham M.P.A. Public Administration B.S. Engineering Physics Years of Experience: 33 23 24 25 26 David Boyes, REM, CHMM M.S. Natural Resources B.S. Applied Biology Years of Experience: 31 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Suanne Collinsworth M.S. Environmental Sciences and Engineering B.S. Geology Certificate of Water Quality Management Years of Experience: 10 34 35 36 37 38 39 Shannon Cauley B.S. Geology USACE Certified Wetland Delineator Certified Professional Soil Scientist Years of Experience: 23 40 41 42 43 Dennis Dombkowski Ph.D. Mass Communications B.A. Journalism Years of Experience: 22 44 45 46 47 Ron Dutton B.S. Economics M.S. Economics Years of Experience: 31 48 49 50 51 52 Laurence D. Gale Michael Baker Corporation B.S. Natural Resources M.S. Marine Biology Years of Experience: 20 53 54 55 56 Megan Griffin M.S. Biology B.S. Environmental Studies Years of Experience: 3 Draft EIS November 2007 8-1 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 Sue Goodfellow Ph.D. Anthropology B.A. Anthropology and Archaeology Years of Experience: 21 5 6 7 8 Stuart Gottlieb B.A. Geography GIS Professional Certificate Years of Experience: 5 9 10 11 12 Shawn Gravatt M.S. Environmental Studies B.S. Earth Science and Geography Years of Experience: 10 13 14 15 16 17 Gustin Hare B.S. Environmental Science Registered Environmental Professional Years of Experience: 12 18 Jeff Hokanson 19 M.A. Anthropology 20 Years of Experience: 15 21 22 23 24 25 Brian Hoppy B.S. Biology Certificate of Environmental Management Years of Experience: 17 26 David Kilby 27 M.A. Anthropology 28 Years of Experience: 17 29 30 31 32 Daniel Koenig B.S. Environmental Policy and Planning Years of Experience: 3 33 34 35 36 37 38 Ronald E. Lamb, CEP M.S. Environmental Science M.A. Political Science/International Economics B.A. Political Science Years of Experience: 22 39 40 41 42 43 Sean McCain M.B.A. Business Administration B.S. Forestry and Natural Resources Management Years of Experience: 11 44 45 46 47 48 Dr. Michael Moran Ph.D. Biochemistry B.S. Chemistry Registered Environmental Manager Years of Experience: 23 49 Cheryl Myers 50 A.A.S. Nursing 51 Years of Experience: 17 52 53 54 55 56 Margie Nowick M.S. Historic Preservation M.S. Anthropology B.S. Anthropology Years of Experience: 24 57 58 59 60 Tanya Perry B.S. Environmental Science B.A. Communications Years of Experience: 6 61 62 63 64 Andrea Poole B.S. Environmental Science B.A. Business Administration Years of Experience: 9 65 66 67 68 69 Steve Pyle B.S. Natural Resource Management J.D. with Certificate in Environmental Law Years of Experience: 11 70 Christopher Roche 71 B.S. Environmental Studies 72 Years of Experience: 8 73 74 75 76 77 78 Draft EIS Lee Sammons, AICP Sammons/Dutton LLC B.S. Civil Engineering Graduate Studies, City and Regional Planning Years of Experience: 43 November 2007 8-2 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure 1 Devin Scherer 2 B.S. Biology 3 Years of Experience: 4 4 5 6 7 8 Cheryl Schmidt Ph.D. Biology M.S. Biology B.S. Biology Years of Experience: 22 9 10 11 12 Sue Sill Ph.D. Botany B.S. Biology Years of Experience: 24 40 41 42 43 44 45 Jeffrey Weiler M.S. Resource Economics/Environmental Management B.A. Political Science Years of Experience: 32 46 47 48 49 Valerie Whalon M.S. Fisheries Science B.S. Marine Science Years of Experience: 12 13 Sarah Smith 14 B.S. Geography 15 Years of Experience: 2 16 17 18 19 Sarah Spratlen B.S. Biology M.S. Engineering Years of Experience: 5 20 21 22 23 24 Karen Stackpole M.S. Environmental Science and Education B.S. Biology Years of Experience: 9 25 26 27 28 29 Charles Thornton-Kolbe M.S. in Public Policy B.A. Economics and Political Science Years of Experience: 14 30 Adam Turbett 31 B.S. Environmental Studies 32 Years of Experience: 3 33 34 35 36 Jim Von Loh M.S. Biology B.S. Biology Years of Experience: 32 37 Lauri Watson 38 B.S. Environmental Science 39 Years of Experience: 5 Draft EIS November 2007 8-3 Rio Grande Valley Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1 2 Draft EIS November 2007 8-4 3k} APPENDIX A Applicable Laws and Executive Orders 1 Table A-1. Applicable Laws and Executive Orders 1 Title, Citation Summary Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 469 Protects and preserves historical and archaeological data. Requires Federal agencies to identify and recover data from archaeological sites threatened by a proposed action(s). Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q, as amended Establishes Federal standards for air pollutants. Prevents significant deterioration in areas of the country where air quality fails to meet Federal standards. Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251–1387 (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) Comprehensively restores and maintains the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Implemented and enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9601–9675 (also known as “Superfund”) Provides for liability, compensation, cleanup, and emergency response for hazardous substances released into the environment and cleanup of inactive hazardous substances disposal sites. Establishes a fund financed by hazardous waste generators to support cleanup and response actions. Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543, as amended Protects threatened, endangered, and candidate species of fish, wildlife, and plants and their designated critical habitats. Prohibits Federal action that jeopardizes the continued existence of endangered or threatened species. Requires consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and a biological assessment when such species are present in an area affected by government activities. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661–667e, as amended Authorizes the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to provide assistance to and cooperate with Federal and state agencies to protect, rear, stock, and increase the supply of game and fur-bearing animals, as well as to study the effects of domestic sewage, trade wastes, and other polluting substances on wildlife. The 1946 amendments require consultation with the USFWS and the state fish and wildlife agencies involving any waterbodies that are proposed or authorized, permitted, or licensed to be impounded, diverted, or otherwise controlled or modified by any agency under a Federal permit or license. Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 703–712 Implements various treaties for protecting migratory birds; the taking, killing, or possession of migratory birds is unlawful. A-1 Title, Citation Summary National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4370e, as amended Requires Federal agencies to use a systematic approach when assessing environmental impacts of government activities. Proposes an interdisciplinary approach in a decisionmaking process designed to identify unacceptable or unnecessary impacts to the environment. National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470–470x-6 Requires Federal agencies to consider the effect of any federally assisted undertaking or licensing on any district, site, building, structure, or object eligible for inclusion, or listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Provides for the nomination, identification (through NRHP listing), and protection of significant historical and cultural properties. Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. 4901–4918 Establishes a national policy to promote an environment free from noise that jeopardizes health and welfare. Authorizes the establishment of Federal noise emissions standards and provides relevant information to the public. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651–678 Establishes standards to protect workers, including standards on industrial safety, noise, and health standards. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901–6992k Establishes requirements for safely managing and disposing of solid and hazardous waste and underground storage tanks. Executive Order (EO) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, July 14, 1982, 47 FR 30959 (6/16/82), as supplemented Requires Federal agencies to consult with state and local governments when proposed Federal financial assistance or direct Federal development impacts interstate metropolitan urban centers or other interstate areas. EO 12898, Environmental Justice, February 11, 1994, 59 FR 7629 (2/16/94), as amended Requires certain Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their missions by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. A-2 Title, Citation Summary EO 13148, Greening the Government Through Leadership in Environmental Management, April 21, 2000, 65 FR 24595 (4/26/00) Designates the head of each Federal agency to ensure that all necessary actions are taken to integrate environmental accountability into agency day-to-day decision making and long-term planning processes, across all agency missions, activities, and functions. Establishes goals for environmental management, environmental compliance, right-to-know (informing the public and their workers of possible sources of pollution resulting from facility operations) and pollution prevention, and similar matters. EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, November 6, 2000, 65 FR 67249 (11/09/00) Requires Federal agencies to establish an accountable process that ensures meaningful and timely input from tribal officials in developing policies that have tribal implications. EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, January 10, 2001, 66 FR 3853 (1/17/01) Requires each agency to ensure that environmental analyses of Federal actions (required by the National Environmental Policy Act or other established environmental review processes) evaluate the effects of actions and agency plans on migratory birds, emphasizing species of concern. Agencies must support the conservation intent of migratory bird conventions by integrating bird conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency activities, and by avoiding or minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when conducting agency actions. EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, May 13, 1971, 36 FR 8921 (5/15/71) Requires all Federal agencies to locate, identify, and record all cultural resources, including significant archeological, historical, or architectural sites. Note: 1 This table only reflects those laws and EOs that might reasonably be expected to apply to the Proposed Action and alternatives addressed in this EIS. 1 2 3 Other laws and Executive Orders potentially relevant to the construction, maintenance, and operation of tactical infrastructure include, but are not limited to, the following: 4 x American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 U.S.C. 1996, et seq. 5 6 x Antiquities Act, 16 U.S.C. 433, et seq.; Archeological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 aa-ll, et seq. 7 x Architectural Barriers Act, 42 U.S.C. 4151, et seq. A-3 1 2 x Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. 9620, et seq. 3 4 x Department of Transportation Act, P.L. 89-670, 49 U.S.C. 303, Section 4(f), et seq. 5 6 x Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, 42 U.S.C. 11001–11050, et seq. 7 8 x Environmental Quality Improvement Act, P.L. 98-581, 42 U.S.C. 4371, et seq. 9 x Farmlands Protection Policy Act, P.L. 97-98, 7 U.S.C. 4201, et seq. 10 11 x Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, P.L. 86-139, 7 U.S.C. 135, et seq. 12 x Federal Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2101-3324, et seq. 13 x Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, P.L. 85-888, 16 U.S.C. 742, et seq. 14 x Flood Disaster Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 4001, et seq. 15 16 x Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001, et seq. 17 x Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 13101-13109, et seq. 18 x Safe Drinking Water Act, P.L. 93-523, 42, U.S.C. 201, et seq. 19 x Toxic Substances Control Act, 7 U.S.C. 136, et seq. 20 x Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, P.L. 90-542, 16 U.S.C. 1271, et seq. 21 22 x EO 12114, dated January 9, 1979, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, 44 FR 1957 23 24 25 26 x EO 12088, dated October 13, 1978, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, 43 FR 47707, as amended by EO 12580, dated January 23, 1987, and revoked (in part) by EO 13148, dated April 21, 2000 27 x EO 13132, dated August 4, 1999, Federalism, 64 FR 43255 28 29 30 x EO 11988, dated May 24, 1977, Floodplain Management and Protection, 42 FR 26951, as amended by EO 12148, dated July 20, 1979, 44 FR 43239 31 32 x EO 13007, dated May 24, 1996, Historic Sites Act, 16 U.S.C. 46, et seq.; Indian Sacred Sites, 61 FR 26771 33 34 35 x EO 12372, dated July 14, 1982, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, 47 FR 30959, as amended by EO 12416, April 8, 1983, 48 FR 15587; supplemented by EO 13132, August 4, 1999, 64 FR 43255 36 37 x EO 13112, dated February 3, 1999, Invasive Species, 64 FR 6183, as amended by EO 13286, February 28, 2003, 68 FR 10619 A-4 1 2 3 x EO 11514, dated March 5, 1970, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, 35 FR 4247, as amended by EO 11541, July 1,1970, 35 FR 10737 and EO 11991, May 24, 1977, 42 FR 26967 4 5 6 7 x EO 13045, dated April 21, 1997, Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks, 62 FR 19885, as amended by EO 13229, October 9, 2001, 66 FR 52013 and EO 13296, April 18, 2003, 68 FR 19931 8 9 x EO 11990, dated May 24, 1977, Protection of Wetlands, 42 FR 26961, as amended by EO 12608, September 9, 1987, 52 FR 34617 10 A-5 THIS PA GE IN TEN TIONALI. LEFT BLANK A-6 3k} APPENDIX Scoping Report for the EIS SCOPING REPORT FOR THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Prepared for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Prepared by engineering-environmental Management, Inc. (e2M) 2751 Prosperity Avenue Suite 200 Fairfax, VA 22031 e2M Project No.: 4100-989 OCTOBER 2007 Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS SCOPING REPORT RIO GRANDE VALLEY TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE EIS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 1 2. THE NEPA PROCESS AND THE EIS .................................................................................................. 2 3. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS ................................................................................................... 4 4. PUBLIC SCOPING RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 5 4.1 ISSUES AND CONCERNS ........................................................................................................ 5 5. NEXT STEPS ...................................................................................................................................... 11 6. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 12 APPENDICES A. B. C. D. Notice of Intent Newspaper Ads Website Agency Coordination Mailing List and Letters TABLES 4-1. Summary of Comments During the Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure Scoping Comment Period .................................................... 5 5-1. Public Input Process for the Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS ........................................................................................................... 11 October 2007 i Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK October 2007 ii Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) proposes to construct, maintain, and operate approximately 70 miles of tactical infrastructure, including pedestrian fence, access roads, patrol roads, and lights along the U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas. This report documents comments and recommendations gathered from the public scoping and other outreach activities conducted by USBP for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure, Rio Grande Valley, Texas. 11 12 13 14 The mission of CBP is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, while also facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel. In supporting CBP’s mission, USBP is charged with establishing and maintaining effective control of the border of the United States. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 USBP has nine administrative sectors along the U.S./Mexico international border. Each sector is responsible for implementing an optimal combination of personnel, technology, and infrastructure appropriate to its operational requirements. The Rio Grande Valley Sector is responsible for 17,000 square miles of land in southeastern Texas, including the following counties: Cameron, Willacy, Hidalgo, Starr, Brooks, Kenedy, Kleberg, Nueces, San Patricio, Jim Wells, Bee, Refugio, Calhoun, Goliad, Victoria, Dewitt, Jackson, and Lavaca (CBP 2007). The areas affected by the Proposed Action include Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties, Texas, within the Rio Grande Valley Sector. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 The EIS process will serve as a planning tool to assist agencies with decisionmaking authority associated with the Proposed Action and ensure that the required public involvement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is accomplished. The EIS presents potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives and provides information to assist in the decisionmaking process about whether and how to implement the Proposed Action. 31 October 2007 1 Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 2. THE NEPA PROCESS AND THE EIS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEPA requires Federal agencies to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects and policies. The primary goal of NEPA is to provide sufficient information for the decisionmakers to make an informed decision. During the NEPA process, agencies consider issues ranging from air quality and biological impacts on cultural resources and socioeconomic impacts. USBP has determined that the most appropriate NEPA process for the USBP Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure is an EIS, which is the most detailed analysis prescribed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Public involvement is a vital component of the NEPA for vesting the public in the decisionmaking process and allowing for full environmental disclosure. Guidance for implementing public involvement is codified in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1506.6, thereby ensuring that Federal agencies make a diligent effort to involve the public in preparing NEPA documents. The public involvement process for the proposed tactical infrastructure project is outlined in the following steps: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 x Conduct Public Scoping. In this phase of the process, USBP asked the public to provide feedback on the proposed project, potential environmental impacts, and analysis methods. Public scoping is critical for determining the issues to be discussed in the EIS and the methods for conducting the study. Outreach efforts included a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register and announcements of the public scoping process in local newspapers in English and Spanish. A Web site (www.BorderFenceNEPA.com) was established and information on the Proposed Action was posted on the Web site (Appendix C.) Information on providing comments was discussed, and links to submit comments from the Web site were also provided. The agency scoping mailing list and copies of various letters are shown in Appendix D. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 x Prepare a Draft EIS. The Draft EIS is the first version of the formal NEPA document. The Draft EIS will be distributed to public libraries throughout the affected area; Federal, state, regional, and local agencies; local organizations; and identified stakeholders and members of the general public. Outreach efforts will include Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIS and announcement of an open house and the 45-day public comment period in the Federal Register and local newspapers. At the public open house, resource experts will be present to answer questions, and the public will have an additional opportunity to enter comments and concerns into the official administrative record for the EIS. 39 40 41 42 43 x Prepare a Final EIS. After the close of the comment period on the Draft EIS, e²M will prepare the Final EIS on behalf of USBP to document the manner in which comments have been resolved. An NOA for the Final EIS will appear in the Federal Register and local newspapers. The public will have 30 days to comment on the Final EIS. October 2007 2 Scoping Report 1 2 3 x Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Prepare a Record of Decision. A Record of Decision (ROD) will be prepared to document the final agency decision on the Proposed Action. Notice of the ROD will be made available on the Web site. 4 October 2007 3 Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 3. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS 2 3 4 5 6 7 USBP invited comments from the public to help determine the scope of the EIS by publishing an NOI in the Federal Register (72 FR 184) on September 24, 2007. The NOI provided background information on the Proposed Action, the EIS, a description of the scoping process, and a discussion of alternative methods for the public to provide comments. A copy of the NOI is included in Appendix A of this Scoping Report. 8 9 10 11 12 Announcements were published in newspapers in the Rio Grande Valley area to announce the development of the EIS. Announcements were placed in three English language newspapers the Brownsville Herald, The Monitor, and the Valley Morning Star, and in two Spanish language newspapers La Frontera and El Nuevo Heraldo. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A Web site was developed at www.BorderFenceNEPA.com to provide information to the public on the Proposed Action. Information posted on the Web site includes a description of the Proposed Action, a map of the locations of the tactical infrastructure, a photograph of the type of fence proposed, and information on the NEPA process and opportunities for public involvement. A description of the ways to submit comments on the scope of the EIS is also included (via the Web site, email, fax, or mail). A link from the Web site to submit comments is provided to facilitate comments from individuals reviewing information on the Web site. 22 23 24 25 26 Public scoping comments were accepted through October 15, 2007. Comments were reviewed for incorporation into the Draft EIS. Comments will continue to be accepted throughout the EIS environmental planning process, but comments received after October 15, 2007, will be evaluated following the publication of the Draft EIS. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 The Public Scoping Period represents only the first of multiple opportunities for public comment. USBP plans to conduct a 45-day public comment period once the Draft EIS is released. During this time, USBP also plans to have public open houses on the Draft EIS. Comments on the Draft EIS will contribute to the refinement of the Final EIS. In addition, there will be a 30-day public comment period once the Final EIS is released. Comments on the Final EIS will contribute to the development of the ROD. 34 35 As each of these documents is released for public comment, an NOA will be published in the Federal Register and local newspapers. 36 October 2007 4 Scoping Report 4. PUBLIC SCOPING RESULTS 1 2 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 4.1 Issues and Concerns 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Comments were received from 840 private individuals during the scoping period. Table 4-1 summarizes the comments received during the public scoping period. In addition, a letter was received from the City of Brownsville, Texas. Letters were also received from several nongovernmental organizations including Defenders of Wildlife; No Border Wall; New Jersey Audubon Society; McAllen Chamber of Commerce; Gulf Coast Bird Observatory; Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter; Rio Grande Valley Group; Nature Conservancy, Texas Chapter; Environmental Defense; American Friends Service Committee; Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate; Valley Nature Center; Texas Border Coalition; Border Working Group; World Birding Center; Frontera Audubon Society; and University of Texas at Brownsville. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 USBP received a petition from the citizens of the city of Granjeno, Texas, containing 106 signatures. The petition stated the citizens “adamantly reject and protest the construction and erection of the Homeland Security Border Fence.” The petition cited Spanish Civil Law, Republic of Texas, the 1848 Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty, and other authorities to assert additional rights pursuant to the proposed fence. In addition, 95 letters were submitted by citizens of Granjeno stating their opposition to the proposed border fence. 21 22 Table 4-1. Summary of Comments During the Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure Scoping Comment Period Comment Type Alternatives suggested October 2007 Summary of Concerns Raised in Scoping Comments x Enforce immigration laws better. x Stronger enforcement and harsher penalties for employers that hire illegal immigrants, harsher penalties for border-cross violators. x More USBP agents, hi-tech patrolling, and guard dogs in lieu of fence. x Vehicle barriers instead of pedestrian fences. x Re-examine immigration and economic policy and establish a legitimate foreign worker program. x Legalize immigration. x Raise the levees and use levees as barrier. x Create dense hedges of native thorn species. x Create a virtual wall of sensors. x Install weir dams to fill the river creating a water barrier. 5 Scoping Report Comment Type Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Summary of Concerns Raised in Scoping Comments Changes to fence design x Fence with surveillance (e.g., camera/video, sensors, lasers, and underground sensors). x Fence should include small openings for animals. Land Use x Loss of agricultural land. x “No man’s land” created by the fence will rapidly decline. Geology and Soils x Loss of prime farmland. Water Resources x Water supply for wildlife, livestock, and farmland will be cut off by the fence. x Rivers move over time, natural flow will be impeded by the fence. x Proposal should be moved out of the floodplain. x Rio Grande is the only source of water for wildlife in Starr County, the fence would cut off all water access. x Small canals should be built to provide water access to farmers and ranchers. x Irrigation Districts and water right fees will become more complicated once the fence cuts off access for some people. x Fence will make the entire area more prone to flooding. x Construction on top of the levees would be useless unless the levees are first reinforced. x If construction creates or exacerbates erosion along the banks of the Rio Grande, excessive sedimentation could occur, raising water temperature, reducing oxygen levels, etc. If the wall hinders sheet flow or tributary flow into the Rio Grande, less water and lower river velocities would not be able to move sediments downstream. Biological Resources x Water supply for wildlife, livestock, and farmland would be cut off by the fence. x Sabal Palms Sanctuary would be ruined and public access would be cut off. x 508 acres would be destroyed. x Wildlife refuges and migratory pattern of animals would be impacted (endangered species such as ocelots, jaguars, and jaguarondi). x Bird watchers would no longer come to the area to view rare birds. x Carrizo species should not be eliminated. x Impacts of wildlife movement must be mitigated. x The proposal is a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. x Impacts on species are illegal under Endangered Species Act, formal Section 7 consultation needs to be completed. x Refer to Nesting Birds of a Tropical Frontier, the Lower Rio Grand Valley of Texas as a reference. October 2007 6 Scoping Report Comment Type Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Summary of Concerns Raised in Scoping Comments x Reduction of remnant river forest will threaten the rarest nesting birds in the United States. x Don’t construct the fence during Spring (migratory bird nesting season). x The Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge would be destroyed and water access would be cut off. x Will there be vegetative rehabilitation in the 60 feet cleared space? If so, low shrub cover would be low enough to hide people, but high enough for ocelots to move through screened. x Sabal Palms, Bentsen, and Santa Ana are part of a Wildlife Corridor that must be spared. x Thornscrub habitat will be destroyed and native brush stands will be fragmented and isolated. x Impacts on the Lennox Foundation Southmost Preserve and the Chihuahua Woods Preserve should be discussed. x Increased traffic and staging areas south of the wall in “no man’s land” would have a greater impact on habitat and disrupt and further isolate wildlife populations. x There would be beneficial impacts from less garbage being discarded into sensitive ecosystems and from reduction in trails through sensitive areas. x How can clearing of vegetation to build the road and fence be construed as temporary – they should be addressed as permanent impacts in the EIS. x Need to address introducing additional vehicles and human activity into sensitive ecological areas. Address ancillary impacts from increased foot traffic. x Fence Section O-21 is of particular concern. It would block the public access points for both the Sabal Palm Audubon Sanctuary and the Southmost Preserve. x Impacts on the Caminos del Rio Heritage Project must be addressed. x Impacts on the IBWC vegetation maintenance requirements must be addressed. x Impacts of flood lights (important component of a lawsuit brought by the Seirra Club, Audubon Society, and Defenders of Wildlife against USBP’s Operation Rio Grande in 2001) must be addressed. Cultural Resources October 2007 x There would be a loss of unique cultural and natural heritage. x How will public access archaeological, ceremonial, and cemetery sites along the river? x How will access to ranch cemeteries be provided? x Historical and archaeological sites must be protected. What will ensure access of non-federally recognized indigenous people to their tribal land, communities, and traditional livelihood? 7 Scoping Report Comment Type Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Summary of Concerns Raised in Scoping Comments x How will the fence impact the historic Fort Brown Site? x Impacts on the Caminos del Rio Heritage Project must be addressed. x The actual footprint of the project needs to be studied in detail to provide an accurate listing of archaeological and historical resources that might be adversely affected by the proposal’s scope. Air Quality x Impact from emissions from construction and operation of the proposed fence would have an adverse impact on the cultural, historical, and environmental resources in the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector. USBP operations have been known to create their own air quality problems through patrol and apprehension methods. Climate x Wall would block breeze and make Granjeno hot. Noise x Noise impacts from construction and operation of the proposed fence would have an adverse impact on the cultural, historical, and environmental resources in the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector. Utilities and Infrastructure x Concerns over proposed lighting. x Concerns over impacts on use of Rio Grande for drinking water source. Roadways and Traffic x Concerns over proposed vehicular roads. Aesthetics and Visual Resources x Don’t impede view of the Rio Grande below the Roma World Birding Center and Overlook (near Roma POE). x Obstruction of view, bird watchers come to view rare birds. x View of the river is scenic. x Loss of recreation (boating, fishing, hunting). x EIS should identify roads and trails to the Rio Grande that will be closed and the means and impact of creating alternate access points. Hazardous Materials and Wastes x None. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice x Families and communities would be divided. x Millions of dollars in ecotourism (e.g. birdwatching, canoeing, kayaking, hiking) would be lost. 200,000 ecotourists annually create 2,500 jobs in the local economy. x Economic impacts from loss of farm land. x Decreased relations with Mexico. x Economic impacts from decline in property values. x Proposal will create a loss of income in the area, and will not create jobs in return. October 2007 8 Scoping Report Comment Type Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Summary of Concerns Raised in Scoping Comments x Brownsville is the poorest city in the Nation. x How will the proposal impact University of Texas at Brownsville? Human Health and Safety x How will NWR/NPS personnel access their lands? x How will there be immediate access in case of fire or emergency? x In the case of a national emergency, what impacts would the wall have on emergency planning and evacuation? x Area south of the wall would become a “no man’s land,” where fear for safety of government staff and citizens would be a concern, as well as security of property, equipment, and facilities. x Beneficial impacts from increase in public safety at parks and recreational areas. x Foot traffic will be more heavily concentrated in certain areas, creating a “funnel” effect and possibly a greater public safety hazard. Sustainability and Greening x None. Scoping Process x Don’t be surprised by lack of attendance at public meetings from those in favor of the proposal. People who support the fence will be retaliated against by those opposed. x Comment period is inadequate. x Web site was not working. Failure of the Web site has interfered with the public’s ability to learn the details of the project and communicate their concerns. x Information provided on the Web site is too limited. x Alternatives are not presented on the Web site. x Fax was not working. x Hold public scoping meetings near the proposed sites. x A democratic vote should be held. x Better maps are needed to show the public where exactly the fence sections are going to be. x Will I have input on where the fence goes on my land? x The scoping process was longer and more meetings were held for the Operation Rio Grande EIS. Scope of the EIS x EIS should be larger in scope. x EIS should encompass the entire length of the Rio Grande. x Cumulative impacts over the entire 270 miles need to be analyzed. x Prepare a comprehensive EIS on all proposed locations for a border wall, rather than the disjointed process currently undertaken. x Are all future needs of the wall going to be analyzed (e.g., maintenance, lighting)? October 2007 9 Scoping Report Comment Type Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Summary of Concerns Raised in Scoping Comments x The EIS should look at each specific piece of land to consider how the owners will be impacted (will new roads be built, who will build and maintain the roads, cost of driving increased distance, cost of irrigating two pieces of land). x EIS should be expanded to include all areas listed in the Secure Fence Act. The sections of the wall analyzed are merely a down payment for the proposed extensive fencing. x IBWC just completed a Draft EIS on its flood control projects. Is this being taken into account? x Is the Operation Rio Grande EIS being taken into account? x The EIS must discuss future plans to build additional border walls to comply with the Secure Fence Act. x The ongoing failure of current USBP efforts calls into question the validity of the purpose and need. Other x How will farmers, ranchers, and property owners be compensated? x How will farmers gain access to their land? Will land be taken out of production? How will they get their farm equipment on the other side? x Residents have been told that USBP agents will be at the gates 24x7 to let residents in and out. Is this true? Will this service be later abandoned? 1 2 October 2007 10 Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 5. NEXT STEPS 2 3 4 USBP and their contractor (e²M) are working with resource agencies and stakeholders to prepare a Draft EIS for review. The Draft EIS will incorporate those issues discussed during the 20-day scoping comment period. 5 6 7 8 9 Following the publication of the NOA in the Federal Register for the Draft EIS, there will be a 45-day comment period and a public meeting. The public meeting will allow the general public to interface with resource agencies and other stakeholder groups. Comments pertaining to the Draft EIS during that time will be reviewed and incorporated into the Final EIS. 10 11 12 13 14 15 A final 30-day comment period will follow the Federal Register publication of the NOA for the Final EIS. Public comments during this time will be considered by USBP decisionmakers along with final comments by resource agencies. Following the public comment period, USBP decisionmakers will review all materials applicable to the Proposed Action and prepare a ROD. Table 5-1 outlines the three phases of the EIS process that involve public participation. 16 17 Table 5-1. Public Input Process for the Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Phase I Ÿ Phase II Ÿ Phase III Ÿ Notice of Intent for an EIS Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS Notice of Availability of the Final EIS p p p Public Scoping Comments Public Meetings Public Comments p p p 20-day Comment Period 45-day Public Comment Period 30-day Public Comment Period Final Record of Decision 18 October 2007 11 Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 6. REFERENCES 1 CBP 2007 CBP. 2007. “Rio Grande Valley Sector Homepage”. Available online: . Accessed 20 September 2007. 2 October 2007 12 Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS SCOPING REPORT APPENDIX A NOTICE OF INTENT Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 54276 Federal Registerch-l. 72, No. taaiMonday. September 24. ZUUHNotice-s DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Bureau 01' Customs and Border Protectlon Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Request for Public Comments Concerning Proposed Constructlon and Operation ot Tactlcal Int restructure tor the U5. Customs and Border Protectlon. of Border Patrol Filo Grande Valley [Texas] Sector AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection. Department of Homeland Security. xenon: Notice oFlntent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Request for Public Comments. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 42 1J.5.t;.4321 eta-er}. rosettes. Customs and Border Protection will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to identify and assess the potential impacts associated with a proposal to construct and operate tactical infrastructure along approximately PU miles of the international border between the United States and Mexico within the Office of Border Patrol's Rio Grande 1 Iy?alley Sector. Texas [the Proposed Action]. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to further ability to gain effective control ofthe border by denying pedestrian and other access in high priority sections ofOBP's Rio tirandc Valley Sector. (Il-ll? is the decision?making agency for the Proposed Action. Notice is hereby given that the public scoping process has been initiated to prepare an EIS that will address the impacts and alternatives of the Proposed Action. The purpose of the scoping process is to solicit public comments regarding the range ofissues. including potential impacts and alternatives that should be addressed in the EIS. FOR FURTHER GCNTACT: Visit or e? mail: 'Written requests for information may be submitted to: Charles McGregor. US. Army (Iorps oilingineers. Engineering Construction and Support Of?ce. 819 Taylor St.. Room 3.1114. Fort 1diorth. Texas ??102: Phone: arld Fax: sac?5404. Background: Au tits is being prepared in support ofa proposal by ()IiP's Rio Grande Valley Sector for controlling and deterring the in?ux ofillegal immigration and contraband into the United States. In order to secure our rla1ion's borders. is developing and deploying the most elfeclive mix of proveu technology. in frastrur? ore. and increased personnel. The Rio ltirande Valley Humor includes the area along the international border between the United States and Mexico from Rio [Jraudo (lily. 'I'exas, to the Gultof Mexico. In that area. CBP is proposing to install and operate tactical infrastructure consisting of pedestrian fences. supporting patrol roads. lights. and other infrastructure along approximately F0 miles of the Mexico international border [the Proposed Aclion]. The Proposed Action includes the installation oftactical infrastructure in 2.1 segments along the international border in the vicinity of Rio [irande City. Texas: Mci?tlleu. 'I'uxas: Mercedes. Texas: Harlingon. Texas: Brownsville. 'l'exas: and Fort l-lrown. Texas. Individual segments might range from approximately 1 mile to more than 13 miles. For much ofits length. the proposed infrastructure will follow the International tloumlary and Water Commission levee. but some portions will also encroach on multiple privately-owned lend parcels. The infrastructure would cross multiple land use types. including rural. agricultural. suburban. and urban land. It may also encroach on portions oftbe Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Texas state parks in the Rio Grande I'ttalley. Potential alternatives for the environmental impacts analysis will consider location. construction. and operation oflar:lical infrastructure. Alternatives rnust rueel the need to gairl e?iecti'vc of our nation?s borders. as welt as essential technical. engineering. and economic threshold requirements to ensure that a proposed action is environmentally sound. economically viable. and meets all applicable laws and regulations. The BIG will comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1959 the Council on Environmental Quality regulations in 40 CPR Parts 1500?1508, and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1 [En Vimnmontci t?tcnning ngmm]. (Irresisteut with at] 15113.23. the HIS will analny the site-slatcifu: environmental impacts ofthc Proposed Action. which were broadly described in two previous programmatic lilSs prepared by the former Immigrant ion and Naturalixal ion Service [which now fall under the responsibility of Department of Defense. and Joint Task Force 6 The E15 forfTF?o? Activities Along the LESJMexico Border. August 1994. and its supplementing document. Suppiementci Programmatic HIS for and Activities. June 2001. were prepared to address llte cumulative e?ecta of past an reasonany ?irnseeable pnrjocls undertaken by for numerous law enforcement agencies within the four soulltwes1ern states [[Ialifornia, Arizona, New Mexico. and Texas). These documents can be obtained from the U111. Army Corps of Engineers. Fort Worth District. Engineering lConstruction and Support Office Web site. at by sending an e?mail request to ch oriesoncgrego?a ?if-02. trance.arniy.mit: or by mailing a request to [Illarles MrIiregor. Army [Iorps of Engineers. Engineering Construction and Support Of?ce. 819 Taylor St.. Room 3AM. Fort Worth. Texas 7"6102. Public: Participation: Pursuant to the Council on Environmental lQuality's regulations. CBP invites public participation in the process. 'I'his notice requests public participation in the scoping process. establishes a public comment period. and provides information on how to participate. Public scoping is an open process for determining the scope ofthc Eli-l and identifying significant issues relal ed to the Proposed Action. Anyone wishing to provide comments. suggestions. or relevant information oil the Proposed Action may do so as follows: You may submit comments to GDP by contacting Hltluel. 'l'ar:tical Infrastructure Program Of?ce. To avoid duplication. please use only one of the following methods: Electroriicoiiy through the Web site at.- tip :h'tvn'w. Border-Fen celeP/t .com: [bl By e?rnoit to; @Boirierli'enceNEPA. com; By mail to: Rio Grande Valley 225 EIS. do said. 2?51 Prosperity Avenue. Suite 200. Fairfax. 1 v"irginia 22031: or Byfax to: [var] sea?rear. Comments and related material must reach CBP by October 15. 200?. CBP will consider all comments and material received during the Ni]! comment period. If you submit a comment. please include your name and address, and identify your comments as related to the Rio Granule Valley Sector tilt-i. lComments received ail er (Mtolrer 1 5. 2th]? will receive responses following the Jublicaliou oftbe draft tilt-i. is scoping period is not the only opportunity you will have to comment. A draft tits will be prepared. and prior to the development ol'a ?nal will release the draft [its for public A?l Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Federal RngiatnriVol. 7'2, No. tatthonday. September 24. 2UUHNoticas 54277 review. Al lltul time. a Notice Ul- AL-?ailability will be published in the Federal Register. the Swims-rifle Herald [mer15ville. Texeslt and Tile Monitor [Mc?llem Texas]. The EDA will announce the availability of the rlraFt HS. how In obtain a copy. and the places urn")? associated public informational meetings. Dated: September '19. 200?. Eugene H. Schied. Assistant Commissioner. Oj?ce ofFinance. Dec. Ear?144.3151 File-d 9?21 417-, 31-15 am] cons 9111?14?9 Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS SCOPING REPORT APPENDIX B NEWSPAPER ADS Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 4 Lanes I Septlemoro 24 I 2001 ElNuavnHeraldo . a! Depanamamo do Aviso rte Intento do Preparar una Declarasi?n do impacts: en el Merlin hmhtenle Flequlsiclon do Comentarios Pirblioos Flelasionados con la Construcclon Propuesta Operaclon de lntrasstrusturaT?ctlca para la oflolna del US. Customs and Border Protection. D?olna do In Patrulla Frontoriza an el Sector Gel Valle del Rio Grande Horas] Sagan Ia Naolonal do Paloma Amhlonto! do 1959. 42 U.S.C.81321 at srglas on lngl?s], ta u?ulna dal us. Customs and Border Protocllon prep-Bram una DaotamclIDI-I do Impacts on ol Media Amhlents para 5r waluar Ina lmpoctos pomndales ssoolaclos con una pmpuosta pm tantra a to large do 3-?o millas do Is frontal-a lntomoolonal antral loo Eorados Unto-3s 5! Maroon doom: del Sector do In El?dna do In Palrulla an lngl?s} an at Valle Ital HID Grando. Teams. {In Avalon Propuesl?}. El proposilo do In Melon Fmpuesta as tomsntar Ia papa-riders! do! CBF do obtanar control olsc?uo de la frontal-5. medlanra dnna??f *1 peatonos otru nonesso an mentor-nos do alta prlortdad do! DEF rial Sector dot Rio Grands. E1 EIS ournp?ra con la Lay Naclonal do Pollnca motontal do 196-9 (HERA. on lngl?s}, Ias regulaclones clot do Caution Amhlental on so GFF. Fortes 1505-1503. 3; La Directiva de AdmlnEstr?citln 510011 (Programa de Plat-Lemon rial Dapmtamanto do Montana] slglas on Ingl?sj._ De aouordo oon 4o ism-150323. al Los H-npamos amolontalos-dala Motrin Propuosta ospeul?oos?al sltlo. loo wales tusron ampllammta-dosaorltoo'on dos-EIS pmgrairn?tloos propamdos pot or - antiguo Dapartamento do San-lst do lnmigroclopy tot oual abort; as parts; dal name. la Fuerzaj?p?an?l?t'pa?ltmta '6 ages on Ingres}. El Cid-GUth Programme EIS Mtl?lloa Alm?'t?a do Agosto do 1994. on documonlo suplornonlario. Supplemental Programma'llo EIS for do Junta do 2:101. ruoron pmpameS para abordarlos aloctos .pumnla?y?jjq dot. panda 5r antleipablos dol hrlum par la New Moxloo.? Texas}. Estes docum's?tospuaqan oar obto'nldoo?gl?s'nlo d?e-lnmnet clal U3. Anny Gama of Engineers. Bistoto .oe .Fort worth} Ollolna do tngenlerl?L do Constmooion Apuyo. on httpaz?acsoswtusaoaarmumll; .?rnr'a'ttlartto pnvtar una .mtg?obn por. norreo clamor-lino a an?iandu un'a con-ea a Charisse Motirogm. Arm Corps of Englneers, Engineering construction 319 ?Favor 81.. Room 34AM. Fort Worth. Texas 75102 . 'Sagtin las ragulaoinm-S dal dB Caildad NoblentoI.-UBF In?ll; al p?hlloo an ganaral a participar an al NEPA. Esta avlso roquiora' Ia parli?lpadorwal pt?rollno art ol proceso-oo shallots. estahleoe un para oomntaduaoel p?hlloo. proves Informacl?t do com particlpan El anallaio p?blioo as on precast: slalom: para dalarmlnar sl tango dol indemm?rr motor: signi?cantos ralaotonados con 1s notion Propuaslo. Gualquiar persona qua dasoo promr opotants'rlos. sugarormlas. lnl'otmaoion mlmranre a la Mold-n Prupuasla ponds a} a trav?s dat sitio rte. lntarnet m?oroorFar-ooNEPkcom?. b] For when almonloa a :1 Par Burton 1' Flu Grands titans?,l Tontlottl Infrastructuer EIS. do 52M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue. Suite Fal?ax. Virginia 22:31; 6 d) For In: al Comon?tarlos matedolas raiaclnnad?s dobon?m llopsr al CBP para 91 die 15 do Umbra dot 20W. mostdarara todos los nomantarloo malnr'ralos. raolhldos duranto at partodo do comenlarlus del NOI. Si stated ramits un Domar'?tlfl'?r favor do lnolulr su nornhrat direction. a Idener sue mmenla?os para al Filo GrandoValloy Sector Lows camontarioo reolbtdoa despu?s del ?5 do Gamble, 200? ransom: rospuaotos dospu?s do to publtcacl?n dal bosquejo dot Els. ?owns Aim.? . B?l Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS notice-of Intent to. Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (Elsi Proposed-Construction and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure for the LLS. Boston-is and Border Protection, i Of?ce of Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley (Texas) Sector Pursuth to the Nation-ail Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 H.513. 4321 el seq.. U5. Customs and Border {can}, will prepare an Environmenlal impeei Statement ie '1 identifyand eases; me potential irnpecte eseodatedlwiih epropooel to construct andoperete tactical Eritrean-more eiong apprm?mately in miles of the inlemationel border between'lhe United States and Memo within the Office of Border Panel's Rio Grands Valley Sector. Texas {lite Proposed Action}. The purpose oi the Proposed Action is to funnier aliiliti,I to gain control of the-1'- border by denying pedestrian and other mass in high priority seems ofOBP?s Rio Greene Sam. _l EIS will comply Mth-ti?rehiational Environmental 5'0!le of 1969 lite Council on Erinronmente'i Qualitii?ieoulelions in 49 CFR Porto 1500-1503} and Department of Homeland - Management?lree?ve 5100.1 (Environmgmal Pgmim Egg?nt}. . I Consistent min 40 one i515 wilt analyze the site-speci?c emirenmeniei impede efihe Proposed Action. which were hroediy deembed in two previous programmatic ElSe prepared-by the former US. Immigralionend Naturalization Sewloe (ll-i3} (winch new felt under the of Department of Defense. anti .Ioirit Teelt Force 3 The August 1994. and He summn?no'dmume?; 'Su lemen EIS i -.lT I June-2001. were prepared to effects of pest and projects wider-taken by .ITF-s for n?umero'ue'leii'i'. enforoemerit agencies within the fourenuthweiitem states {Colitarnie. Arizona. New-Mexloigsind Texas]. These doeunrenie can lie ablatne?d rmmirre us. my Corps Warin- Engineering Conetmotim end Support Of?ce website. at sendhg an email request to jar by Charter: Megan ?ak-"w Corps af?lielnaee. Enginee?ng Common and 519-- were. .7 919.1 i I ine'eeuneii on enemy's r'e'gule?iins; cer- Invites eunrre periicipeiien iniire- pieces-5.3 Thieliiolim requests-mile eerueneiien in me among pron-see, public - oomment period. and Pubilc scoping is an open process .d?li?im?i?? .513 I, . Action, . lingerie-nioon rir?mrrieen'; may da so iris-follows." - at Etie?iir?irI.Inieerenmiiroreiigirinewen seen . oi. 1.. I 1 . 'iur elm-loom iniresu-uciure EIS. on ezliil. 2i51 Prosperity Avenuec?uite 22031: or. - 7f: (31. - material-moti?o? can one will enna'iriereu' .. .r .3 in: a eemmere niaese -- in Erin your Rio Granite ere?? -. - :43 ii i'1xretL'Evsrs?rATE' 'i Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS tunes 2-: de Septiarnbra rial - larnun'mml EL VALLE - 5H -- - - . Avian rte lntanta da Preparar una Daclaraci?n tie lmpacto en at Media Amhiante (EIS) Raquisicicin da Camantarios Ptiblicna Helacianadas con la Construoci?n Propuasta Operaci?n rte lntraastructura Tactical para la otlcina rial US. Customs and Border Protection, Oticina de la Patrulla Fronteriza an at Sector del Valle del Rio Grande {Texas} Sagtim ta Lay Naclanat tie Politica- Arntuantal de 1959. 42 ?1.53. 4321 at seq. sigtaa an ingl?s]. la DTioina del LJ.S. and Border Protection Preparara una Declaradian da Impacto an at Medic Ambiqu para Indent'rticar evaluar tas impaclas asncianns con una propuasla para operar lrilraeatrucmra tactics. a to large tie aproximattamanta millaa dc la frantera inlarnaaiunal enlre 103 Esladas Untdaa 3 Maxim denim Saclar da Ia vacina tie la Palrulla anrerize (03F. siglas an Inglaaj an at Villa rial Flio Granite, Toma. (ta Motrin Fropueatai. El proposito rte la nectar. Propuaata as lamentar la capacidad rial DEF die oil-tartar ulac?tlw: cla la frontera medianta denagar access} a peatonaa 1; mm taco-3550 en do an: prinridad. rial DEF rial Sector del Rio Granda. El EIS can In Lev Nacitmaj d2 Palitiaa Ambiantal da 1989 (HERA. algias an tngl?a}, tag reguianinnes rial 'Gonnit'ra de Calidad Ambiantal on 31] CFR Partas 1500-1505. La Directive: Lia Administracidn {ngrama da Planaaci?n Amhianlal} Departar'nento da Seguridad National (OHS. slgl?s an inglaa}. Demuardo con 40 CFH 1503.23. at EIS analrzara lc-s impactua ambiantalaa da Ia Austin Frames-ta at attic. Ins alt-ales fuerorl ampllarnente dascritoa an arts. EIS programattma preparados par al antlguc Daparlamanta :la Ear-vistas rte lnmigraci?n .y Naturalizaci?n (el marl nhnra as parts rial 9 Dapartamantci da- Daienaa. la Fuma Upmanta Conjunta siglas en ingl?s), El documento Programmatic EIS for W635 Along Iha USJManiuo Border. cla Aginan da 1994. su auptarnantan'a. $uppremantai Programmatic EIS tar INS and JTF-B miles. dc Junta the 21:01. tuernn preparadm; para abner Ina aicntoa wmulaliuos rta pray-autos riot passada anticipahlaa rial hrturo por la JTF-E para agenctas policiacas danlros da ins malm aataer-s rte! sumasta (California. Arizona. Maw Martian. 3r Tma? Estna documantoa puedan aar uhtanldoa ain't: as H-rrarrval Gel US.Arn1y Corps at Engineers. Distrito da Fun Worth. Ollcina cla Inganiaria da Canatrltaci?n Amara? an man?ianta similar Lina par mnau a a cnwancta Lina requisicidn par com 5 Charles us. Army Gurus at Engineers. Engine-raring Construction and Support (Juice. 319 Tayiur 5L. Fluum 34AM. Fart Worth. Texas Seg?n Ias regulaciunas dal din Galiciad Amhiantal. at pliin an general a parltalpar an a] preparer) NEPA. Esta avian requiem ta participacl?n rial Malice an al pmaao eta ana?sis. aatahraca un 'D?riodn para wm?nlarios cicl pilhlico. 1; pram-e inlannactr?n do some partiarpar. Er mamas patina: as un pmoriao abrartn para determinar al tango dal ES 0 asuntos signilicantas mlaciunadoa con la Acciifrn Propuaata. Cualqu-er persona qua dasaa sugaranalaa, r: imam-radian ralavanta a la Accidm Pmpuaata puade hauertu'cumu aigutr: a} Electromcamama a trav?s clal silica die lntarnat ww?arda rFancaNEFAatm; b] Par comm electr?nlm a manta?BomaanmaNEPkmm-T E) For cameo a: Hit! Grands Valiant; Tactical intraatmclura- EIS, cm 22M, 2151 Fmapari?ly Amua. Suite 200. Fairlax. Virginia 22031.13 d) tax at Camantariua marenalaa relacinnadoa deter-an llagar at CBP para el dia 15 da Umbra det 200?- CBP maiderara Indus momentarle 1r (tumult; at pariodo cia dal MOI. Si Hated rcmit? Uh camenlar?iO. d9 induir su numbra. dire-catnip. a idanli?nar sua comantariua para al ?iu Granda Valley Sector EIS. L03 comantarios reclbidoa rtespu?s that 15 an Octubra. 200? retribira'n reapu-estaa marines tie in dal huaqrielo dal I: 1. Scoping Report all sending an email request to or by mailing a request to - Charles M?regor. U3. Anny Corps of Engineers. Engineering Construction and Support Cities. 819 i NEPA process. .Tinis notice reques?cr public participation in the scoping process. establishes a public comments and material received timing the NUI comment period. It you submit a comment. please i- include your name and address. and identify your comments as tor the Rio Grande Valley Sector EIS, Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS SEPTEMBER 24. Still]? I THE lili?WlE??LlE HEM I HGE 1.5 4: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental impact Statement (EIS) and Request for Public Comments Concerning Proposed Construction and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure for the Customs and Border Protection, Office of Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley {Texas} Sector Pursuant to the National Environmer'rlal Policy Act of 1959. 42 4321 et seq. us. Customsand Border Protection will prepare an Environmental pact Statement to identify and assess the potential impacts associated a proposal to construct and operate tactical Infrastructure along approximately 3'0 milee oftiie Iniemrrtional border between the United States and Mexico within the Ol?ce of Border Patrdl's Rio Grande Valley Sector. Texas [the Proposed Action]. The purpose oi the Proposed Action is to further ability to gain effective control of the border by denying pedestrian and Omar access in high priority sections ofOBP's Rio Grande Valley Sector. The EIS will comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 the Council on Environmental Quality regulations in to CFR Parts 1500?1503. and Department of Homeland Sammy (OHS) Management Directive 5100.1 Env' ental Consistent with 40 CFR 15(1523. the ES will analyze the site-specific environmental impacts of the Proposed Action. which Were broadly described in two previous programmatic ElSs prepared by the former US. Immigration and Naturalization Service (lNSi (which now fall under the responsibility of Department of Helen-ac. and Joint Task Force 6 UTF-8). 'I'he P_n:ig' rammch EIS for agivities mm mg 11 5 Mexico Border. August 1994, and its supplementing document. Supplemental nggrammg' gig for INS agd Egg'vig?ss. June 2001. were prepared to address the wmulative effects of past and reasonably foreseeable projects undertaken by for numerous taw enforcement agencies within the foursoulhwestem states lCaIilomie. Arizona-New Mardoo. and Texas). These documents can be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Fort Worth Dab-id. Engineering Constantino and Support Critics website, at by Taylor St. Room 39.14. Fort Worth. Texas T6102. Pursuant to the Council on Emirorrmentel Quatlty's regulations. CEP invites public participation in the comment period. and provides Intormaticnon how to participate. Public scoping is-an open process for determininglha scopebttne EIS and idsntitying signi?cant issues related to the Proposed Action. Anyone wishingto provide comments. suggestions. or relevant Information on lhe Proposed Action may do so as foiiows: la} Electronically Hiroth the website at som?oroerfenceNEPAcom: By email to lei By mail to: Rio Glande Valley Tedical Infrastructure as. role sin. Prosperity Avenue. euro zoo. F?ii'fax. some 22cm; or. By far: to tar-armrest. Comments and related material must reach CBP by October 15. tom. ESP will consider all Comments received alter October 15. soar will receive responses foliovnng the publication of the draft EIS. ie'a'w'i' Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS VALLEY MORNING STAR In" {tit-15} Management 5100.1 ii . Bonshtent with 40 CFR toot-lid: the as will analyze Moshe-specific environmental inpacts of the enforcement agencies within the tour scumwestem statot'r?i at ,5 M. Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Request for Public Comments Concerning Proposed Construction and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure for the LLB. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Border Patrol Rio Grands-Valley {Texas} Sector Pursuant to the Nalionei Environmental Poile Act of 1969. 42 4321 et seq.. LLS. Customs and Border Prctedion will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to identify and asst-res the potential impacts associated Iwith a mposal to constmu and operate tactical infrastructure along approximately in miles oflhe intemetional border beMeen the United States and Mexico within'lhe Boater Palroi's Rio Grande Valley Sector. Texas (the Proposed Action}. The purpose oflhe Proposed Action is to iurthar CBP's ability to gain effective ownrol of the border by denying pedestrian and other access in high priority sections oi OBP's Rio Grande Vailey Sector. . The as will comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (usher. the Council on Quaiity regulations in 40 CFR Parts 15007-1508; and Department of Homeland Society- ental Fienni i. 'E?mposed Action. which were broadly described in two previous programmatic ElSs prepared by the .fgiimer and Naturalization Service (which now tell undertone responsibility of' Dopartmeol of Defense, and Joint Task Force 6 The Parameter; EIE for JTFE A coup g?m the U5 Maroon-I?order. August 1994. and its r' rhrnalic EIS for this ities. June 2001. were prepared to address theormuiethe effects of pesland reasonably foreseeable proioots un Eh for numerous law New Marion. and retiree}. These comments can be obtained from the tire. Anny-oerps-orEngineers, Fun Worth some. Engineering Cmsimction andSupport D?ioe Website at hhpeg?feoeoswfusaceannymi? by send?'ig an email request to by mailing a request to cGte'gor. Anny Corps of Engineers. EnginEEiirig-G?ristmc?on and supper-latice?ie Taylor St, Room 3A1 4. Fort Worth, Texas intros.- - Pursusrritothe Gouncil on Environmental Quality's regulations. invites public participation in the NEPA process. This notice'i'eqoeels public participation in the scoping process, establiehaeo public comment period. and pro-rides information on how to participate Public scoping is an open process for determining the scope of the EIS and identifying signi?cant issues related to the Propooed Action. Anyone wishing to provide comments, reimrrt intomta?m on the Proposed Action may or) so aerator-rs: - .7 Etecirmically through the web site at m.BorderFenoeNEPA.comr Ey email to . Bymail to: eioorareeyaroy Tactical Infrastructure as. on e?u..2rs1 Prosperity Avenue, suite 200. Fairfax. Virginia 22031; or. Byte: to rotate?rest. Comments and related mete-riot must reach CBP by October 15. 200?. CBP wilt consider all comments and niateial received dieing the MOI comment periods. ltyou suhmit a moment, please include-your name and address. and identify your moments as forihe Rio Gtando Valley Sector E15. Comments received aiter October 15. EGG-T writ receive responses following the of the dish EIS. . Monday. September 24. 2007 ?rtr A5 Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK B-6 Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS SCOPING REPORT APPENDIX C WEB SITE Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Border Fence NF.th 1: Rio Grande Valley Sector EIS Page 1 M4 Border Fence NEPA wants Dc] Rio?ector EA wane: Sector Ff: Mada ?ectoLEo Rio {irande Valley Sector EIS San ?iego?jeqtpr EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector EIS Introduction :"kl?l Enviroinnental impact Statement (EIS) is being= prepared in support ot'a proposal by Department of Homeland Security. Customs and Border Protection, LLS. Border Patrol (DEEP) Rio {irrande Valley Sector for controlling and deterring the in?ux of illegal immigration and contraband into the United States. In order to secure our nation?s borders. USBP is developing and deploying the most effective min of proven technology, infrastructure, and increased personnel. The Rio Grandc Valley Sector includes the area along the intcmatinnal border between the United States and Mexico from Rio Urandc City to the Ballot-Mexico. USBP is proposing to construct, maintain, and operate tactical intrasmietnre consisting offences, access roads, and patrol mods along approximately 70 miles nt?the inlenuuional border (the Proposed Action). The Proposed Action includes the. construction of tactical infrastructure. ln :1 Segments along the intemational border in the vicinity of Rio Grande City. Mercedes. llarlingen. Brownsville. and Fort Brown. cans. Individual segments would range From approximately 1 mile to more than 13 miles. For much of its length, the proposed infrastructure will follow the Inteniational Boundary and Water Commission (lliWC) levee- but some portions will also encroach on multiple privately owned land parcels. The applies boundary and water treaties oi" the United States and Mexico and settles ditTcrences that may aris'e in their application. Sonic ponions of' the tactical Would also encroach on multiple privately owned land parcels and would cross multiple land use types, including mral, agricultural, suburban, and urban lmtd- It could also encroach on portions of the Lower Rio Grande Wildlife Re?tge and Texas state parks in the ltio Grande Valley. 'lhe will evaluate potential environmental impacts from construction, maintenance, and operation of the proposed tactical consisting of: - Tactical infrastructure includes installation of El primary Fence (areas of the border that are not currently Fenced) segmean as listed in the table below and a single-lane unpaved patrol road. a The proposed tactical in?frastniettn'e. would impact an approximate {it} foot wide corridor along each fence segment. This corridor would include fences. access roads. patrol roads. and Icy-sector-cis Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Border Fence NEPA Rio Grande 't-"allejy' Sector EIS Page 2 construction staging areas. Vegetation would be cleared and grading may occur where needed. The area temporarily impacted would be approximately 508 acres. Wherever possible. existing roads would be used for construction access. 0 If approved. the final design would be developed by a designa'build contractor overseen by the 13.3. Army Corps of l-Lnginccis (liSr?iLCI-l) . However. design criteria that have been established based on [538]" operational needs require that. at a minimum. any fencing must meet the Following requirements: 15 feet high and extend below ground Capable of withstanding a crash of a (gross weight) vehicle traveling at 40 miles per hour Capable of withstanding vandalism, cutting, or various types of penetration Semi-transparent. as dictated by operational need Designed to survive extreme climate changes Designed to reduce or minimize impacts on small animal movement Not. impede the natural flow of water Aesthetieallv pleasing to the extent possible. The is working with public and private land owners to obtain easements or purchase the construction corridor. In many; cases. secure gates would be constructed to allow owners access to their property near the Rio (irrande. The proposed gates would be constructed to allow USBP and landowners access to land, the Rio Grimde, and water resources, including pump houses and related In other cases. gates would be situated to provide access to existing recreational amenities; water resources. including pump houses and related grazing areas; existing parks: and other areas. (in a case by case basis. might purchase the land between the fence and the Rio Grande. If approved, construction of the new 'l'actical Infrastructure would begin in Spring 2008 continue through December 31. Ztiti?. Hap Number 0-1 0?2 0-3 0-4 0?5 0-6 0-8 0-9 0-10 0-11 0-12 0-13 0-14 0-15 0-15 Proposed Fence Segments for Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley Sector Rio Grande Rio Grande McAllen McAllen Weslaco Wealaco Weslaco Weslaco Harl Harl Harl Harl Harl Harl Border Patrol Station General Location Near Roma Port of En Near RGC Port of Los Ebanos Port of From Fenilsas to Abram Future Anzalduas Port of Port of Donna Port of Retamal Dam Wat esso Port of En East Port of Joe's Bar?Memo Road Weaver's Mountain Lee Indies Port of L05 indies Port of En Tria - La Paloma Ho Chi Minh Estero borderi'enc enepa. com-"ri o-grande-vallev-sector-cis Length of Fence miles 5.26 17.30 1.86 4.35 1.23 3.236 2.43 2.05 3.02 2.43 2.33 0.96 1.58 3.07 1.93 2.9? Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS SCOPING REPORT APPENDIX D AGENCY MAILING LIST AND LETTERS Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector Agency Coordination Mailing List Mr. Richard Greene Regional Administrator, Region 6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75202 COL David C. Weston U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Galveston District P.O. Box 1229 Galveston, Texas 77553-1229 Dr. Benjamin Tuggle Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Regional P.O. Box 1306 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-1306 Commissioner Carlos Marin International Boundary Water Commission U.S. Section 4111 North Mesa, Suite C-100 El Paso, Texas 79902-1441 Ms. Michelle Horrocks Texas Commission on Environmental Quality MC 150 12100 Park 35 Circle Austin, Texas 78753 The Honorable Wallace Coffey, Chairman ATTN: Ms. Ruth Toahty Comanche Nation 584 NM Bingo Road HC 32 Box 98 Lawton, Oklahoma 73502 The Honorable Billy Evans Horse, Chairman Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Hwy 9 West Carnegie, Oklahoma 73015 Mr. F. Lawrence Oaks State Historic Preservation Officer Texas Historical Commission 1511 Colorado Street Austin, Texas 78701 D-1 Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington. DC 202 29 U.S. Customs and Border Protection Mr. Richard Greene OPT ,3 Regional Administrator, Region 6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75202 Subject: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Proposed Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Border Patrol Rio Grande ValIey Sector Dear Mr. Greene: While no final decisions on the fence locations have been made, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), a component of the Department of Homeland Security, is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (1313) to address the potential environmental impacts and feasibility of constructing, maintaining, and operating tactical infrastructure in segments totaling approximately 70 miles in length within USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas. In preparing the EIS, CBP will be working directly with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District (USACE), who will provide technical expertise and other support to CBP. To assist USBP in gaining and maintaining operational centrol of the border, CBP proposes to construct, install, and operate tactical infrastructure to include primary pedestrian fence and access and patrol roads in 21 distinct high priority segments along the U.S.fMexico international border. individual segments would range ??om approximately 1 mile to more than 13 miles in length. Maps presenting the proposed project sites are enclosed. Based on Congressional and Executive mandates, CBP and USBP are assessing operational requirements and land issues along the entire Southwest border. Preparing the EIS does not necessarily mean the 70 miles of tactical infrastructure will be installed within USBP Rio Grande Vailey Sector. Rather, this effort is a prudent part of the planning process needed to assess any environmental concerns in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and other applicable environmental laws and regulations. Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Page 2 Mr. Richard Greene A Notice of Intent (N OI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on September 24, 2007. A copy of the N01 is enclosed, which provides additional information about the proposed project, background information, and the framework for Federal environmental review requirements under NEPA. Your agency has been identi?ed as a Federal authority with responsibilities for resources that may be affected by the Proposed Action. In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations addressing cooperating agencies (40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5) and January 30, 2002, guidance, CBP is inviting you to participate in the development of the EIS as a cooperating agency. Please contact Mr. Charles McGregor of the USACE, Fort Worth District, Engineering Construction Support Of?ce by mail at PO Box 17300, Forth Worth, Texas 76102-0300 if your agency would like to be a cooperating agency. Your prompt attention to this request would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Charles McGregor at (817) 886-1585 or Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Ren? G. Zamora, USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector at (956) 289-5361 Sincerely, mg Executive Director Asset Management Enclosure Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 54276 Federal Regisherol. 72. No. Isa/Monday, September 24. 2007 l' Notices DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Bureau of Customs and Border Protectlon Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Stetement (EIS) and Request for Public Comments Concerning Proposed Construction end Operetlon of Tectlcel Infrastructure tor the us. Customs and Border Protection. Cities of Border Petrol Rio Grende Valley flexes) Sector AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. smelt: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Request for Public Comments. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 U.S.C. 4321 et se .. US Customs and Her er Protection will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to identify and assess the potential impacts associated with a proposal to construct and operate tactical infrastructure along approximately 70 miles of the international border between the United States and Mexico within the Of?ce of Border Patrol's Rio Grande Valley Sector. Texas (the Proposed Action). The purpose of the Proposed Action is to further ability to gain effective control of the border by denying pedestrian and other access in high riorit sections of OBP's Rio Gran a Val ey Sector. CBP is the decision-melting agency for the Proposed Action. Notice is hereby given that the public scoping process has been initiated to prepare an EIS that will address the impacts and alternatives of the Proposed Action. The purpose of the scoping process is to solicit public comments regarding the range of issues. including potential impacts and alternatives that should be addressed in the EIS. FOO W311i! IIFORIIATDN CONTACT: Visit or e- mail: Written requests for information may be submitted to: Charles McGregor. US. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering Construction and Support Of?ce. 319 Taylor St.. Room 3AM. Fort Worth. Texas 76102; Phone: [817) 886?1585; and Fax: [817] 335?6404. Background: An BIS is being prepared in support of a proposal by Rio Grande Valley Sector for controlling and deterring the in?ux of illegal immigration and contraband into the United States. In order to secure our nation?s borders. CBP is developin and deploying the most effective mix 0 proven technology. infrastructure. and increased personnel. The Rio Grands Valley Sector includes the area along the international border between the United States and Mexico from Rio Grande City. Texas. to the Gulf of Mexico. In that area. CBP is proposing to install and operate tactical infrastructure consisting of pedestrian fences. supporting patrol roads. lights, and other infrastructure along approximately 70 miles of the Mexico international border {the Proposed Action). The Proposed Action includes the installation of tactical infrastructure in 21 segments along the international border in the vicinity of Rio Grande City. Texas; McAllen. Texas: Mercedes. Texas; i-Iarlingen. Texas: Brownsville. Texas: and Fort Brown, Texas. individual segments might range from approximately 1 mile to more than 13 miles. For much of its len . the proposed infrastructure will allow the International Boundary and Water Commission levee. but some portions will also encroach on multi le privately-owned land parce s. The infrastructure would cross multiple land use types, including rural. agricultural. suburban. and urban land. It may also encroach on portions of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Texas state parks in the Rio Grande Valley. Potential alternatives for the environmental impacts analysis will consider location. construction. and oration of tactical infrastructure. A tsrnatives must meet the need to sin effective control of our nation's be are. as well as essential technical, engineering. and economic threshold requirements to ensure that a proposed action is environmentally sound. economically viable. and meets all ap licable laws and regulations. 9 E15 will comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). the Council on Environmental Quality regulations in 40 CFR Parts 1500-1503, and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1 [Environmental Plannin Program]. Consistent with 40 1508.28. the EIS will analyze the sitespecific environmental impacts of the Proposed Action, which were broadly described in two previous rogrammatic ElSs prepared by the armor U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (which now fall under the res nsibility of CBP). Department of De ones. and Joint Task Force 6 The Programmatic ?18 for Activities Along the U.S./Mexico Border, August 1994. and its supplementing document. Supplemento Programmatic E18 for INS and Activities, June 2001, were prepared to address the cumulative effects of past and reasonably foreseeable projects undertaken by for ntunerous law enforcement agencies within the four southwestern states (California. Arizona. New Mexico. and Texas). These documents can be obtained from the US. Army Corps of Engineers. Fort Worth District. Engineering Construction and Support Of?ce Web site. at usnce.onny.mil; sending an email request to or by mailing a request to Charles McGregor. US. Army Corps of Engineers. Engineering Construction and Support Of?ce. 319 Taylor St. Room 3AM. Fort Worth. Texas 16102. Public Participation: Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations. CBP invites public participation in the NEPA process. This notice requests public participation in the scoping process. establishes a public comment period. and provides information on how to participate. Public scoping is an open process for determining the scope of the E15 and identifying significant issues related to the Proposed Action. Anyone wishing to provide comments. suggestions. or relevant information on the Proposed Action may do so as follows: You may submit comments to by contacting SBlnet. Tactical Infrastructure Program Of?ce. To avoid du lication. please use only one of the fol owing methods: Electronically through the Web site of: hit ://m.BorderFenceNEPA.com: ye?mail ta: RSI/com ment?BorderFenceNEPA. com By mail to: Rio Grande Valley 225 E18, clo 92M. 2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax. Virginia 22031: or Byfax to: (757) 282?7697. Comments and related material must reach CBP by October 15. 2007. CBP will consider all comments and material received during the N01 comment period. If you submit a comment, please include your name and address. and identify your comments as related to the Rio Grande Valley Sector EIS. Comments received after October 15, 2007 will receive responses following the ublication of the draft EIS. is scoping period is not the only opportunity you will have to comment. A draft EIS will be prepared. and prior to the develo ofs final EIS. CBP will release a draft EIS for public Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Federal Register/Vol. 72. No. 1B-tiMonday. September 2-1. 2007 1? Notices 54277 review. At that time. a Notice of Availabili (NOA) will be published in the Peder Register. the Brownsville Herald (Brownsville, Texas). and The Monitor [McAllen, Texas]. The NOA will announce the availability of the dra? EIS, how to obtain a copy, and the dates. times. and places of any associated public informational meetings. Dated: September 19. 2007. Eugene H. Schied. Assistant Commissioner. Of?ce of Finance. Doc. 57?18829 Filed 9-21-07: 8:45 am] BILLING cone em?IH DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Bureau of Customs and Border Protectlon Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Request for Publlc Comments Concerning Propoeed Construction and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Otflce of Border Patrol Sen Dlego Sector AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Request for Public Cements. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et sag. (NEPA). U.S. Customs and Bar or Protection (CBP) will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (BIS) to identify and assess the potential impacts associated with a proposal to construct and 0 rate approximately four miles 0 tactical infrastructure and supporting patrol roads along the U.S.Maxico international border south of and ad)acent to Otay Mountain Wilderness area in San Diego County, California (the Proposed Action). The purpose of the Proposed Action is to further CBP's ability to gain effective control of the border by den ing pedestrian and other access in this high priority section of the Office of Border Pstrol's San Diego Sector. GDP is the decision- making agency for this Proposed Action. Notice is hereby given that the ublic scoping process has been initiate to prepare an EIS that will address the impacts and alternatives of the Proposed Action. The purpose of the scoping process is to solicit public comment regarding the range of issues, including potential im acts and alternatives that should be a dressed in the 1315. FOR FURTHER Visit or e- mail: Written requests for information may be submitted to: Charles McGregor. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Engineering Construction and Support Office. 819 Taylor St. Room 3AM. Fort Werth, Texas 73102: Phone: [817] 886?1535: and Fax: (017) 886?6404. Background: An EIS is being prepared in support of a proposal by San Diego Sector for controlling and deterring the in?ux of illegal immigration and contraband into the United States. To assist Border Patrol of?cers. is proposing to install and operate tactical infrastructure consisting of pedestrian fence. vehicle barriers. supporting patrol roads. lights, and other infrastructure along approximately four miles of the U.S.lMexico international border within OBP's San Diego Sector. In order to secure the nation?s borders, GDP is developing and deploying the most effective mix of proven technology. infrastructure. and increased personnel. In some locations. fencing is a critical element of border security. OBP has identi?ed this area of the border as a location where fence would signi?cantly contribute to priority mission homeland security. As a part of this Proposed Action. two segments of fence are proposed for construction. One segment is approximately 3.4 miles long and would start at the Puebla Tree and end at boundary monument 250. The proposed segment would be adjacent to and south of the may Mountain Wilderness; would follow the Pack Truck Trail: and would not connect to any existing fence. The Ota Mountain Wi derness 1s on public ion 5 administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). U.S. Department of the Interior in San Diego County. California. The wilderness boundary is at least 100 feet from the U.S./Mexico border. and the proposed fence would occur in this corridor between the Mexico border and the wilderness boundary. However. due to steep topography. a portion of road or other tactical infrastructure might encroach into the wilderness area. The second segment would be approximately 0.6 miles long and would connect with existing border fence west of Tecate. This fence segment is an extension of existing fence up Tecete Peak and would pass through a riparian area. This proposed fence segment would be on privately owned land. Potential alternatives for environmental impacts analysis will consider location. construction. and operation of tactical infrastructure. Potential alternatives must meet the need to in effective control of our nation's rders. as well as essential technical. engineering, and economic threshold requirements to ensure that the Proposed Action is environmentally sound. economically viable. and meets all applicable laws and regulations. The EIS will comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPAL the Council on Environmental Quality regulations in 40 CFR Parts 1500?1508, and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Management Directive 5100.1 (Environmental Plannin Program). Consistent with 40 1506.28. the EIS will analyze the site-specific environmental impacts of the pro osed action which were broadly descri in two previous programmatic EISs prepared by the former U.S. Immi ration and Naturalization Service [whi now falls under the res onsibility Department of De ones. and )oint Task Force 0 The Programmatic ?18 for Activities Along the U. S./Mexico Border. August 1994. and its supplementing document. Supplemental Programmatic E13 for INS an Activities. lune 2001. were prepared to address the cumulative effects of past and reasonably foreseeable projects undertaken by ITF-6 for numerous law enforcement agencies within the four southwestern states [Califomia. Arizona, New Mexico. and Texas]. These documents can be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Fort Worth District. Engineering Construction and Support Of?ce Web site. at l3: sending an e-mail to orles.mcgregor@swf02. or by mailing a request to: Charles McGregor. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Engineering Construction and Support Of?ce. 819 Taylor St. Room 3AM, Fort Worth. Texas 76102. Public Participation: Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations. CBP invites public participation in the NEPA process. This notice requests public participation in the scoping process. establishes a public comment period. and provides information on how to participate. Public scoping is an open process for determining the scope of the EIS and identifying signi?cant issues related to the proposed action. Anyone wishing to provide comments. suggestions. or relevant information on the Proposed Action may do so as follows: Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington. DC 202 29 US. Customs and Border Protection COL David C. Weston OCT 1 8 2307 US. Army Corps of Engineers Galveston District P.O. Box 1229 Galveston, TX 77553-1229 Subject: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Proposed Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure, US. Department of Homeland Security, US. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley Sector Dear COL Weston: While no ?nal decisions on the fence locations have been made, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), a component of the Department of Homeland Security, is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to address the potential environmental impacts and feasibility of constructing, maintaining, and operating tactical infrastructure in segments totaiing approximately 70 miles in length within USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas. In preparing the EIS, CBP will be working directly with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District (USAGE), who will provide technical expertise and other support to CBP. To assist USBP in gaining and maintaining operational control of the border, CBP proposes to construct, install, and operate tactical infrastructure to include primary pedestrian fence and access and patrol roads in 21 distinct high priority segments along the U.S.fMexico international border. Individual segments would range from approximately 1 mile to more than 13 miles in length. Maps presenting the proposed project sites are enclosed. Based on Congressional and Executive mandates, CBP and USBP are assessing operational requirements and land issues along the entire Southwest border. Preparing the EIS does not necessarily mean the 70 miles of tactical infrastructure will be installed within USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector. Rather, this effort is a prudent part of the planning process needed to assess any environmental concerns in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and other applicable environmental laws and regulations. D-7 Scoping Report Page 2 COL David C. Weston A Notice of Intent (N01) to prepare an EIS was published in the ederal Register on September 24, 2007. A copy of the N01 is enclosed, which provides additional information about the proposed project, background information, and the framework for Federal environmental review requirements under NEPA. Your agency has been identi?ed as a Federal authority with responsibilities for resources that may be affected by the Proposed Action. In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations addressing cooperating agencies (40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5) and January 30, 2002, guidance, CBP is inviting you to participate in the development of the EIS as a cooperating agency. Please contact Mr. Charles McGregor of the USACE, Fort Worth District, Engineering Construction Support Of?ce by mail at P.O Box 17300, Forth Worth, Texas 76102?0300 if your agency would like to be a cooperating agency. Your prompt attention to this request would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Charles McGregor at (817) 886-1585 or Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Rene G. Zamora, USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector at (956) 289-5757. Sincerely, ,W?y F. Janson mg Executive Director Asset Management Enclosure Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20229 Dr. Benjamin Tuggle L. Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Region PO. Box 1306 Albuquerque, NM 87103-1306 Subject: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Proposed Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley Sector Dear Dr. Tuggle: While no ?nal decisions on the fence locations have been made, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), a component of the Department of Homeland Security, is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to address the potential environmental impacts and feasibility of constructing, maintaining, and operating tactical infrastructure in segments totaling approximately 70 miles in length within USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas. In preparing the EIS, CBP will be working directly with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District (U SACE), who will provide technical expertise and other support to CBP. To assist USBP in gaining and maintaining operational control of the border, CBP proposes to construct, install, and operate tactical infrastructure to include primary pedestrian fence and access and patrol roads in 21 distinct high priority segments along the U.S./Mexico international border. Individual segments would range from approximately 1 mile to more than 13 miles in length. Maps presenting the proposed project sites are enclosed. Based on Congressional and Executive mandates, CBP and USBP are assessing operational requirements and land issues along the entire Southwest border. Preparing the EIS does not necessarily mean the 70 miles of tactical infrastructure will be installed within USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector. Rather, this effort is a prudent part of the planning process needed to assess any environmental concerns in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and other applicable environmental laws and regulations. D-9 Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Page 2 Dr. Benjamin Tuggle A Notice of Intent (N01) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on September 24, 2007. A copy of the N01 is enclosed, which provides additional information about the proposed project, background information, and the framework for Federal environmental review requirements under NEPA. Your agency has been identi?ed as a Federal authority with responsibilities for resources that may be affected by the Proposed Action. In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations addressing cooperating agencies (40 CF 1501.6 and 1508.5) and January 30, 2002, guidance, CBP is inviting you to participate in the development of the EIS as a cooperating agency. Please contact Mr. Charles McGregor of the USACE, Fort Worth District, Engineering Construction Support Of?ce by mail at PO Box 17300, Forth Worth, Texas 76102-0300 if your agency would like to be a cooperating agency. Your prompt attention to this request would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Charles McGregor at (817) 886-1585 or Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Rene G. Zamora, USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector at (956) 289-5757. Sincerely, ng Executive Director Asset Management Enclosure Cc: Mike Horton Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS US. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20229 US. Customs and Border Protection OCT 18 Commissioner Carlos Marin International Boundary Water Commission U.S. Section 41 1 I North Mesa, Suite C-IOO El Paso, TX 79902-1441 Subject: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Proposed Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure, US. Department of Homeland Security, US. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley Sector Dear Commissioner Marin: While no ?nal decisions on the fence locations have been made, US. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), a component of the Department of Homeland Security. is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to address the potential environmental impacts and feasibility of constructing, maintaining, and operating tactical infrastructure in segments totaling approximately 70 miles in length within USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas. In preparing the EIS, CBP will be working directly with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District (USACE), who will provide technical expertise and other support to CBP. To assist USBP in gaining and maintaining operational centre! of the border, CBP proposes to construct, install, and Operate tactical infrastructure to include primary pedestrian fence and access and patrol roads in 21 distinct high priority segments along the U.S.Mcxico international border. Individual segments would range from approximately 1 mile to more than 13 miles in length. Maps presenting the proposed project sites are enclosed. Based on Congressional and Executive mandates, CBP and USBP are assessing operational requirements and land issues along the entire Southwest border. Preparing the EIS does not necessarily mean the 70 miles of tactical infrastructure will be installed within USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector. Rather, this effort is a prudent part of the planning process needed to assess any environmental concerns in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NI-IPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and other applicable environmental laws and regulations. Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Page 2 Commissioner Carlos Marin A Notice of Intent (N01) to prepare an EIS was published in the ederai' Register on September 24, 2007. A copy of the N01 is enclosed, which provides additional information about the proposed project, background information, and the framework for Federal environmental review requirements under NEPA. Your agency has been identi?ed as a Federal authority with responsibilities for resources that may be affected by the Proposed Action. In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations addressing cooperating agencies (40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5) and January 30, 2002, guidance, CBP is inviting you to participate in the development of the EIS as a cooperating agency. Please contact Mr. Charles McGregor of the USACE, Fort Worth District, Engineering Construction Support Of?ce by mail at PO Box 17300, Forth Worth, Texas 376102-0300 if your agency would like to be a cooperating agency. Your prompt attention to this request would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Charles McGregor at (817) 886-1585 or Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Rene G. Zamora, USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector at (956) 289-5757. Sincerely, F. anson Executive Director Asset Management US. Customs and Border Protection Enclosure Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 2022 9 U.S. Customs and Border Protection Ms. Michelle Her-rocks Texas Commission on Environmental Quality MC 150 12100 Park 35 Circle Austin, Texas "?8753 Subject: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Proposed Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley Sector Dear Ms. Horrocks: While no ?nal decisions on the fence locations have been made, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), a component of the Department of Homeland Security, is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to address the potential environmental impacts and feasibility of constructing, maintaining, and operating tactical infrastructure in segments totaling approximately 70 miles in length within USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas. In preparing the EIS, CBP will be working directly with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District (USAGE), who will provide technical expertise and other support to CBP. To assist USBP in gaining and maintaining operational control of the border, CBP proposes to construct, install, and operate tactical infrastructure to include primary pedestrian fence and access and patrol roads in 21 distinct high priority fence segments along the U.S.!Mexico international border. Individual fence segments would range from approximately 1 mile to more than 13 miles in length. A map presenting the proposed project sites is enclosed. Based on Congressional and Executive mandates, CBP and USBP are assessing Operational requirements and land issues along the entire Southwest border. Preparing the EIS does not necessarily mean the 70 miles of tactical infrastructure will be installed within USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector. Rather, this effort is a prudent part of the planning process needed to assess any environmental concerns in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and other applicable environmental laws and regulations. Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Ms. Michelle Horrocks Page 2 A Notice of Intent (N01) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on September 24, 2007. A copy of the N01 is enclosed, which provides additional information about the proposed project, background information, and the framework for Federal environmental review requirements under NEPA. Your agency has been identi?ed as a State authority with responsibilities for resources that may be affected by the Proposed Action. In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations addressing cooperating agencies (40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5) and January 30, 2002, guidance, CBP is inviting you to participate in the development of the EIS as a cooperating agency. Please contact Mr. Charles McGregor of the USACE, Fort Worth District, Engineering and Construction Support Of?ce by mail at PO Box 17300, Forth Worth, Texas 76102-0300 if your agency would like to be a cooperating agency. Your prompt attention to this request would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Charles McGregor at (817) 886-1585 or Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Ren? G. Zamora, USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector at (956) 289?5757. Sincerely, Ac mg Executive Director Asset Management Enclosures Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FORT WORTH DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.D.BDX17300 FORT WORTH. Texas 76102-0300 REP LY TO OF. September 27". Jon? Planning. Environment and Regulatory Division Subject: Environmental Impact Statement Concerning Proposed Construction and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. U.S. Border Patrol Rio IGrandc Valley Sector, Cameron and Hidalgo Counties. Texas Honorable Wallace Cott'ey, Chairman ATTN: Ms. Ruth Toahty Comanche Nation 534 NW Bingo Rd HC 32 Box 903 Lawton. Oklahoma T3502 Dear Chairman Coffey: The Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security. US. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Of?ce of Border Patrol is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for a road and fence project in Cameron and Hidalgo Counties. in the vicinity of McAllen and Brownsville. Texas (Figure I). At this time, in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR Part 800. CBP wishes to initiate its consultation process with appropriate tribes who historically used this region andfor continue to use the area. The Proposed Action includes the construction and operation ol' tactical infrastructure to include primary pedestrian fence. and access and patrol roads along approximately 70 miles of the U.S.tMexico international horder within the US. Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley Sector. Texas. The Proposed Action would be implemented in 21 distinct high priority segments. Individual segments would range from approximately I mile to more than I3 miles in length. We welcome your comments on this undertaking and look fonvard to hearing any concerns you may have regarding known sacred sites or other traditional cultural properties within the proposed project area. A cultural resources survey will be conducted on the project con-idor and we will provide you a copy of the report for review and comment. We will also Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS provide :1 :11ij ut?Ihc Llru? HS for review and I i" you have any qucsliuns pc?uininu In 1111:; project. plcusc dn mu husitutc to ?mutual JL?I?I'Iinkunsun ut {Si 7?20. 5 incurul - . - . kn' Fickcl. Jr. Chief. Planning. and Rugulutury Dix'izainn Enclosure Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FORT WORTH DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS FORT WORTH. TEXAS REPLY TO ATTENTION OF. September 27". Ztlti'i' Planning. Environment and Regulatory Division Subject: Enviromnental Impact Statement Concerning Proposed Construction and Operation of 'I'actical Infrastructure for the US. Customs and Border Protection. U3. Border Patrol Rio Grande Tt."alley Sector. Cameron and Hidalgo Counties. 'I'cxas Honorable Billy Evans Horse. Chairman Kiowa Tribe 0 Oklahoma Hwy 9 West Carnegie. OK 5 Dear Chairman Evans Horse: The US. Army Corps of Engineers. Fort Wonh District (USAGE). on behalf of the Department of Hemeland Security. US. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Of?ce of Border Patrol is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement tElS) for a road and fence project in Cameron and Hidalgo Counties. in the vicinity of McAllen and Brownsville. Texas (Figure At this time. in accordance with Section 106 of the Natiortal Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations. 36 CFR Part 300. CBP wishes to initiate its Consultation procesa with appropriate federally?recognized tribes who historically used this region andior continue to use the area. The Proposed Action includes the constructiOn and operation ol? tactical to include primary pedestrian t?enCe. and acCess and patrol roads along approximately 70 miles of the international border within the US. Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley Sector. Texas. The Proposed Action would be implemented in 2 distinct high priority segments. Individual segments would range from approximately 1 mile to more than 13 tniles in lenath We welcome your comments on this undertaking and look forward to hearing any concerns you may have regarding. known sacred sites or other traditional cultural properties within the proposed project area. A cultural resourCes survey will be conducted on the project corridor and we will provide you a copy of the report For nevievr and comment. We will also D-17 Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS prm?idu Ll copy ul'thc draft EIS J'ur 1-m'icw and comm-cm. li'yuu lmx'u any questions pertaining to Ihis project. please du nm hesilulu to unnqu Hukansan ml 836.- I Si Ila-rel}; \?zu WEEK .17 William Fickcl. Jr. Chief. Planning. Environmentally; and Regulatory Divisinn Enclosures Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FORT WORTH DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 1T300 FORT WORTH. TEXAS REPLY TO ATTENTION September Planning. Environment and Regulatory Division Subject: Environmental Impact Statement Concerning Proposed Construction and Operation of Tactical ln?astructure for the US. Customs and Border Protection, U3. Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley Sector, Cameron and Hidalgo Counties. Texas Mr. F. Lawerence Oaks State Historic Preservation Officer Texas Historical Commission 1 Colorado Street Austin, TX TETDI Dear Mr. Oaks: The US. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security. US. Customs and Border Protection Of?ce of Border Patrol (OBP) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a road and t?enca project in Cameron and Hidalgo Counties. in the vicinity of McAllcn. Texas (Figure USACE on behalf of wishes to initiate consultation with your of?ce, in accordance with Section 105 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR Part 800. The Proposed Action includes the construction and operation of tactical infrastructure to include primary pedestrian fence with access and patrol roads along approximately 70 miles of the LLB. Mexico international border within the LLS. Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas. The Proposed Action would be implemented in 21 distinct high priority segments. Individual segments would range from approximately 1 mile to more than ?3 miles in length. A cultural resources survey will he conducted on the project corridors and we will provide you a copy of the report for review and comment. We will also provide a copy of the draft tor review and Comment. Prior to beginning this fast and important project, we would like to develop a Programmatic Agreement with your ot??cc. The main purpose ofthe PA will be to espcdite the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and regulate the Section process. The PA will de?ne roles, outline the steps that will be tollowed to meet the objectives oI?Section Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS and pruvitlr: possible diaputc rcmluliuus ONCE u. tlrutt of the PA is complete we will forward it to ytiur nt?ticc liar rcvimr. It?yuu him: any pertaining In this please do not hesitant: to contact Mr. SHfi-l Sincerely. Ilk Willmm F1ukc .lr. Chith Planning, Environmental and Regulatory Division Finciosurcb' Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS OFFICE COMMISSIONER UNITED SECTION BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION UNITED STATES AND MEXICO November 5, 2007 Me Charles McGregor United States Anny Corps of Engineers Fort Worth District Engineering Construction Support Of?ce PO. Box 11'300 Fort Worth, TX 76102-0300 Dear Mr. MoGregor: Reference is made to various letters dated October 18, 2007, ?om Mr. Robert F. Jansen, US. Customs and Border Protection, requesting us to become a cooperating agency with regard to the development of National Enviromnental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental documentation for the proposed construction, maintenance, and operatiOn of tactical infrastructure throughout the international boundary. According to the letters, the following projects are being consideredBorder Patrol'M'ari?a Sector; Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical US. Department of Homeland Security, US. Customs and Border Protection, U3. Border Patrol San Diego Sector; Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure, US. Department of Homeland Security, US. Customs and Border Protection, US. Border Patrol San Diego Sector; Environmental Assessment for Proposed Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure, US. Department of Homeland Security, US. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Border Patrol El Centro Sector; Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, US. Customs and Border Protection, US. Border Patrol Yuma Sector; Supplemental Enviromnental Assessment for Ptoposed Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical In?astrucmre, US. Department of Homeland Security, US. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Border Patrol El Paso Sector; Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction, Maintenance, and Qperationot? Tactical In?astructure, Department of Homeland Security, The Commons, Building C, Suite 310 a 4111 N. Mesa Street a El Peso. Texas 79902 (95} 832-4100 ?9 (FAX) (95] 332-4l90 - Scoping Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Environmental for Proposed Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical US. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, US. Border'Pau'oI Del Rio Sector; and Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Conan-trench, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure, US. Department of Homeland Security, US. Customs and Border Protection, US. Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley Sector. The United States Section, international Boundary and Water Commission accepts your request to become a cooperating agency in the NEPA process. We look Toward to working with you on issues related to the international boundary, speci?cally international treatim and agreements, issues related to USIEWC jurisdiction, and USEBWC real property. Due to the overwhelming list of Border Patrol initiatives along the international boundary, I have designated Mr. Richard Peace, Division Engineer, Ellperations and Maintenance Division, as the agency single point of contact for matters related to these projects. Mr. Peace can be reached at {915] 332?4153 for overall project coordination. If you have any questions feel free to contact me at (915)832?4101. Sincerely, 5 4? it ?j 3 .HEROL APPENDIX Public Comments on the Draft EIS APPENDIX C DRAFT EIS RECIPIENTS Federal Agency Contacts Tribal Contacts Ms. Andree DuVarney National Environmental Coordinator U.S. Department of Agriculture 14th and Independence Avenue, SW P.O. Box 2890 Washington, DC 20013 The Honorable Wallace Coffey Chairman Comanche Nation 584 NW Bingo Rd HC 32 Box 908 Lawton, OK 73502 Mr. Michael Horton National Section 7 Coordinator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 North Fairfax Drive Suite 420 Arlington, VA 22203 The Honorable Billy Evans Horse Chairman Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Hwy 9 West Carnegie, OK 73015 Mr. F. Lawrence Oaks State Historic Preservation Officer Texas Historical Commission 1511 Colorado Street Austin, TX 78701 Commissioner Carlos Marin International Boundary and Water Commission 4111 North Mesa, Suite C-100 El Paso, TX 79902-1441 Stakeholder Groups Dr. Benjamin Tuggle Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 1306 Albuquerque, NM 87103-1306 Mr. Wayne Bartholomew Frontera Audubon Society PO Box 8124 Weslaco, TX 78599 Ms. Josefina M. Castillo American Friends Service Committee 1304 East 6th Street #3 Austin, TX 78702 State Agency Contacts Mr. Robert L. Cook Executive Director Texas Parks and Wildlife 4200 Smith School Road Austin, TX 78744 Ms. Karen Chapman Water and Wildlife Analyst Environmental Defense 44 East Avenue Austin, TX 78701 Ms. Michelle Horrocks Texas Commission on Environmental Quality MC 150 12100 Park 35 Circle Austin, TX 78753 Mr. John E. Chosy Assistant City Attorney City of Brownsville 1034 E. Levee Street Brownsville, TX 78520 C-1 C.A. Jones Gulf Coast Bird Observatory 103 Highway 332 W Lake Jackson, TX 77566 Ms. Christina Cobourn Herman Associate Director Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate 391 Michigan Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20017 Mr. Ken Kramer Director Sierra Club PO Box 1931 Austin, TX 78767 Mr. Robert Cook World Birding Center Board of Directors PO Box 220 McAllen, TX 78501 Mr. Noah Matson Defenders of Wildlife 1130 17th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 2006-4604 Ms. April Cotte Institute for Global Communications 17 Shelter Cove Pacifica, CA 94044 Ms. Nancy S. Millar Vice President and Director McAllen Convention and Visitors’ Bureau PO Box 790 120 Ash Avenue McAllen, TX 78505-0790 Ms. Ellen Draeger Program Assistant Latin America Working Group 424 C Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Mr. Peter Sakai The University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College 80 Fort Brown St. Brownsville, TX 78520 Mr. Pete Dunne Vice President New Jersey Audubon Society’s Cape May Bird Observatory 701 East Lake Drive PO Box 3 Cape May Point, NJ 08212 Carter Smith Texas State Director The Nature Conservancy 711 Navarro Suite 410 San Antonio, TX 78205 Mr. Chad Foster Chairman of the Texas Border Coalition and Mayor of the City of Eagle Pass 100 South Monroe Eagle Pass, TX 78852 Libraries Mr. Martin Hagne Valley Nature Center 301 South Border Avenue PO Box 8125 Weslaco, TX 78599 Mr. Rusty Dove Director Speer Memorial Library 801 E. 12th St. Mission, TX 78572 Ms. Stephanie Herweck No Border Wall PO Box 8124 Weslaco, TX 78599 C-2 Mr. Johnny French 4417 Carlton Street Corpus Christi, TX 78415-5211 Mr. Michael Fisher Director Weslaco Public Library 525 S. Kansas Ave. Weslaco, TX 78596-6215 Mr. William Hudson Suite B-20, Paseo Plaza Center 1805 East Ruben Torres Blvd. Brownsville, TX 78526 Ms. Norma Fultz Director Rio Grande City Public Library 591 E. Canales St. Rio Grande City, TX 78582 Mr. Jose Gamez Director McAllen Memorial Library 601 N. Main McAllen, TX 78501 Ms. Cynthia Hart Director San Benito Public Library 101 W. Rose St. San Benito, TX 78586 Ms. Luanne James Acting Head Librarian/Director of Library Services Brownsville Public Library System 2600 Central Blvd. Brownsville, TX 78520 Mr. Ruben Rendon Director Harlingen Public Library 410 '76 Dr. Harlingen, TX 78550 Ms. Maria Elena Reyna Director Mercedes Memorial Library 434 S. Ohio Mercedes, TX 78570 Private Citizens Mr. Kevin Doyle 4 Espira Road Santa Fe, NM 87508 C-3 Comments on the Draft EIS will be included in this Appendix once received. 0-4 APPENDIX Detailed Descriptions of Each Discrete Fence Section Under Routes A and D-1 McAllen O-3 Rio Grande City This fence section starts from the area known as “Avocado Landing” to about 1mile upriver from the Los Ebanos POE. Approximately 0.70 miles would follow the Rio Grande boundary of the Los Ebanos annex to the LRGVNWR. Approximately 0.09 miles would follow the boundary of the Los Ebanos annex to the LRGVNWR near the Los Ebanos POE. Approximately 0.03 miles would also cross through this same section of the LRGVNWR. 1.86 7.30 This fence section covers approximately 3.73 miles upriver and 1.55 miles downriver from the Roma, Texas Port-of-Entry (POE). Approximately 1.01 miles would follow the Rio Grande border to the Arroyo Mesa annex of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge (LRGVNWR). Approximately 0.33 miles would follow the Rio Grande border to the Los Negros Creek annex to the LRGVNWR. This section covers approximately 3.41 miles upriver and 3.89 miles downriver from the Rio Grande City, Texas POE. Approximately 0.16 miles would encroach upon the Rio San Juan annex to the LRGVNWR. Approximately 0.26 miles would encroach upon the Los Velas West annex to the LRGVNWR. 5.26 Description of Route A Rio Grande City O-1 Length of Fence Section for Route A (in miles) Border Patrol Station O-2 Fence Section Number Route B represents an adjustment from the originally proposed project corridor to avoid natural areas along the Rio Grande, where practical. Approximately 1.40 miles would be added to the downstream end of Section O-2. Approximately 0.73 miles of this extra distance would cross the Los Velas West and Los Velas Annexes of the LRGVNWR. Route B would avoid approximately 1.01 miles of the Arroyo Mesa annex of the LRGVNWR. Route B would impact less riparian areas, less floodplain. Route B could potentially impact more residential areas. Difference Between Routes A and B 1.90 8.74 3.75 Length of Fence Section for Route B (in miles) Table D-1. Detailed Description of the 21 Fence Sections for Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Two gates would be installed to provide access to private property owners, farmers, and routine patrol activities. Five gates would be installed for access to water pumping facilities. Three gates would be installed for access to water pumping facilities. Access Gates D-2 McAllen McAllen O-4 O-5 Border Patrol Station Fence Section Number Length of Fence Section for Route A (in miles) 4.35 1.73 Description of Route A From the Abram Road extension to the end of the levee at Military Highway in Peñitas. Approximately 0.15 miles would encroach upon Texas Parks and Wildlife area. Approximately 0.08 miles would encroach upon the Peñitas annex to the LRGVNWR. Approximately 0.30 miles would follow the northern border of the Nature Conservancy preserve known as Chihuahua Woods. This section would run from the intersection of the northern floodway levee with the Anzalduas Park access road and follow the floodway levee row for 1.73 miles around the south side of Granjeno. Section O-5 ends at a point on the floodway levee row just south of South Shary Road. This section would border on the Granjeno annex to the LRGVNWR for approximately 0.11 miles in the construction area of the Anzalduas POE. Route B represents a slight realignment where the proposed route would cross the irrigation canal in the middle of the route. There are no notable differences between Routes A and B. Difference Between Routes A and B 1.76 4.35 Length of Fence Section for Route B (in miles) One gate would be installed at the canal access road. Five gates would be installed to provide access for various land owners and water pumping facilities. Access Gates D-3 Border Patrol Station McAllen Fence Section Number O-6 Length of Fence Section for Route A (in miles) 3.86 Description of Route A This section would begin at a point where the U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) levee right-of-way (ROW) intersects Guerra Road in Hidalgo, Texas. The section would head south and tie into existing fencing at the upriver side of the Hidalgo/Reynosa POE. Approximately 1.65 miles of would follow the eastern border of the Pate Bend annex to the LRGVNWR, where USFWS requests fencing sufficient to block domestic animals from entering the refuge. Downriver from the Hidalgo/Reynosa POE, this section would continue from the existing POE fencing and follow the levee system around the Old Hidalgo Pump House and World Bird Center gardens. The section would run approximately 0.95 miles along the northern border to the Hidalgo Bend annex of the LRGVNWR. This section would end at a point where the levee intersects 15th Street. Route B represents minor adjustments to the exact placement near the Old Hidalgo Pump House. Difference Between Routes A and B 3.85 Length of Fence Section for Route B (in miles) Five gates would be installed to provide access to private land owners, existing recreation opportunities, patrol operations, and water pumping facilities. Access Gates D-4 Weslaco Weslaco O-7 O-8 Border Patrol Station Fence Section Number Proposed Donna POE. Section O-7 would begin at a point on the IBWC levee row on the eastern border of the Monterrey Banco annex to the LRGVNWR and follow the northern border of the refuge annex to the east for approximately 0.90 miles, then cross over the Donna Canal. The fence section would then turn south along the Donna Canal to the Donna pump station and the area of the planned Donna POE. From the proposed POE, the section would continue east along the IBWC levee row and end at a point on the levee approximately 0.50 miles from the Donna pump station. 2.05 2.43 Description of Route A Retamal Dam area. This section would begin on the IBWC levee row at a point southeast of the intersection of Donna Road with Highway 281. The fence section would follow the IBWC levee row to the northeast for 2.05 miles, ending at a point where the levee exits the eastern border of the northern panhandle of the La Coma annex to the LRGVNWR. Approximately 0.03 miles of this section would follow the southern boundary of Texas Parks and Wildlife property, and approximately 0.17 miles would traverse the La Coma annex to the LRGVNWR. Length of Fence Section for Route A (in miles) Route B represents an extension of the originally proposed section so that it meets the downriver end of the fencing to be placed for the proposed Donna POE. Route B represents a shortening of the originally proposed section in anticipation of the proposed Donna POE. This area would tie into the fence that would be installed at the proposed Donna POE. Route B would also avoid small portions of the Monterrey Banco LRGVNWR. Difference Between Routes A and B 3.25 0.90 Length of Fence Section for Route B (in miles) Four gates would be installed to provide access to private land owners, patrol operations, and water pumping facilities. Five gates would be installed to provide access to private land owners, farming operations, and routine patrol operations. Access Gates D-5 Weslaco Weslaco O-9 O-10 Border Patrol Station Fence Section Number West Progresso POE. This section would begin at a point on the IBWC levee row southeast of the intersection of Highway 281 with Mile 5 Road West. The section would follow the IBWC row for 3.02 miles and terminate on the west side of the Progresso POE. This section would cross between the Progresso District settling basins and Moon Lake in the Progresso Lakes area. 2.43 3.02 Description of Route A East Progreso POE. On the east side of the Progreso POE, this section would tie into the end of the existing fence at the POE and continue east along the IBWC levee row for 2.43 miles. This section would cross through the Rosario Banco annex to the LRGVNWR for approximately 0.35 miles. Length of Fence Section for Route A (in miles) Route B represents a shortening of the west end of the section to tie into existing fencing at the east side of the Progreso POE, and a slight extension of the east end of the segment. A slight reduction in overall section length results. Route B represents an extension of the originally proposed section to the west, following the IBWC levee ROW in an agricultural area. Difference Between Routes A and B 2.33 3.87 Length of Fence Section for Route B (in miles) Three gates would be installed to provide access to private land owners, routine patrol operations, farming operations, and water pumping facilities. Five gates would be installed to provide access for routine patrol operations, private land owners, agricultural, and municipal operations. Access Gates D-6 Harlingen Harlingen O-11 O-12 Border Patrol Station Fence Section Number Joe's Bar-Nemo Road (in the area of the La Feria pump station). This section would begin at a point where the IBWC levee meets the Santa Maria Canal west of River Road and the levee, to the south of Santa Maria. The section would continue east following the IBWC levee row to the La Feria Canal and pump station, crossing over the canal. At this point, the fence section would head north for approximately 0.55 miles and turn west along Benson Road. This section would pass through approximately 0.55 miles of Texas Parks and Wildlife property. This section would terminate at a point on Benson Road to the north of the Villitas Banco annex to the LRGVNWR. 0.96 2.33 Description of Route A This section would begin at a point where the IBWC levee and Yellow Barn Road intersect in the area of Las Rusias. This proposed section would follow the levee row and cross over the Harlingen Canal. The section would follow the north side of the canal and levee row and terminate on the west side of Trevino Road, north of the pump station. Length of Fence Section for Route A (in miles) There are no notable differences between Routes A and B. Route B represents an alternative to where the proposed route would cross the La Feria Canal. Route A would cross the canal close to the pump station and turn north, parallel to the east side of the canal. Route B would turn north and parallel the west side of the canal, crossing the canal farther north from the pump station. Difference Between Routes A and B 0.92 2.31 Length of Fence Section for Route B (in miles) No gates proposed. Three gates would be installed to provide access to private land owners, routine patrol operations, agricultural operations, and water pumping facilities. Access Gates D-7 Harlingen Harlingen O-15 Harlingen O-13 O-14 Border Patrol Station Fence Section Number Length of Fence Section for Route A (in miles) 1.58 3.07 1.93 Description of Route A West Los Indios POE. This section would begin at a point where the San Benito Canal intersects the IBWC levee row near Weber Road south of the pump station in the area of Los Indios. The section would follow the levee row east, then turn south through the Culebron Banco annex to the LRGVNWR (approximately 0.22 miles would be inside the refuge). The section would continue to follow the levee row east along Avilia Road and terminate at FM (farm to market) 509 on the west side of the Los Indios POE. East Los Indios POE. This section would begin at a point on the IBWC levee row near Avilia Road, east of the Los Indios POE. The section would follow the levee row for 3.07 miles and terminate at the intersection of the levee with an area known as Landrum’s house south of Highway 281. Pedraza Road to Garza Sandpit Road. This section would begin at a point on the IBWC levee row south of La Paloma. The section would follow the levee row for 1.93 miles and terminate at a dirt road known as Garza Sandpit Road. The section would follow the boundary of the Vaqueteria Banco annex to the LRGVNWR for approximately 0.18 miles. There are no notable differences between Routes A and B. Route B represents additional length added to the east end of Route A along the IBWC levee ROW. Route B represents a realignment of a portion of the section toward the east to avoid the Culebron Banco annex of the LRGVNWR. Difference Between Routes A and B 1.93 3.59 1.58 Length of Fence Section for Route B (in miles) One gate would be installed for access to farming operations, gravel pit access, and routine patrol operations. Two gates would be installed to provide access for agricultural operations and routine patrol operations. Two gates would be installed for access to water pumping facilities, routine patrol operations. Access Gates D-8 Brownsville Harlingen O-16 O-17 Border Patrol Station Fence Section Number Proposed Carmen Road Freight Train Bridge. This section would begin at a point on the IBWC levee row south of San Pedro and follow the levee for 1.63 miles east. This section would terminate at a point where the levee turns south at the River Bend gold community. Cameron County has plans to relocate the Brownsville/Matamoros railway POE to a point along this segment. Garza Sandpit Road to IBC Road. This fence section would join with Section O-15 and continue to follow the IBWC levee right of way east for 2.97 miles. This section would terminate at a point where the IBWC levee right of way intersects IBC Road. Description of Route A 1.63 2.97 Length of Fence Section for Route A (in miles) There are no notable differences between Routes A and B. Route B represents a shortening of the originally proposed Route A section to avoid traversing through approximately 0.20 miles of the Tahuachal Banco annex to the LRGVNWR. The area where the levee cuts through the refuge may eventually contain virtual fencing only, with no physical barrier in place. Difference Between Routes A and B 1.61 2.33 Length of Fence Section for Route B (in miles) Four gates would be installed to provide government access and farming operations access. Two gates would be installed to provide access for water pumping facilities, agricultural operations, and routine patrol operations. Access Gates D-9 Brownsville Brownsville O-18 O-19 Border Patrol Station Fence Section Number Proposed Flor De Mayo POE to Garden Park. This section would begin at a point where the IBWC levee row intersects the Los Fresnos pump canal on the east side of the canal. This section would follow the levee row southeast for approximately 3.58 miles. Approximately 0.31 miles of this section would follow the northern boundary of the Palo Blanco annex to the LRGVNWR. Approximately 0.35 miles would cut through the Phillips Banco annex to the LRGVNWR. Another 0.71 miles would follow the southern boundary of Phillips Banco. 3.33 3.58 Description of Route A Brownsville/Matamoros (B&M) POE. This section would begin at a point where Palm Boulevard meets the river bank near Brownsville. This section would continue across the B&M POE and follow the levee to the Gateway POE. At this point, the fence section would turn south along the south side of Fort Brown Resaca. The section would then turn east along the levee between Fort Brown and the golf course. This section would terminate on the levee just to the east of the golf course southwest of the University of Texas Brownsville parking area. Length of Fence Section for Route A (in miles) Route B represents a realignment of the originally proposed corridor away from an urban area on the edge of Brownsville to closer to the river bank. Less socioeconomic impacts, more environmental impacts from being closer to the Rio Grande. Fewer residences would be impacted. There are no notable differences between Routes A and B. Difference Between Routes A and B 3.37 3.58 Length of Fence Section for Route B (in miles) Four gates would be installed to provide access to private landowners, farming operations, recreation (golfing), and government access. Seven gates would be installed to provide access to private land owners, farming operations, and government access. Access Gates D-10 Fort Brown Brownsville O-20 O-21 Border Patrol Station Fence Section Number Length of Fence Section for Route A (in miles) 0.91 13.30 69.87 Veterans International Bridge (Los Tomates). This section would join with Section O-19 and begin at the terminus of Section O-19. This section would then follow the IBWC levee on the south side of the University of Texas Brownsville parking area east to the Veterans International Bridge POE. Veterans International Bridge to Sea Shell Inn. This section would begin on the east/south side of the Veterans International Bridge POE (Los Tomates) and follow the IBWC levee row to the Impala pump station. At the pump station, the section would continue south along the levee to Monsees Road. South of Monsees Road, the section would continue along the levee row, crossing Bosque de la Palma wildlife area between George Saenz Road and South Dakota Avenue. Following the levee, the section may cross through Southmost Ranch, a Nature Conservancy area. After passing this area, the section would turn north along the levee at South Oklahoma Avenue and terminate at the end of the levee, south of Boca Chica Boulevard. Total Description of Route A Route B represents a slight change at the east side of the Veterans International Bridge POE to allow for the tie-in of the proposed alignment with existing fencing at the POE. Route B also represents slight adjustments to the proposed alignment in the area of Milpa Verde and Monsees Road. There are no notable differences between Routes A and B. Difference Between Routes A and B 69.84 12.99 0.93 Length of Fence Section for Route B (in miles) 87 Twenty-one gates would be installed to provide access to agricultural operations, private landowners, water pumping facilities, public areas, commercial areas, and routine patrol operations. Three gates would be installed to provide access for the City and other government access. Access Gates 3k} APPENDIX Standard Design for Tactical Infrastructure 2 APPENDIX E STANDARD DESIGN FOR TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A properly designed tactical infrastructure system is an indispensable tool in deterring those attempting to illegally cross the U.S. border. Tactical infrastructure is also integral to maintaining USBP’s flexibility in deploying agents and enforcement operations. A formidable infrastructure acts as a force multiplier by slowing down illegal entrants and increasing the window of time that agents have to respond. Strategically developed tactical infrastructure should enable USBP managers to better utilize existing manpower when addressing the dynamic nature of terrorists, illegal aliens, and narcotics trafficking (INS 2002). 11 12 13 14 15 16 USBP apprehension statistics remain the most reliable way to codify trends in illegal migration along the border. Based on apprehension statistics, in a 2006 report on border security, the Congressional Research Service concluded that “the installation of border fencing, in combination with an increase in agent manpower and technological assets, has had a significant effect on the apprehensions made in the San Diego sector” (CRS 2006). 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Since effective border enforcement requires adequate scope, depth, and variety in enforcement activity, any single border enforcement function that significantly depletes USBP’s ability to satisfactorily address any other enforcement action creates exploitable opportunities for criminal elements. For example, the intense deployment of personnel resources necessary to monitor urban border areas without tactical infrastructure adversely affects the number of agents available for boat patrol, transportation check points, patrolling remote border areas, and other tasks Tactical infrastructure reduces this effect by reinforcing critical areas, allowing the agents to be assigned to other equally important border enforcement roles (INS 2002). 27 Fencing 28 29 30 31 32 Two applications for fencing have been developed in an effort to control illegal cross-border traffic: pedestrian fences that are built on the border, and secondary fences that are constructed parallel to the pedestrian fences. These fences present a formidable physical barrier which impede cross-border violators and increases the window of time USBP agents have to respond (INS 2002). 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 There are several types of pedestrian fence designs USBP can select for construction depending on various site conditions and law enforcement tactics employed. Each option offers relative advantages and disadvantages. Fencing composed of concrete panels, for example, is among the more cost-effective options, but USBP agents cannot see through it. USBP prefers fencing structures offering visual transparency, allowing observation of activities developing on the other side of the border. 1 E-1 1 2 3 4 Over the past decade, USBP has deployed a variety of types of fencing, such as pedestrian fence (see Figures E-1 through E-4), pedestrian fence with wildlife migratory portals (see Figures E-5 and E-6), vehicle barrier with pedestrian fence (see Figures E-7 through E-9), and bollard fencing (see Figure E-10). 5 6 Figure E-1. Typical Pedestrian Fence Foundation 7 8 Figure E-2. Typical Pedestrian Fence Design E-2 1 2 Figure E-3. Typical Pedestrian Fence Design 3 4 Figure E-4. Typical Pedestrian Fence Design E-3 1 2 Figure E-5. Pedestrian Fence with Wildlife Migratory Portals 3 4 Figure E-6. Wildlife Migratory Portals E-4 1 2 3 Figure E-7. Vehicle Barrier with Pedestrian Fence 4 5 Figure E-8. Vehicle Barrier with Pedestrian Fence E-5 2 Figure E-9. Vehicle Barrier with Pedestrian Fence Iii#00 Figure E-10. Bollard Fence E-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Bollard fencing has been effective in its limited deployment and can also be seen through. However, it is expensive to construct 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 a particular fencing design, USBP weighs various factors such as its effectiveness as a law enforcement tool, the costs associated with construction and maintenance, potential environmental impacts, and other public interest concerns. USBP continues to develop fence designs to best address these objectives and constraints. 11 Patrol Roads 12 13 14 15 16 17 Patrol roads provide USBP agents with quick and direct access to anyone conducting illegal activity along the border, and allow agents access to the various components of the tactical infrastructure system. Patrol roads typically run parallel to and a few feet north of the pedestrian fence. Patrol roads are typically unpaved, but in some cases “all-weather” roads are necessary to ensure continual USBP access (INS 2002). 18 Lighting 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Two types of lighting (permanent and portable) might be constructed in specific urban locations. Illegal entries are often accomplished by using the cover of darkness, which would be eliminated by lighting. Lighting acts as a deterrent to cross-border violators and as an aid to USBP agents in capturing illegal aliens, smugglers, terrorists, or terrorist weapons after they have entered the United States (INS 2001). Lighting locations are determined by USBP based on projected operational needs of the specific area. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 The permanent lighting would be stadium-type lights on approximately 30- to 40-foot high poles with two to four lights per pole. Each light would have a range of 400 to 1,000 watts, with lower-wattage bulbs used where feasible. Wooden poles, encased in concrete and steel culvert pipe to prevent them from being cut down, would most often be used, although steel poles with concrete footings might also be used. The poles might be existing poles or they might need to be installed. Electricity would be run in overhead lines unless local regulations require the lines to be underground (DHS 2004). Lights would operate from dusk to dawn. Light poles adjacent to U.S. IBWC levees would be coordinated with and approved by the U.S. IBWC. The final placement and direction of lighting has been and would continue to be coordinated with the USFWS, with the USFWS having final review over both placement and direction along each fence section. E-7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Portable lights are self-contained units with generators that can be quickly moved to meet USBP operational requirements. Portable lights are powered by a 6-kilowatt self-contained diesel generator. Portable lights would generally operate continuously every night and would require refueling every day prior to the next night’s operation. The portable light systems can be towed to the desired location by USBP vehicles, but they are typically spaced approximately 100 to 400 feet apart, depending upon topography and operational needs. Each portable light would have a light fan directed toward the fence to produce an illuminated area of 100 ft2. The lighting systems would have shields placed over the lamps to reduce or eliminate the effects of backlighting. Effects from the lighting would occur along the entire corridor where they could be placed; however, in reality, only parts of the fence would be illuminated at a given time since the portable lights would be periodically relocated to provide the most effective deterrent and enforcement strategy (INS 2001). 15 E-8 1 References CRS 2006 DHS 2004 INS 2001 INS 2002 Congressional Research Service (CRS). 2006. “Report For Congress.” Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border. 12 December 2006. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 2004. Environmental Impact Statement for Operation Rio Grande. CBP, Washington D.C. April 2004. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). 2001. Final Environmental Assessment, Portable Lights within the Naco Corridor. Cochise County, Arizona. December 2001. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). 2002. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Completion of the 14-Mile Border Infrastructure System, San Diego, CA. Immigration and naturalization Service. January 2002 2 3 E-9 THIS PA GE IN TEN TIONALI. LEFT BLANK E-10 APPENDIX Detailed Maps of the Proposed Fence Sections 99°4'0"W 99°3'0"W 99°2'0"W 99°1'0"W 99°0'0"W 98°59'0"W 950202 26°25'0"N Fronton 26°25'0"N LOS NEGROS CREEK Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge North Escobares ARROYO RAMIREZ Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 950702 950701 950201 Roma Historic District and National Historic Landmark O-1 Roma Ciudad Miguel Aleman Bridge, St Loop 200 Roma World Birding Center and Overlook Roma 26°24'0"N Roma-San Pedro International Bridge 26°24'0"N Mexico 26°23'0"N 26°23'0"N O-1 Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Rio Grande Census Tracts Roma Historic District 1 2 Historic Property Feet Texas Rio Grande City 3 San Juan 4 Ports of Entry 0 500 1,000 Scale 2,000 Land Parcels 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa NWI Wetlands Parks and Refuges USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Detailed Proposed Fence Section Maps Alamo 8 Mercedes 9 10 San Benito 11 12 13 Mexico Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 Brownsville 14 17 16 Matamoros 15 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 1 of 17 98°50'0"W 98°49'0"W 98°48'0"W 98°47'0"W 98°46'0"W 26°23'0"N 98°51'0"W Rio Grande City de la Pena, Silverio, Drugstore and Post Office 950600 LaBorde House, Store and Hotel Fort Ringgold Historic District 950500 26°22'0"N 26°22'0"N 950102 O-2 Las Lomas Rio Grande City Camargo Bridge, Bridge Ave RIO SAN JUAN Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 950103 26°21'0"N 26°21'0"N Mexico O-2 Santa Cruz Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Rio Grande Census Tracts Roma Historic District 1 2 Historic Property Feet Texas Rio Grande City 3 San Juan 4 Ports of Entry 0 500 1,000 Scale 2,000 Land Parcels 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa NWI Wetlands Parks and Refuges USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Detailed Proposed Fence Section Maps Alamo 8 Mercedes 9 10 San Benito 11 12 13 Mexico Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 Brownsville 14 17 16 Matamoros 15 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 2 of 17 98°49'0"W 98°48'0"W 98°47'0"W 98°46'0"W 98°45'0"W 98°44'0"W LA PUERTA Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge La Puerta 26°21'0"N 26°21'0"N 950103 O-2 Santa Cruz El Refugio 26°20'0"N 26°20'0"N LOS VELAS Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge LOS VELAS WEST Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 950400 26°19'0"N Mexico Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Rio Grande Census Tracts Roma Historic District 1 2 Historic Property Feet Texas Rio Grande City Ports of Entry 0 500 1,000 Scale San Juan 2,000 Land Parcels 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa NWI Wetlands Parks and Refuges USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Detailed Proposed Fence Section Maps 3 4 Alamo 8 Mercedes 9 10 San Benito 11 12 13 Mexico 26°19'0"N LA CASITA WEST Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 Brownsville 14 17 16 Matamoros 15 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 3 of 17 98°35'0"W 98°32'0"W un ty 98°33'0"W YTURRIA BRUSH Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Co alg o Sta rr C 98°34'0"W Cuevitas Hid CUEVITAS Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge ou nty 98°36'0"W SAM FORDYCE-NORTH Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge LOS EBANOS Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 024201 26°15'0"N HAVANA-NORTH Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge LOS EBANOS Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 26°15'0"N SAM FORDYCE NORTH Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge LOS EBANOS Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Los Ebanos LOS EBANOS Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge SAM FORDYCE SOUTH Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge HAVANA SOUTH Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge O-3 International Ferry 26°14'0"N 26°14'0"N LOS EBANOS Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge LA JOYA Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 26°13'0"N Mexico Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Rio Grande Census Tracts Roma Historic District 1 2 Historic Property Feet Texas Rio Grande City 3 San Juan 4 Ports of Entry 0 500 1,000 Scale 2,000 Land Parcels 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa NWI Wetlands Parks and Refuges USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Detailed Proposed Fence Section Maps Alamo 8 Mercedes 9 10 San Benito 11 12 13 Mexico Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 Brownsville 14 17 16 Matamoros 15 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 4 of 17 98°27'0"W 98°26'0"W 98°25'0"W 98°24'0"W 98°23'0"W 26°14'0"N 26°14'0"N 98°28'0"W PENITAS Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge TX PARKS AND WILDLIFE 020201 024202 Palmview LA PESQUERA Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge AbramPerezville TX PARKS AND WILDLIFE 26°13'0"N 26°13'0"N CHIHUAHUA WOODS The Nature Conservancy LOMA VERDE Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge O-4 P PALMVIEW Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Mexico CABALLERO BANCO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 26°12'0"N ABRAMS WEST Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 26°12'0"N ABRAMS WEST Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge TX PARKS AND WILDLIFE LA PARIDA BANCO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge ABRAMS Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Rio Grande Census Tracts Roma Historic District 1 2 Historic Property Feet Texas Rio Grande City 3 San Juan 4 Ports of Entry 0 500 1,000 Scale 2,000 Land Parcels 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa NWI Wetlands Parks and Refuges USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Detailed Proposed Fence Section Maps Alamo 8 Mercedes 9 10 San Benito 11 12 13 Mexico Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 Brownsville 14 17 16 Matamoros 15 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 5 of 17 98°20'0"W 98°19'0"W 98°18'0"W 98°17'0"W 98°16'0"W 98°15'0"W 020402 Mission MADERO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 020503 020100 26°9'0"N 26°9'0"N La Lomita Historic District McAllen GRANJENO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Anzalduas County Park GABRIELSON Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 26°8'0"N 26°8'0"N Granjeno O-5 COTTAM Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Louisiana-Rio Grande Canal Compa ny Irrigation System COTTAM Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 021301 COTTAM Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge COTTAM Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge O-6 26°7'0"N 26°7'0"N Mexico Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Rio Grande Census Tracts Roma Historic District 1 2 Historic Property Feet Texas Rio Grande City 3 San Juan 4 Ports of Entry 0 500 1,000 Scale 2,000 Land Parcels 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa NWI Wetlands Parks and Refuges USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Detailed Proposed Fence Section Maps Alamo 8 Mercedes 9 10 San Benito 11 12 13 Mexico Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 Brownsville 14 17 16 Matamoros 15 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 6 of 17 98°18'0"W 98°17'0"W 98°16'0"W 98°15'0"W 98°14'0"W 98°13'0"W Compa ny Irrigation System 021301 COTTAM Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge COTTAM Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 26°7'0"N 26°7'0"N O-6 Mexico COTTAM Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Louisiana-Rio Grande Canal Compa ny Irrigation System PATE BEND Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 26°6'0"N Hidalgo Old Hidalgo Courthouse and Buildings 26°6'0"N O-6 021303 Old Hidalgo School Old Hidalgo Pumphouse Nature Park O-6 McAllen-HildalgoReynosa, TX241-Spur, US-281-Spur HIDALGO BEND Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 26°5'0"N PHARR SETTLING BASIN Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 26°5'0"N VELA WOODS Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge PHARR SETTLING BASIN Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Rio Grande Census Tracts Roma Historic District 1 2 Historic Property Feet Texas Rio Grande City 3 San Juan 4 Ports of Entry 0 500 1,000 Scale 2,000 Land Parcels 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa NWI Wetlands Parks and Refuges USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Detailed Proposed Fence Section Maps Alamo 8 Mercedes 9 10 San Benito 11 12 13 Mexico Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 Brownsville 14 17 16 Matamoros 15 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 7 of 17 98°6'0"W 98°5'0"W 98°4'0"W 98°3'0"W 98°2'0"W 98°1'0"W 022102 022202 26°5'0"N 26°5'0"N 022800 O-7 TX PARKS AND WILDLIFE MONTERREY BANCO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 26°4'0"N 26°4'0"N LA COMA Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge O-8 Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Mexico Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Rio Grande LA COMA Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Census Tracts Roma Historic District 1 2 Historic Property Feet Texas Rio Grande City San Juan 4 Ports of Entry 0 500 1,000 Scale Land Parcels USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Detailed Proposed Fence Section Maps 3 2,000 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa NWI Wetlands Parks and Refuges Mexico Alamo 8 Mercedes 9 10 San Benito 11 12 13 Mexico Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 Brownsville 14 17 16 Matamoros 15 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 8 of 17 97°59'0"W 97°58'0"W 97°57'0"W 97°56'0"W 97°55'0"W 26°5'0"N 26°5'0"N 98°0'0"W 022800 RELAMPAGO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge O-9 Toluca Ranch Historic District 26°4'0"N 26°4'0"N Progreso Lakes O-10 ROSARIO BANCO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge LLANO GRANDE BANCO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 26°3'0"N 26°3'0"N Progreso International Bridge, FM-1015 Mexico Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Rio Grande Census Tracts Roma Historic District 1 2 Historic Property Feet Texas Rio Grande City 3 San Juan 4 Ports of Entry 0 500 1,000 Scale 2,000 Land Parcels 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa NWI Wetlands Parks and Refuges USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Detailed Proposed Fence Section Maps Alamo 8 Mercedes 9 10 San Benito 11 12 13 Mexico Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 Brownsville 14 17 16 Matamoros 15 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 9 of 17 Hidalgo County 97°51'0"W Cameron County 97°52'0"W 97°50'0"W 97°49'0"W 97°48'0"W Santa Maria RESACA DEL RANCHO VIEJO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 011903 BluetownIglesia Antigua 26°4'0"N 26°4'0"N SANTA MARIA Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 022800 LA GLORIA Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge VILLITAS BANCO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Las Palomas Wildlife Management Area 26°3'0"N 012000 26°3'0"N O-11 Mexico Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Rio Grande Census Tracts Roma Historic District 1 2 Historic Property Feet Texas Rio Grande City 3 San Juan 4 Ports of Entry 0 500 1,000 Scale 2,000 Land Parcels 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa NWI Wetlands Parks and Refuges USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Detailed Proposed Fence Section Maps Alamo 8 Mercedes 9 10 San Benito 11 12 13 Mexico Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 Brownsville 14 17 16 Matamoros 15 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 10 of 17 97°45'0"W 97°44'0"W 97°43'0"W 97°42'0"W 26°4'0"N 97°46'0"W SAN BENITO SETTLING BASIN Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 012000 012100 26°3'0"N 26°3'0"N Los Indios O-12 O-14 CULEBRON BANCO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge O-13 26°2'0"N 26°2'0"N LAS PALOMAS BANCO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge LAS SIERRITAS BANCO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Free Trade Bridge, Cantu Road CAPOTE BANCO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Mexico Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Rio Grande Census Tracts Roma Historic District 1 2 Historic Property Feet Texas Rio Grande City 3 San Juan 4 Ports of Entry 0 500 1,000 Scale 2,000 Land Parcels 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa NWI Wetlands Parks and Refuges USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Detailed Proposed Fence Section Maps Alamo 8 Mercedes 9 10 San Benito 11 12 13 Mexico Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 Brownsville 14 17 16 Matamoros 15 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 11 of 17 97°41'0"W 97°40'0"W 97°39'0"W 97°38'0"W 97°37'0"W 97°36'0"W 012100 26°2'0"N 26°2'0"N 012505 O-15 VAQUETERIA BANCO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge EncantadaRanchito El Calaboz RANCHITO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge VAQUETERIA BANCO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 26°1'0"N 26°1'0"N VAQUETERIA BANCO EAST Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Mexico O-16 012508 RANCHITO SOUTH Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge TAHUACHAL BANCO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Rio Grande 26°0'0"N 26°0'0"N GARZA-CAVAZOS Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Census Tracts Roma Historic District 1 2 Historic Property Feet Texas Rio Grande City 3 San Juan 4 Ports of Entry 0 500 1,000 Scale 2,000 Land Parcels 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa NWI Wetlands Parks and Refuges USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Detailed Proposed Fence Section Maps Alamo 8 Mercedes 9 10 San Benito 11 12 13 Mexico Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 Brownsville 14 17 16 Matamoros 15 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 12 of 17 97°38'0"W 97°37'0"W 97°36'0"W 97°35'0"W 97°34'0"W 97°33'0"W 012505 25°59'0"N 25°59'0"N GARZA-CAVAZOS Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 012508 25°58'0"N 25°58'0"N San Pedro O-17 25°57'0"N Mexico 25°57'0"N VILLA NUEVA Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge O-18 012507 Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Rio Grande Census Tracts Roma Historic District 1 2 Historic Property Feet Texas Rio Grande City 3 San Juan 4 Ports of Entry 0 500 1,000 Scale 2,000 Land Parcels 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa NWI Wetlands Parks and Refuges USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Detailed Proposed Fence Section Maps Alamo 8 Mercedes 9 10 San Benito 11 12 13 Mexico Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 Brownsville 14 17 16 Matamoros 15 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 13 of 17 97°35'0"W 97°34'0"W 97°33'0"W 97°32'0"W 97°31'0"W 97°30'0"W VILLA NUEVA Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 012613 25°57'0"N 012504 25°57'0"N O-18 012507 012900 013002 Brownsville 013003 O-18 25°56'0"N 25°56'0"N PALO BLANCO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge CHAMPION BEND Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 013004 PHILLIPS BANCO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 013500 013600 25°55'0"N 25°55'0"N Mexico 012800 013700 Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Rio Grande Census Tracts Roma Historic District 1 2 Historic Property Feet Texas Rio Grande City 3 San Juan 4 Ports of Entry 0 500 1,000 Scale 2,000 Land Parcels 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa NWI Wetlands Parks and Refuges USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Detailed Proposed Fence Section Maps Alamo 8 Mercedes 9 10 San Benito 11 12 13 Mexico Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 Brownsville 14 17 16 Matamoros 15 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 14 of 17 97°30'0"W 97°29'0"W 97°28'0"W 97°27'0"W 013401 013303 25°55'0"N 97°31'0"W 25°55'0"N 97°32'0"W 013205 013901 012800 013304 013402 013700 Manautou House Southern Pacific Railroad Passenger Depot Brownsville 013801 Celaya--Creager House La Madrilena 014002 Brooks,Samuel Wallace, House Celaya, Augustine, House Cameron County Jail, Old Cameron County Courthouse Fernandez, Miguel, Hide Yard University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southernmost College La Nueva Libertad 25°54'0"N Immaculate Conception Church 013802 The Gem O-19 013902 013903 Stillman House 013305 Hope Park 25°54'0"N BrowneWagner House 014001 013306 013307 BROWNSVILLE Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Gateway International Bridge, US-77, US-83 City of Brownsville Lincoln Park B&M Bridge B&M Railroad, MP Railroad, Union Pacific Railroad Fort Brown Memorial Golf Course Fort Brown Santa Rosalia Cemetery O-20 JERONIMO BANCO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Veterans International Bridge 013308 25°53'0"N 25°53'0"N JERONIMO BANCO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge O-19 O-21 013309 Mexico Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Rio Grande Census Tracts Roma Historic District 1 2 Historic Property Feet Texas Rio Grande City 3 San Juan 4 Ports of Entry 0 500 1,000 Scale 2,000 Land Parcels 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa NWI Wetlands Parks and Refuges USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Detailed Proposed Fence Section Maps Alamo 8 Mercedes 9 10 San Benito 11 12 13 Mexico Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 Brownsville 14 17 16 Matamoros 15 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 15 of 17 97°27'0"W Santa Rosalia Cemetery 97°26'0"W JERONIMO BANCO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 97°25'0"W 97°24'0"W 97°23'0"W TX PARKS AND WILDLIFE JERONIMO BANCO Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 25°53'0"N 013308 O-21 25°53'0"N Villa Pancho Brownsville 013309 O-21 014100 25°52'0"N 25°52'0"N South Point SOUTHMOST RANCH Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge Old Brulay Plantation Historic District and Brulay Cemetery BOSCAJE DE LA PALMA Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 25°51'0"N Mexico SOUTHMOST RANCH Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 25°51'0"N Sabal Palms Audubo n Center and Sanctu ary SOUTHMOST RANCH Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Rio Grande Census Tracts Roma Historic District 1 2 Historic Property Feet Texas Rio Grande City 3 San Juan 4 Ports of Entry 0 500 1,000 Scale 2,000 Land Parcels 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa NWI Wetlands Parks and Refuges USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Detailed Proposed Fence Section Maps Alamo 8 Mercedes 9 10 San Benito 11 12 13 Mexico Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 Brownsville 14 17 16 Matamoros 15 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 16 of 17 97°25'0"W 97°24'0"W 97°23'0"W 97°22'0"W 97°21'0"W 97°20'0"W 25°55'0"N 25°55'0"N Reid Hope King 013208 Brownsville 25°54'0"N 25°54'0"N 014100 Mexico 013208 25°53'0"N O-21 25°53'0"N Villa Pancho Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Rio Grande Census Tracts Roma Historic District 1 2 Historic Property Feet Texas Rio Grande City 3 San Juan 4 Ports of Entry 0 500 1,000 Scale 2,000 Land Parcels 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa NWI Wetlands Parks and Refuges USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Detailed Proposed Fence Section Maps Alamo 8 Mercedes 9 10 San Benito 11 12 13 Mexico Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 Brownsville 14 17 16 Matamoros 15 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 17 of 17 APPENDIX Detailed Maps of the Proposed Fence Sections Showing Soils 99°4'0"W 99°3'0"W 99°2'0"W Cp 99°0'0"W 98°59'0"W Ga Jq Cn Zp Jq Cp Cp Cp Cn 99°1'0"W Cn Cn Ra Cn Jq Jq Ra Ga Jq Mu2 Jq Jq Cn Cp 26°25'0"N Ra Jq CaA Ga Re Al Jq Ga Cp Ra Cp Cp 26°25'0"N Re La Cp Re Ga Cp Jq Cn Ga RgB Mm La Re Al O-1 RgB W RgB La Re RgA La CaA La 26°24'0"N Re La Re 26°24'0"N La RgB Re RgB Mm Re CaA RgA RgA RgB Mexico 26°23'0"N 26°23'0"N O-1 Soil Types Route A Proposed Fence Sections Al, Alluvial land Route B CaA, Camargo silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Proposed Fence Sections Cn, Catarina soils (Preferred Alternative) Cp, Copita fine sandy loam Route A/B Overlap Mm, Matamoros silty clay Ra, Ramadero loam 2 Re, Reynosa silty clay loam RgB, Rio Grande silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Jq, Jimenez-Quemado association W, Water La, Lagloria silt loam Zp, Zapata soils San Juan 5 500 1,000 Scale Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa Feet 0 USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Soil Maps 3 4 RgA, Rio Grande silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Ga, Garceno clay loam Texas Roma Rio Grande City 1 Mu2, Maverick soils, eroded Mercedes Alamo 8 9 10 11 San Benito 12 13 2,000 Mexico Brownsville 14 15 17 16 Matamoros Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 1 of 17 98°51'0"W 98°50'0"W 98°49'0"W 98°48'0"W Cn 98°47'0"W 98°46'0"W Mm Zp Jq Zp 26°23'0"N Jq Mc Jq Re Cp Ra Ra Mc Jq Mc CaB La Mc Jq CaA CaA Mm Pt CaB Gr Re RgA CaA Mm Tr Pt CaA Zp Gu La Gr Rr Re Jq CaA Mc CaA CaA CaA RgA La 26°22'0"N Re Rr Mc RgB Mm Re Za Mc RgA W Mc O-2 Za Al Za Pt Mc 26°22'0"N Rr Mc RgA Al Mm Cp RgB Mexico RgA Mc Rr RgB 26°21'0"N La RgB Rr Mm Mm 26°21'0"N Rr La CaA Rr Al O-2 RgA Rr Mm Re Rr Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Cn, Catarina soils Ra, Ramadero loam Cp, Copita fine sandy loam Re, Reynosa silty clay loam Gr, Grulla clay RgA, Rio Grande silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Gu, Grulla clay, depressional RgB, Rio Grande silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Jq, Jimenez-Quemado association Rr, Rio Grande silty clay loam La, Lagloria silt loam Tr, Tiocano-Rio complex Mc, McAllen fine sandy loam W, Water Al, Alluvial land Mm, Matamoros silty clay Za, Zalla loamy fine sand CaA, Camargo silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Mt, Montell clay, saline Zp, Zapata soils CaB, Camargo silty clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Pt, Pits Route A/B Overlap Soil Types Texas Roma Rio Grande City 1 2 San Juan 4 5 500 1,000 Scale Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa Feet 0 USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Soil Maps 3 Mercedes Alamo 8 9 10 11 San Benito 12 13 2,000 Mexico Brownsville 14 15 17 16 Matamoros Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 2 of 17 98°49'0"W 98°48'0"W 98°47'0"W 98°46'0"W CaA 98°45'0"W 98°44'0"W Re Mc RgB W Mc Mc RgA DAM RgB Rr Mc Mm Mc Jq RgB 26°21'0"N Rr La Mm Zp 26°21'0"N Mm Rr Rr CaA La Al O-2 Mc Jq Pt RgA Rr Re Mc RgB Mm Al Pt Pt Mc Re Rr RgB Rr 26°20'0"N CaB Gu Re Re RgA Mm 26°20'0"N Re Gr Al Rr RgA Za RgB Gr RgB W Al Al Za CaA RgB RgA RgB Gr Rr Mexico Za 26°19'0"N Rr Mm 26°19'0"N Mm Mm Al Gu RgA Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) CaB, Camargo silty clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Pt, Pits Cp, Copita fine sandy loam Re, Reynosa silty clay loam DAM, Dams RgA, Rio Grande silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Gr, Grulla clay RgB, Rio Grande silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Gu, Grulla clay, depressional Rr, Rio Grande silty clay loam Jq, Jimenez-Quemado association W, Water La, Lagloria silt loam Za, Zalla loamy fine sand Al, Alluvial land Mc, McAllen fine sandy loam Zp, Zapata soils CaA, Camargo silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Mm, Matamoros silty clay Route A/B Overlap Soil Types Texas Roma Rio Grande City 1 2 San Juan 4 5 500 1,000 Scale Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa Feet 0 USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Soil Maps 3 Mercedes Alamo 8 9 10 11 San Benito 12 13 2,000 Mexico Brownsville 14 15 17 16 Matamoros Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 3 of 17 98°36'0"W 98°35'0"W Mm Mm RgB Re Mm RgA 34 64 6 65 20 32 62 35 36 32 47 64 15 47 56 34 W 50 50 20 36 73 W 60 37 W 65 RgA W 98°32'0"W 37 37 CaA CaA 98°33'0"W 32 67 Za Rr 98°34'0"W 32 36 32 62 34 5 32 38 6 6 56 55 55 64 56 60 38 15 3 65 34 60 5 5 64 37 37 64 47 37 32 45 62 62 W 63 55 73 34 55 19 55 47 63 34 6 64 6 34 34 6 47 64 56 64 63 37 6 63 74 32 55 37 62 W 6 63 34 62 6 15 34 15 W 56 63 5 63 34 55 34 63 5 74 73 O-3 34 5 W 74 5 74 62 W 34 73 63 62 63 6 34 62 74 63 5 62 63 74 74 26°14'0"N 26°15'0"N 26°15'0"N 55 5 74 5 34 62 6 5 5 5 62 73 34 6 63 34 W 74 74 5 5 74 W 62 5 74 Mexico 62 74 63 W 73 74 74 73 5 26°13'0"N W Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Soil Types 32, Jimenez-Quemado complex, 1 to 8 percent slopes 56, Reynosa silty clay loam, saline, 0 to 1 percent sl CaB, Camargo silty clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 34, Matamoros silty clay 6, Camargo silty clay loam Gu, Grulla clay, depressional 35, McAllen fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 60, Rio clay loam Jq, Jimenez-Quemado association 36, McAllen fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 62, Rio Grande silt loam Mm, Matamoros silty clay 37, McAllen fine sandy loam, 3 t 5 percent slopes 63, Rio Grande silty clay loam Re, Reynosa silty clay loam 38, McAllen sandy clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 64, Runn silty clay RgA, Rio Grande silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 45, Pits, borrow 65, Runn silty clay, saline RgB, Rio Grande silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 15, Grulla clay 47, Pits, gravel 67, Tiocano clay Rr, Rio Grande silty clay loam 19, Harlingen clay 5, Camargo silt loam 73, Zalla loamy fine sand, undulating W, Water 20, Harlingen clay, saline 50, Ramadero sandy clay loam 74, Zalla silt loam Za, Zalla loamy fine sand 3, Brennan fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 55, Reynosa silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes CaA, Camargo silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Texas Roma Rio Grande City 1 2 San Juan 4 5 500 1,000 Scale Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa Feet 0 USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Soil Maps 3 Mercedes Alamo 8 9 10 11 San Benito 12 13 2,000 Mexico Brownsville 14 15 17 16 Matamoros Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 4 of 17 26°14'0"N 6 74 W 98°26'0"W W 36 20 65 55 98°25'0"W 35 W 36 38 26 28 35 36 65 98°23'0"W 60 38 37 98°24'0"W 25 50 25 38 36 3 36 64 55 65 62 15 55 20 34 26 6 6 15 37 62 34 34 W 6 5 73 4 25 28 35 36 6 62 6 5 63 62 62 29 15 34 73 63 35 37 5 28 20 W 19 38 19 64 20 62 45 50 73 19 53 7 64 64 26 29 55 34 20 64 4 52 62 63 5 36 25 65 20 6 20 64 37 64 28 52 64 55 15 34 W 56 63 63 29 64 56 74 28 36 56 20 65 5 26 36 74 W 35 35 19 25 60 3 55 5 62 26°13'0"N 20 36 55 74 63 28 64 LEVEE 5 6 28 38 55 34 W 73 63 73 W 34 34 5 62 26 38 45 26°14'0"N 98°27'0"W 26°13'0"N 26°14'0"N 98°28'0"W 64 74 56 5 3 6 64 55 34 26 64 55 O-4 25 52 65 63 56 W 5 55 W 34 15 5 19 15 62 62 28 55 63 19 6 19 63 Mexico 74 73 6 5 52 55 15 34 62 62 19 34 63 5 64 15 6 5 62 63 34 5 64 19 6 5 74 5 74 34 5 34 20 W 64 45 6 63 65 6 63 15 6 15 63 6 62 19 55 63 5 34 5 63 34 6 6 64 7 55 5 5 55 55 55 34 7 15 6 Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) 26, Hidalgo fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 4, Brennan fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 62, Rio Grande silt loam 28, Hidalgo sandy clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 45, Pits, borrow 63, Rio Grande silty clay loam 29, Hidalgo sandy clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 5, Camargo silt loam 64, Runn silty clay 3, Brennan fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 50, Ramadero sandy clay loam 65, Runn silty clay, saline 32, Jimenez-Quemado complex, 1 to 8 percent slopes 52, Raymondville clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 7, Cameron silty clay 34, Matamoros silty clay 53, Raymondville clay loam, saline, 0 to 1 percent slo 73, Zalla loamy fine sand, undulating 35, McAllen fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 55, Reynosa silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 74, Zalla silt loam 15, Grulla clay 36, McAllen fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 56, Reynosa silty clay loam, saline, 0 to 1 percent sl LEVEE, Levee 19, Harlingen clay 37, McAllen fine sandy loam, 3 t 5 percent slopes 6, Camargo silty clay loam W, Water Route A/B Overlap Soil Types 20, Harlingen clay, saline 25, Hidalgo fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 38, McAllen sandy clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 60, Rio clay loam 55 Texas Roma Rio Grande City 1 2 San Juan 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa Feet 500 1,000 Scale USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Soil Maps 3 4 0 26°12'0"N 26°12'0"N 55 19 5 Mercedes Alamo 8 9 10 11 San Benito 12 13 2,000 Mexico Brownsville 14 15 17 16 Matamoros Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 5 of 17 98°20'0"W 98°19'0"W 55 98°18'0"W 98°17'0"W 55 19 98°16'0"W 65 55 21 2 65 19 55 74 19 M-W 19 6 98°15'0"W LDF 19 5 19 19 34 55 W 55 19 55 32 15 62 19 19 55 55 6 73 20 2 45 55 15 26°9'0"N 26°9'0"N 64 55 65 15 W LEVEE 55 W 62 W 19 55 7 74 19 55 15 62 1 56 45 64 74 W 5 74 62 34 62 7 6 5 63 34 55 1 55 1 65 74 34 5 15 63 63 1 15 74 74 62 34 63 26°8'0"N 55 74 1 63 19 63 62 62 15 1 34 63 5 34 W 62 55 34 15 7 6 6 15 15 W 63 74 5 5 LEVEE 74 5 6 63 5 O-5 6 15 74 6 6 34 5 15 62 74 62 74 62 62 34 63 34 74 6 62 5 15 6 62 63 34 62 62 64 34 33 34 34 73 63 74 73 26°8'0"N 6 62 64 65 32 5 64 74 6 34 64 74 62 62 64 55 34 62 55 34 6 34 5 74 34 5 44 62 64 5 74 74 34 74 W 6 15 W 33 34 5 73 34 62 63 19 15 73 34 6 62 5 34 63 Mexico 34 62 34 19 74 5 5 26°7'0"N O-6 63 55 W 73 62 W 73 64 5 55 W 63 62 62 Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Soil Types 26°7'0"N W 7 W 19, Harlingen clay 5, Camargo silt loam 7, Cameron silty clay 2, Benito clay 55, Reynosa silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 73, Zalla loamy fine sand, undulating 20, Harlingen clay, saline 56, Reynosa silty clay loam, saline, 0 to 1 percent sl 74, Zalla silt loam 21, Harlingen-Urban land complex 57, Reynosa-Urban land complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes LDF, Landfill 32, Jimenez-Quemado complex, 1 to 8 percent slopes 6, Camargo silty clay loam LEVEE, Levee 33, Laredo silty clay loam 62, Rio Grande silt loam M-W, Miscellaneous water 34, Matamoros silty clay 63, Rio Grande silty clay loam W, Water 1, Arents, loamy 44, Olmito silty clay 64, Runn silty clay 15, Grulla clay 45, Pits, borrow 65, Runn silty clay, saline Texas Roma Rio Grande City 1 2 San Juan 4 5 500 1,000 Scale Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa Feet 0 USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Soil Maps 3 Mercedes Alamo 8 9 10 11 San Benito 12 13 2,000 Mexico Brownsville 14 15 17 16 Matamoros Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 6 of 17 98°18'0"W 98°17'0"W 98°16'0"W 74 98°14'0"W 98°13'0"W 64 33 74 W 98°15'0"W 74 W 73 15 34 20 64 64 5 62 34 6 19 62 64 5 34 33 63 62 34 20 O-6 64 19 74 55 73 62 W 64 64 7 W 26°7'0"N 26°7'0"N 73 55 62 63 W 64 55 55 62 74 64 63 73 63 55 55 15 62 63 W 57 63 55 34 W 34 15 73 63 55 64 19 34 74 64 65 63 73 W 19 W 6 73 6 34 26°6'0"N 34 34 LEVEE 63 55 64 5 34 19 73 26°6'0"N 74 64 W W 62 55 19 57 74 62 19 M-W 21 62 64 O-6 W 68 20 74 5 5 64 W 19 W O-6 55 62 73 W 5 19 65 6 7 20 W 65 7 65 62 7 19 64 20 65 62 5 63 55 63 15 34 15 5 34 63 15 W 34 26°5'0"N 34 W 55 6 63 15 7 34 62 34 6 62 62 34 74 34 55 15 63 6 5 5 6 34 5 63 63 63 62 Soil Types Route A Proposed Fence Sections 15, Grulla clay Route B 19, Harlingen clay Proposed Fence Sections 20, Harlingen clay, saline (Preferred Alternative) 21, Harlingen-Urban land complex Route A/B Overlap 33, Laredo silty clay loam 5, Camargo silt loam 68, Urban land 55, Reynosa silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 7, Cameron silty clay 57, Reynosa-Urban land complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes 73, Zalla loamy fine sand, undulating 6, Camargo silty clay loam 74, Zalla silt loam 62, Rio Grande silt loam LEVEE, Levee 63, Rio Grande silty clay loam M-W, Miscellaneous water 34, Matamoros silty clay 64, Runn silty clay W, Water 44, Olmito silty clay 65, Runn silty clay, saline 34 San Juan 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa Feet 500 1,000 Scale 34 USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Soil Maps 3 4 0 63 Texas Roma Rio Grande City 1 2 34 Mercedes Alamo 8 9 10 11 San Benito 12 13 2,000 Mexico Brownsville 14 15 17 16 Matamoros Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 7 of 17 26°5'0"N 34 Mexico 55 7 19 98°6'0"W 98°5'0"W 98°4'0"W 98°2'0"W 98°1'0"W 41 2 LEVEE 19 20 98°3'0"W 20 19 W 45 2 7 19 19 64 45 45 19 41 W W 15 64 55 64 26°5'0"N 19 7 64 64 26°5'0"N 20 64 15 15 7 55 20 64 64 64 O-7 55 19 15 64 19 64 64 64 55 33 64 34 15 19 15 7 45 62 5 63 64 63 64 63 62 15 64 26°4'0"N 64 LEVEE 7 62 64 63 6 63 34 5 6 34 62 64 63 63 5 5 W O-8 63 15 55 62 6 62 34 15 62, Rio Grande silt loam 31, Hidalgo-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 63, Rio Grande silty clay loam 33, Laredo silty clay loam 64, Runn silty clay 34, Matamoros silty clay 7, Cameron silty clay 41, Mercedes clay, 1 to 5 percent slopes, gullied 73, Zalla loamy fine sand, undulating 45, Pits, borrow 74, Zalla silt loam 15, Grulla clay 5, Camargo silt loam LEVEE, Levee 19, Harlingen clay 55, Reynosa silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes W, Water 74 W 62 63 Mexico 62 63 63 74 62 63 20, Harlingen clay, saline 5 15 73 55 62 62 15 6, Camargo silty clay loam 6 62 74 2, Benito clay W 5 62 W 62 5 63 5 73 64 63 34 Mexico W 62 62 W 74 Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Soil Types W 63 63 45 W 74 34 5 73 62 62 63 W 63 62 5 34 19 5 W 19 74 62 73 34 74 63 31 34 63 62 62 62 5 74 62 W 63 15 63 63 34 34 63 63 64 55 6 19 19 73 62 34 63 63 55 64 63 62 62 55 15 55 55 55 63 15 19 7 W 64 5 W 6 34 62 26°4'0"N 45 19 19 55 19 5 63 6 63 73 63 15 34 62 63 Texas Roma Rio Grande City 1 2 San Juan 4 5 500 1,000 Scale Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa Feet 0 USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Soil Maps 3 Mercedes Alamo 8 9 10 11 San Benito 12 13 2,000 Mexico Brownsville 14 15 17 16 Matamoros Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 8 of 17 98°0'0"W 97°59'0"W 97°58'0"W 97°57'0"W 97°56'0"W 97°55'0"W 7 44 44 55 33 26°5'0"N 19 33 33 7 55 33 64 55 74 15 20 44 33 7 7 34 19 55 63 55 62 44 55 55 34 44 15 44 63 55 62 64 7 44 63 W 7 6 33 55 63 62 LEVEE 63 19 64 33 63 63 62 7 19 63 6 6 W 63 63 W 5 62 34 34 74 62 15 63 74 63 6 15 6 6 74 63 34 62 44 63 W W 63 73 15 62 63 34 62 62 45 62 62 62 62 45 73 63 15 62 5 5 W 6 34 63 74 63 34 42 15 63 74 63 63 6 34 62 7 34 74 W 63 34 33 5 62 62 63 74 63 6 62 64 63 34 15 19 5 W 62 34 34 5 15 74 63 63 63 15 64 63 15 34 34 64 63 6 62 O-10 62 63 63 73 34 62 63 34 34 15 62 73 62 34 6 6 W 34 62 15 52 73 62 74 6 63 63 5 63 63 63 63 34 62 74 63 34 74 5 34 34 62 73 74 63 W 74 73 73 73 26°3'0"N 26°3'0"N W W 63 62 63 6 34 34 34 15 44 63 34 63 62 62 W 34 62 63 O-9 62 62 34 62 62 34 34 44 7 63 15 62 64 55 19 15 63 44 26°4'0"N 7 26°4'0"N 65 63 33 55 19 55 55 26°5'0"N 44 19 74 64 Mexico Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Soil Types 33, Laredo silty clay loam 6, Camargo silty clay loam 34, Matamoros silty clay 62, Rio Grande silt loam 38, McAllen sandy clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 63, Rio Grande silty clay loam 42, Nueces fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes 64, Runn silty clay 44, Olmito silty clay 65, Runn silty clay, saline 45, Pits, borrow 7, Cameron silty clay 5, Camargo silt loam 73, Zalla loamy fine sand, undulating 15, Grulla clay 52, Raymondville clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 74, Zalla silt loam 19, Harlingen clay 55, Reynosa silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes LEVEE, Levee 20, Harlingen clay, saline 56, Reynosa silty clay loam, saline, 0 to 1 percent sl W, Water Texas Roma Rio Grande City 1 2 San Juan 4 5 500 1,000 Scale Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa Feet 0 USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Soil Maps 3 Mercedes Alamo 8 9 10 11 San Benito 12 13 2,000 Mexico Brownsville 14 15 17 16 Matamoros Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 9 of 17 97°52'0"W 33 97°51'0"W 15 62 6 15 15 GA LAA 62 62 LAA LAA 63 OM LAA LEA LEB LAA CA TC HA 15 W ZA 34 6 TC HA 63 RR TC W RT 34 TC TC LEA MC 34 LEB LEA HA MA 34 LEB OM LAA OM GR 63 OM HA W LG RR 34 62 97°48'0"W OM LAA 34 MA 62 BE BP 34 63 97°49'0"W CA 15 15 97°50'0"W RR GR RR OM LEA TC TC CA 34 RR 63 W 63 34 62 6 5 HA RR MA W RR LAA RR 34 34 63 OM RT RR W LEB GR HA 6 15 CA 34 LC 15 6 15 CC RT CC 26°4'0"N 26°4'0"N 6 LEA CA 5 CA 34 62 RT LEA MA BP 34 ZA GR MA RT CC RR ZA MA MA RR GR MA W MA RT GR 74 W RR CA CC GR MC MA ZA LAA RT RR MC RT CC RT RR ZA RT CA RT RR RT RR ZA RT BP ZA RT CA RT RR RT BP CC CA RR OM MC RT ZA RT LEA MA MA RT MA OM MA CA RT 73 CA RR RZ CA RT RR MC O-11 26°3'0"N 26°3'0"N MA MA RR RR ZA ZA MC MC RR GR Mexico MA RR MA MC Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) 5, Camargo silt loam CA, Camargo silt loam MA, Matamoros silty clay 55, Reynosa silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes CC, Camargo silty clay loam MC, Matamoros-Rio Grande complex 6, Camargo silty clay loam GA, Galveston fine sand, hummocky OM, Olmito silty clay 62, Rio Grande silt loam GR, Grulla clay ON, Olmito-Urban land complex 63, Rio Grande silty clay loam HA, Harlingen clay RR, Rio Grande silt loam 64, Runn silty clay LAA, Laredo silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes RT, Rio Grande silty clay loam 66, Sarita fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes LC, Laredo silty clay loam, saline RZ, Rio Grande-Zalla complex 15, Grulla clay 73, Zalla loamy fine sand, undulating LEA, Laredo-Reynosa complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes TC, Tiocano clay 33, Laredo silty clay loam 74, Zalla silt loam LEB, Laredo-Reynosa complex 1 to 3 percent slopes W, Water 34, Matamoros silty clay BE, Benito clay LEVEE, Levee ZA, Zalla loamy fine sand 45, Pits, borrow BP, Borrow pits LG, Laredo-Urban land complex Route A/B Overlap Soil Types Texas Roma Rio Grande City 1 2 San Juan 4 5 500 1,000 Scale Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa Feet 0 USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Soil Maps 3 Mercedes Alamo 8 9 10 11 San Benito 12 13 2,000 Mexico Brownsville 14 15 17 16 Matamoros Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 10 of 17 97°45'0"W 97°44'0"W 97°43'0"W 97°42'0"W 26°4'0"N 97°46'0"W OM OM LAA CH HC HA LEA W HA HA HA W OM BE HA LEA TC HC OM HA OM LAA OM LEA CE RR GR MA GR LAA RR MA RT 26°3'0"N LAA RT MA CA 26°3'0"N RR RR OM LAA CA GR LD LG O-12 GR BP ZA USX RR TC RR CA CE MA USX OM MA CC RR OM BP USX CA HA HA GR RR ZA RR HA MA GR RR USX OM MA MA RR TC RT GR MA CC MA RR RR CC CA RR 26°2'0"N MC O-13 RT MC RR LAA CC CA MA RR MC CA MA MA CA MC CA RT BP MA RR RR RR RR MC CA ZA RR RT MC RR MA CA MA ZA RR GR MA CC RR ZA RT MA ZA OM MA ZA GR RR RR RT LEA ZA MC RR GR CA RR OM O-14 LAA ZA LAA ZA RT RT RR CC 26°2'0"N W ZA MA RR ZA MA ZA RZ RR RR RT ZA RT RZ Mexico Soil Types Route A Proposed Fence Sections BE, Benito clay Route B BP, Borrow pits Proposed Fence Sections CA, Camargo silt loam (Preferred Alternative) CC, Camargo silty clay loam Route A/B Overlap HA, Harlingen clay OM, Olmito silty clay HC, Harlingen clay, saline RR, Rio Grande silt loam LAA, Laredo silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes RT, Rio Grande silty clay loam LD, Laredo-Olmito complex RZ, Rio Grande-Zalla complex LEA, Laredo-Reynosa complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes TC, Tiocano clay CE, Cameron silty clay LG, Laredo-Urban land complex USX, Ustifluvents, clayey CH, Chargo silty clay MA, Matamoros silty clay W, Water GR, Grulla clay MC, Matamoros-Rio Grande complex ZA, Zalla loamy fine sand ZA Texas Roma Rio Grande City 1 2 San Juan 4 5 500 1,000 Scale Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa Feet 0 USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Soil Maps 3 Mercedes Alamo 8 9 10 11 San Benito 12 13 2,000 Mexico Brownsville 14 15 17 16 Matamoros Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 11 of 17 97°41'0"W 97°40'0"W HA 97°39'0"W 97°38'0"W 97°37'0"W OM LAA RR OM LD 97°36'0"W TC TC LAA LAA OM LAA OM OM LAA MA LAB LC OM LAA LEA OM CE BE BP W BE LAA MA LAA HA TC MA RR MA OM MA CA CE CH HA BE LAA BP RR GR RR MA BE W W LAA MA W OM MA CA BE RR 26°2'0"N 26°2'0"N OM LD ZA BP BE MA O-15 CA MA LAB TC W ZA TC LEA LEB OM LEB LAB TC MA RR RR RR GR LAB OM TC BP LAA OM W LAA BE LAB LAA RR MC TC LEA ZA LAA OM RT MA LAA RR LAA CE TC RR ZA ZA LAA TC OM 26°1'0"N 26°1'0"N HC MA OM GR CH CA LEA O-16 RR OM OM GR LC RZ LC RT CH MA RT MC GR Mexico RR RR LD RR LEA MA RR RR OM ZA CA LEA CA CA OM RT MA RZ MA TC RR HA BP CA ZA TC RR Soil Types Route A Proposed Fence Sections BE, Benito clay Route B BP, Borrow pits Proposed Fence Sections CA, Camargo silt loam (Preferred Alternative) CE, Cameron silty clay Route A/B Overlap HC, Harlingen clay, saline MC, Matamoros-Rio Grande complex LAA, Laredo silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes OM, Olmito silty clay LAB, Laredo silty clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes RR, Rio Grande silt loam LC, Laredo silty clay loam, saline RT, Rio Grande silty clay loam LD, Laredo-Olmito complex RZ, Rio Grande-Zalla complex CH, Chargo silty clay LEA, Laredo-Reynosa complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes TC, Tiocano clay GR, Grulla clay LEB, Laredo-Reynosa complex 1 to 3 percent slopes W, Water HA, Harlingen clay MA, Matamoros silty clay ZA, Zalla loamy fine sand Texas Roma Rio Grande City 1 2 San Juan 4 5 500 1,000 Scale Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa Feet 0 USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Soil Maps 3 Mercedes Alamo 8 9 10 11 San Benito 12 13 2,000 Mexico Brownsville 14 15 17 16 Matamoros Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 12 of 17 26°0'0"N 26°0'0"N CE LEA ZA 97°37'0"W ZA MA 97°36'0"W 97°35'0"W 97°34'0"W 97°33'0"W ZA GR MA LAA LAA RR MA HA TC CC MA RR LAA LAA LD GR 25°59'0"N LAA RT CH LM LAA CC LAA LD BP OM OM LM RT OM LD W 25°59'0"N 97°38'0"W OM CA ZA BP BP LAA MA TC MA OM MA CE CA RR CA OM LAA LC MA LEA TC RT GR MA TC MA CA MA RR LAA MA OM MC TC OM MA GR W GR W LAA MA 25°58'0"N CA BE OM BP OM GR ZA LC HA BP GR CA 25°58'0"N LAA MA OM BP RR BP LM LD MA CC RR O-17 ZA TC OM CC RT RT OM RR LAB TC BP ZA LAA OM CE GR OM Mexico OM ZA O-18 RT LAA 25°57'0"N 25°57'0"N LAA RR OM BP GR RR TC MC GR MA OM W W RR CC, Camargo silty clay loam LEA, Laredo-Reynosa complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes CE, Cameron silty clay LM, Lomalta clay CH, Chargo silty clay MA, Matamoros silty clay GR, Grulla clay MC, Matamoros-Rio Grande complex HA, Harlingen clay OM, Olmito silty clay HC, Harlingen clay, saline RR, Rio Grande silt loam LAA, Laredo silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes RT, Rio Grande silty clay loam BE, Benito clay LAB, Laredo silty clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes TC, Tiocano clay BP, Borrow pits LC, Laredo silty clay loam, saline W, Water CA, Camargo silt loam LD, Laredo-Olmito complex ZA, Zalla loamy fine sand Route A/B Overlap Soil Types San Juan 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa Feet 500 1,000 Scale USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Soil Maps 3 4 0 HC Texas Roma Rio Grande City 1 2 CA MA ZA Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) RT Mercedes Alamo 8 9 10 11 San Benito 12 13 2,000 Mexico Brownsville 14 15 17 16 Matamoros Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 13 of 17 97°35'0"W 97°34'0"W RT 97°33'0"W 97°32'0"W GR W RR LC CE CE LAA 97°31'0"W 97°30'0"W LG CH HC OM OM CE OM LAA CH LAA CF LAA OM HC ON 25°57'0"N BP LAA MA LC W LAB TC GR OM LG BP BP OM W TC ZA 25°57'0"N O-18 RT CH LG LAA W MC GR ON ON MA W ON RT W RR RR LAA HC BP CA ZA MA W RR LG CE CH CC RR MC GR MA MA LAA CA GR LAA MA RR LG LG RU LAA TC O-18 MA 25°56'0"N W LG MA LAA LAA ON CA LG ON OM RR MA RR ON TC MA CA OM ON RR MA CC CA LG LAA LAA CA ZA MA ON ON RR LG GR 25°56'0"N CA OM RR OM RT LAA MA RR ZA MA MA RR RT GR RR CA CA W RU GR W ZA CA RT TC GR ZA RR RR ON CA ON ON MA MA W RR RR CC MC RT MA RR MA RT MA MA ON ON RR CA W ZA HE GR Mexico W RR 25°55'0"N 25°55'0"N CC RU LG W MA ON MA RR ZA MA MC W MA MA RT CA ON Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) Route A/B Overlap Soil Types CE, Cameron silty clay MA, Matamoros silty clay CF, Cameron silty clay, saline MC, Matamoros-Rio Grande complex CH, Chargo silty clay OM, Olmito silty clay GR, Grulla clay ON, Olmito-Urban land complex HC, Harlingen clay, saline RR, Rio Grande silt loam HE, Harlingen-Urban land complex RT, Rio Grande silty clay loam LAA, Laredo silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes RU, Rio Grande-Urban land complex BP, Borrow pits LAB, Laredo silty clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes TC, Tiocano clay CA, Camargo silt loam LC, Laredo silty clay loam, saline W, Water CC, Camargo silty clay loam LG, Laredo-Urban land complex ZA, Zalla loamy fine sand Texas Roma Rio Grande City 1 2 San Juan 4 5 500 1,000 Scale Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa Feet 0 USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Soil Maps 3 Mercedes Alamo 8 9 10 11 San Benito 12 13 2,000 Mexico Brownsville 14 15 17 16 Matamoros Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 14 of 17 97°32'0"W 97°31'0"W 97°29'0"W 97°28'0"W 97°27'0"W LG LD ON GR OM W LG W RR LAA ON LD 25°55'0"N CC 25°55'0"N 97°30'0"W MA ON MA W HE ON MA HA RR MA LG LAA MC RU MA ON ON MA ON RT LAA LG W CE CA LAA LC OM W LG ON OM ON OM ZA LG RU ON ON MA ON MA LAB MA CC HE OM RR RR ON BP MA LAB RU RT RU 25°54'0"N MA ON GR ON MC RT CE RR LEA W RR OM BP CC HA RU ON MA W OM MA MA O-19 RT CH OM HE RR RT RU MA ON OM GR ON RR LM HA LAA OM LAA HE RT W BE 25°54'0"N BP OM LAA GR BP CC ON OM CA MA RR RZ W GR ON RT RR RT RT RR HA W ON GR MA GR MA RT CC CC GR RT OM CC MA GR LAA RR ON OM RR MA CA ZA LAB OM HA CC BP RR ON ON RR CC MA CA O-21 BP OM LAA MA ZA MA LEA RT O-20 LAB 25°53'0"N RT TC MA GR ON RR RT OM RR ZA MA 25°53'0"N CC O-19 LAA CC RZ RZ LEA OM CA O-21 OM CC Mexico MA ZA ZA LC MA GR W RT Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) CA, Camargo silt loam LC, Laredo silty clay loam, saline ON, Olmito-Urban land complex CC, Camargo silty clay loam LD, Laredo-Olmito complex RR, Rio Grande silt loam CE, Cameron silty clay LEA, Laredo-Reynosa complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes RT, Rio Grande silty clay loam CH, Chargo silty clay LEB, Laredo-Reynosa complex 1 to 3 percent slopes RU, Rio Grande-Urban land complex GR, Grulla clay LG, Laredo-Urban land complex RZ, Rio Grande-Zalla complex HA, Harlingen clay LM, Lomalta clay TC, Tiocano clay HE, Harlingen-Urban land complex MA, Matamoros silty clay W, Water BE, Benito clay LAA, Laredo silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes MC, Matamoros-Rio Grande complex ZA, Zalla loamy fine sand BP, Borrow pits LAB, Laredo silty clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes OM, Olmito silty clay Route A/B Overlap Soil Types San Juan 5 Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa Feet 500 1,000 Scale USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Soil Maps 3 4 0 LAA ZA Texas Roma Rio Grande City 1 2 MA Mercedes Alamo 8 9 10 11 San Benito 12 13 2,000 Mexico Brownsville 14 15 17 16 Matamoros Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 15 of 17 97°27'0"W 97°26'0"W 97°25'0"W 97°24'0"W 97°23'0"W BE LAA W OM OM LEA OM OM CH LAB LAA CH MA MA OM MA LAA OM OM RR CE MC O-21 BE RR OM CF OM RT 25°53'0"N 25°53'0"N OM CC RT RR LC CE TC RR LAA LEA LAA OM RR CH O-21 OM BE MA LD ZA LM MA RT RR RT GR MA W LC ZA GR RT LD LC MA MA GR ZA HC CA RZ W W OM LAA RR 25°52'0"N LAA MA MC OM GR OM OM RR HA 25°52'0"N RT OM LEA MA MC W RT RR OM LAA MA RR BP CA RR RT LAA LAA MC OM LAA ZA RT MC RR MA MA GR ZA OM LAA RR ZA MA RR RT ZA RT RT RR RR GR LD ZA GR MA MC RR RZ MA RR ZA RZ RR GR MC RR RZ ZA RR MA RT RT RZ GR GR MA RT RZ RT ZA ZA MA RT BP, Borrow pits CA, Camargo silt loam LAA, Laredo silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes OM, Olmito silty clay CC, Camargo silty clay loam LAB, Laredo silty clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes RR, Rio Grande silt loam CE, Cameron silty clay LC, Laredo silty clay loam, saline RT, Rio Grande silty clay loam CF, Cameron silty clay, saline LD, Laredo-Olmito complex RZ, Rio Grande-Zalla complex CH, Chargo silty clay LEA, Laredo-Reynosa complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes TC, Tiocano clay GR, Grulla clay LM, Lomalta clay W, Water HA, Harlingen clay MA, Matamoros silty clay ZA, Zalla loamy fine sand HC, Harlingen clay, saline MC, Matamoros-Rio Grande complex RR GR RT RR MC BE, Benito clay RZ RR RT Route A/B Overlap Soil Types MA GR MA Mexico Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) MC RR 25°51'0"N 25°51'0"N RT GR MA RT MA MC San Juan 5 RR MA ZA USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Soil Maps Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa Feet 500 1,000 Scale RZ 3 4 0 RZ Texas Roma Rio Grande City 1 2 RR RZ MA Mercedes Alamo 8 9 10 11 San Benito 12 13 2,000 Mexico Brownsville 14 15 17 16 Matamoros Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 16 of 17 97°25'0"W 97°24'0"W BE 97°23'0"W LAA LD LAA 97°22'0"W 97°21'0"W LEA 97°20'0"W MC LEB OM LM LAA LAA ON ON LG 25°55'0"N OM LD LM LAA OM MC LC LD LG LG ON ZA MA SE OM OM 25°55'0"N LM RR LM OM LC LAA LAA HA LG LM OM OM LAA LEB MC MA LG W LAB CE ON BU BE ZA W RZ MA LM W OM MC LAB HA LD RR OM OM BE BE MA LC CE RR HA OM O-21 LO ZA RR OM GR ON 25°54'0"N 25°54'0"N MC MC CH RR BE RR ON BE LD RR OM CF CE Mexico LAA BE MA RR W OM RR OM LAA GR RR MA CH LAA LC RT OM CE RR ZA OM MA OM OM MC MC MA O-21 OM CF CE RT 25°53'0"N 25°53'0"N RR CH MA RR LAA CH RR BE ZA BE MA ZA LC LM HC Route A Proposed Fence Sections Route B Proposed Fence Sections (Preferred Alternative) RR BU, Benito-Urban land complex LAB, Laredo silty clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes MC, Matamoros-Rio Grande complex CC, Camargo silty clay loam LC, Laredo silty clay loam, saline OM, Olmito silty clay CE, Cameron silty clay LD, Laredo-Olmito complex ON, Olmito-Urban land complex CF, Cameron silty clay, saline LEA, Laredo-Reynosa complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes RR, Rio Grande silt loam CH, Chargo silty clay LEB, Laredo-Reynosa complex 1 to 3 percent slopes RT, Rio Grande silty clay loam GR, Grulla clay LG, Laredo-Urban land complex RZ, Rio Grande-Zalla complex HA, Harlingen clay LM, Lomalta clay SE, Sejita silty clay loam BE, Benito clay HC, Harlingen clay, saline LO, Lomalta-Urban land complex W, Water BP, Borrow pits LAA, Laredo silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes MA, Matamoros silty clay ZA, Zalla loamy fine sand Route A/B Overlap Soil Types RT RR MA MC Texas Roma Rio Grande City 1 2 San Juan 4 5 500 1,000 Scale Harlingen McAllen 6 7 Reynosa Feet 0 USBP Proposed Tactical Infrastructure EIS Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas Soil Maps 3 Mercedes Alamo 8 9 10 11 San Benito 12 13 2,000 Mexico Brownsville 14 15 17 16 Matamoros Projection: Albers USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic North American Datum of 1983 November 2007 Scale 1" = 2000' Map 17 of 17 a. APPENDIX Soils Properties for Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron Counties H-1 Mm Re Reynosa Jq JimenezQuemado association Matamoros Cp Copita La Cn Catarina Lagloria Al Map Unit Symbol Alluvial Land Name Silty clay loam Silty clay Silt loam Very gravelly loam Fine sandy loam Clay Silt loam Type 0-2 percent 0-1 percent 0-2 percent 3-8 percent 0-3 percent 0-5 percent 0-8 percent Slope Well drained Moderately well drained Well drained Well drained Well drained Moderately well drained Well drained Drainage No No No No No No NA Hydrica None None None None None None NA Farmland Importance Table H-1. Properties of the Soil Map Units in Starr County Occur on nearly level to gently sloping stream terraces. Moderately permeable. Occur on nearly level bottomlands. Slowly permeable. Occur on nearly level to gently sloping stream terraces. Moderately permeable. Jimenez soils occur on gently sloping to steep uplands. Quemado soils occur on nearly level to moderately sloping uplands. Moderately permeable. Occur on uplands. Moderately permeable. Occur on uplands. Very slowly permeable. Occur on nearly level, active floodplains of the Rio Grande and its tributaries. Properties H-2 Rr Rio Grande Loamy fine sand Silty clay loam Silt loam Silt loam Type 0-3 percent 0-1 percent 1-3 percent 0-1 percent Slope Somewhat excessively drained Well drained Well drained Well drained Drainage No No No No Hydrica None None None None Farmland Importance Occur on nearly level to gently sloping bottomlands. Rapidly permeable. Occur on nearly level to gently sloping terraces of the Rio Grande. Moderately rapidly permeable. Occur on nearly level to gently sloping terraces of the Rio Grande. Moderately rapidly permeable. Occur on nearly level to gently sloping terraces of the Rio Grande. Moderately rapidly permeable. Properties Source: NRCS 2007 Note: a No =Not listed as a hydric soil for Starr County, TX; Yes = Listed as a hydric soil for Starr County, TX; Partially =Listed as a partially hydric soil for Starr County, TX Za RgB Rio Grande Zalla RgA Map Unit Symbol Rio Grande Name H-3 15 19 33 Grulla Harlingen Laredo 6 Camargo 7 5 Camargo Cameron 1 Map Unit Symbol Arents, loamy Name Silty clay loam Clay Clay Silty clay Silty clay loam Silt loam Sandy clay loam Type 0-1 percent 0-1 percent 0-1 percent 0-1 percent 0-1 percent 0-1 percent 0- 1 percent Slope Well drained Moderately well drained Somewhat poorly drained Moderately well drained Well drained Well drained Well drained Drainage No No Partially No No No No Hydrica Prime None None Prime Prime Prime Prime, if irrigated Farmland Importance Table H-2. Properties of the Soil Map Units in Hidalgo County Occur on nearly level to gently sloping deltas and Holocene stream terraces. Moderately permeable. Occur on nearly level stream terraces. Very slowly permeable. Occur in oxbows and sloughs. Very slowly permeable. Occur on nearly level bottomlands. Moderately slowly permeable. Occur on nearly level, active floodplains of the Rio Grande and its tributaries. Moderately permeable. Occur on nearly level, active floodplains of the Rio Grande and its tributaries. Moderately permeable. Occur on alluvial floodplains of the Rio Grande and its tributaries. Properties H-4 55 Reynosa 62 52 Raymondville Rio Grande 45 Pits, borrow 57 44 Olmito ReynosaUrban land complex 34 Map Unit Symbol Matamoros Name Silt loam Silt loam Silty clay loam Clay loam NA Sandy clay Silty clay Type 0-1 percent 0-1 percent 0-1 percent 0-1 percent 1-30 percent 0-1 percent 0-1 percent Slope Well drained Well drained Well drained Moderately well drained Well drained Moderately well drained Moderately well drained Drainage No No No No No No No Hydrica Prime None Prime Prime, if irrigated None Prime Prime Farmland Importance Occur on nearly level to gently sloping terraces of the Rio Grande. Moderately rapidly permeable. Reynosa soils occur on nearly level to gently sloping terraces of the Rio Grande. Urban land consists of disturbed soils of developed areas. Reynosa soils are moderately rapidly permeable. Occur on nearly level to gently sloping stream terraces. Moderately permeable. Occur on nearly level to gently sloping uplands. Slowly permeable. NA Occur on nearly level stream terraces. Slowly permeable. Occur on nearly level bottomlands. Slowly permeable. Properties H-5 64 65 68 74 Runn Runn Urban land Zalla Silt loam NA Silty clay, saline Silty clay Silty clay loam Type 0-1 percent NA 0-1 percent 0-1 percent 0-1 percent Slope Somewhat excessively drained NA Moderately well drained Moderately well drained Well drained Drainage No No No No No Hydrica None None None Prime Prime Farmland Importance sted as a Occur on nearly level to gently sloping bottomlands. Rapidly permeable. Urban land consists of disturbed soils of developed areas. Occur on nearly level stream terraces. Slowly permeable. Occur on nearly level stream terraces. Slowly permeable. Occur on nearly level to gently sloping terraces of the Rio Grande. Moderately rapidly permeable. Properties Source: NRCS 2007 Note: a No =Not listed as a hydric soil for Hidalgo County, TX; Ye s =Listed as a hydric soil for Hidalgo County, TX; Partially =Li partially hydric soil for Hidalgo County, TX 63 Map Unit Symbol Rio Grande Name H-6 GR HA LAA Grulla Harlingen Laredo CE Cameron CH CC Camargo Chargo BP CA Map Unit Symbol Borrow pits Camargo Name Silty clay loam Clay Clay Silty clay Silty clay Silty clay loam NA Silt loam Type 0-1 percent 0-1 percent 0-1 percent 0-1 percent 0-1 percent 0-1 percent NA 0-1 percent Slope Well drained Somewhat poorly drained Moderately well drained Moderately well drained Moderately well drained Well drained NA Well drained Drainage No No Partially Partially No No No No Hydrica Prime Prime, if irrigated None None Prime Prime None Prime Farmland Importance Properties NA Occur on nearly level, active floodplains of the Rio Grande and its tributaries. Moderately permeable. Occur on nearly level, active floodplains of the Rio Grande and its tributaries. Moderately permeable. Occur on nearly level bottomlands. Moderately slowly permeable. Occur on nearly level ancient stream terraces. Slowly permeable. Occur in oxbows and sloughs. Very slowly permeable. Occur on nearly level stream terraces. Very slowly permeable. Occur on nearly level to gently sloping deltas and Holocene stream terraces. Moderately permeable. Table H-3. Properties of the Soil Map Units in Cameron County H-7 Silty clay Silty loam Silty clay Silt loam Sandy clay Silty clay LEA MA MC OM ON LaredoReynosa complex Matamoros MatamorosRio Grande complex Olmito Olmito-Urban land complex Type LD Map Unit Symbol Laredo-Olmito complex Name 0-1 percent 0-1 percent 0-1 percent 0-1 percent 0-1 percent 0-1 percent Slope Moderately well drained Moderately well drained Moderately well drained Moderately well drained Well drained Moderatelywell drained Drainage No No No No No No Hydrica None Prime Prime Prime Prime Prime, if irrigated Farmland Importance Laredo soils occur on nearly level to gently sloping deltas and Holocene stream terraces. Olmito soils occur on nearly level stream terraces. Laredo soils are moderately permeable, Olmito soils slowly permeable. Laredo soils occur on nearly level to gently sloping deltas and Holocene stream terraces. Reynosa soils occur on nearly level to gently sloping stream terraces. Both are moderately permeable. Occuron nearly level bottomlands. Slowly permeable. Matamoros soils occur on nearly level bottomlands, Rio Grande soils occur on nearly level to gently sloping terraces of the Rio Grande. Matamoros soils are slowly permeable, Rio Grande moderately rapidly permeable. Occur on nearly level stream terraces. Slowly permeable. Olmito soils occur on nearly level stream terraces. Urban land consists of disturbed soils of developed areas. Olmito soils are slowly permeable. Properties H-8 TC USX ZA Tiocano Ustifluvents Zalla Loamy fine sand Clay Clay Silty clay loam 0-25 percent 0-1 percent 0-1 percent 0-1 percent 0-1 percent 1-3 percent 0-1 percent Slope Somewhat poorly drained Somewhat excessively drained Somewhat poorly drained Poorly drained Well drained Well drained Well drained Drainage No Partially Partially Yes No No No Hydrica None None None None None Prime Prime Farmland Importance Occur on nearly level to gently sloping bottomlands. Rapidly permeable. Occur on nearly level to gently sloping terraces of the Rio Grande. Moderately rapidly permeable. Occur on nearly level to gently sloping terraces of the Rio Grande. Moderately rapidly permeable. Rio Grande soils occur on nearly level to gently sloping terraces of the Rio Grande. Urban land consists of disturbed soils of developed areas. Rio Grande soils are moderately rapidly permeable. Occur on nearly level low coastal terraces. Moderately slowly permeable. Occur in nearly level slight depressions. Very slowly permeable soils. NA Properties Source: NRCS 2007 Note: a No =Not listed as a hydric soil for Cameron County , TX; Yes =Listed as a hydric soil for Cameron County, TX; Partia lly =Listed as a partially hydric soil for Cameron County, TX SE Very fine sandy loam RU Rio GrandeUrban land complex Sejita Silty clay loam RT Rio Grande Silt loam Type RR Map Unit Symbol Rio Grande Name APPENDIX Draft Biological Survey Report DRAFT BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT FOR CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR, TEXAS USBP RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTIONS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION U.S. BORDER PATROL RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR, TEXAS Prepared by NOVEMBER 2007 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS F ° degrees Fahrenheit BMP Best Management Practice BO Biological Opinion CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWA Clean Water Act DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act FE Federally Endangered IBWC International Boundary and Water Commission LRGVNWR Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mph miles per hour NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NWR National Wildlife Refuge POE Port of Entry ROE Right of entry ROW right-of-way SE State Endangered SFA Secure Fence Act USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USBP U.S. Border Patrol USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DRAFT BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE USBP RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTIONS 8 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................... INSIDE FRONT COVER 9 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 3 10 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................... 4 11 3. SURVEY METHODS AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................ 6 12 4. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .............................................................................................................. 9 13 5. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION ............................................................................................ 10 5.1.1 Tamaulipan Floodplain Ecological System (CES301.990) ......................................... 11 5.1.2 Tamaulipan Palm Grove Riparian Forest Ecological System (CES301.991) ............................................................................................................ 16 5.1.3 Tamaulipan Mesquite Upland Scrub Ecological System (CES301.984) .................... 17 5.1.4 Tamaulipan Mixed Deciduous Thornscrub Ecological System (CES301.983) ............................................................................................................ 18 5.1.5 Tamaulipan Arroyo Shrubland Ecological System (CES301.992) ............................. 19 5.1.6 Tamaulipan Calcareous Thornscrub Ecological System (CES301.986) .................... 21 5.1.7 Tamaulipan Savanna Grassland Ecological System (CES301.985) .......................... 22 5.1.8 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh Ecological System (CES300.729) ............................................................................................................ 24 5.1.9 Non-Native Woodland, Shrubland and Herbaceous Vegetation Alliances and Associations ........................................................................................................ 26 PLANT SPECIES IDENTIFIED ................................................................................................ 33 PROPOSED FENCE SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT QUALITY.................................................................................................................. 50 WETLANDS AND WOUS ......................................................................................................... 58 WILDLIFE OBSERVED ............................................................................................................ 59 33 6. AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES............................................................................... 63 34 7. PERMITS, TECHNICAL STUDIES AND NOTIFICATIONS ............................................................... 64 35 8. LIST OF PREPARERS ....................................................................................................................... 67 36 9. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 69 37 38 39 40 41 APPENDICES A. Description of the Federally Listed Species 42 November 2007 i Draft Biological Survey Report 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS FIGURES 5-1. 5-2. 5-3. 5-4. 5-5. 5-6. 5-7. 5-8. 5-9. 5-10. 5-11. 5-12. 5-13. 5-14. 5-15. 5-16. 5-17. 5-18. 5-19. 5-20. 5-21. 5-22. 5-23. 5-24. 5-25. 5-26. 5-27. 5-28. 5-29. 5-30. 5-31. Representative Photograph of Mature Texas Ebony Tree .................................. 12 Representative Photographs of Sugarberry Habitat ........................................... 12 Representative Photographs of Honey Mesquite Forest Habitat ........................ 13 Representative Photographs of Mule’s Fat Habitat ............................................. 14 Representative Photographs of Black Willow Habitat ......................................... 15 Representative Photographs of Giant Reed Habitat ........................................... 15 Representative Photographs of Common Reed Habitat ..................................... 16 Representative Photographs of Sabal Palm Forest and Woodland Habitat........ 17 Representative Photographs of Granjeno Habitat .............................................. 17 Representative Photographs of Honey Mesquite Woodland Habitat .................. 18 Representative Photograph of Huisache Woodland Habitat ............................... 19 Representative Photographs of Honey Mesquite Shrubland Habitat .................. 20 Representative Photograph of Arroyos in Section O-1 and O-2 ......................... 21 Representative Photographs of Cenizo – Blackbrush Habitat ............................ 22 Representative Photographs of Retama Habitat ................................................. 23 Representative Photograph of Tepeguahe Habitat ............................................. 23 Representative Photograph of Alkali Sacaton Habitat ........................................ 24 Representative Photograph of Broadleaf Cattail Habitat .................................... 25 Representative Photograph of Smartweed Habitat ............................................. 25 Representative Photograph of Duckweed Habitat .............................................. 26 Representative Photograph of Athel Tamarisk Stand ......................................... 26 Representative Photograph of Chinaberry Habitat ............................................. 27 Representative Photograph of Castor Bean / Buffelgrass Habitat ...................... 28 Representative Photographs of Buffelgrass Habitat ........................................... 28 Representative Photographs of Switchgrass Habitat .......................................... 29 Representative Photograph of Silver Bluestem – Buffelgrass Habitat ................ 30 Representative Photograph of Johnsongrass Habitat ......................................... 31 Representative Photographs of Bermuda Grass Habitat .................................... 31 Representative Photographs of Windmill Grass Herbaceous Vegetation ........... 32 Representative Photograph of Lovegrass – Rough Pigweed Habitat ................. 32 Representative Photograph of Quelite Cenizo - Buffelgrass Habitat .................. 33 TABLES 2-1. 3-1. 5-1. 5-2. 5-3. Tactical Infrastructure Sections, Rio Grande Valley Sector .................................. 5 Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species in Texas, by County ................................................................................................................... 6 Complete Plant List of all Species Identified ....................................................... 34 NWI Identified Wetlands that Occur within the Proposed Project Corridor ........ 59 Wildlife Observed During Natural Resources Surveys Conducted October 1 to 7, 2007 ......................................................................................................... 60 November 2007 ii Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 1. Introduction 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 This Biological Survey Report synthesizes information collected from a variety of sources to describe the biological resources within the proposed project corridor, the potential impacts of the proposed project on those biological resources, and recommendations for avoidance or reduction of those impacts. Information was gathered from publicly available literature, data provided by relevant land management agencies, review of aerial photography and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, data from the State of Texas, NatureServe, and initial field surveys conducted on October 1 through October 7, 2007. 10 11 12 13 14 15 This Report was developed to support National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements for analysis of potential impacts on biological resources resulting from the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed tactical infrastructure. This Report was developed as an independent document but will be included as an appendix in the Environmental Impact Statement developed for this project. 16 November 2007 3 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 2. Project Description 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) proposes to construct, maintain, and operate tactical infrastructure consisting of pedestrian fence and associated, access roads, patrol roads, and lights along the U.S./Mexico international border in the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas. The proposed locations of tactical infrastructure are based on a USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector assessment of local operational requirements where it would assist USBP agents in reducing cross-border violator activities. Proposed tactical infrastructure would be constructed in 21 discrete sections along the international border within the USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector in Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties, Texas (see Table 2-1). The proposed individual tactical infrastructure sections range from approximately 1 mile in length to more than 13 miles in length. 14 November 2007 4 Draft Biological Survey Report 1 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Table 2-1. Tactical Infrastructure Sections, Rio Grande Valley Sector Approx. Mileage (Route B) (mi) Fence Section Number Border Patrol Station O-1 Rio Grande City Near Roma Port of Entry 3.75 O-2 Rio Grande City Near RGC Port of Entry 8.74 O-3 McAllen Los Ebanos Port of Entry O-4 McAllen From Penitas to Abram 4.35 O-5 McAllen Future Anzalduas Port of Entry 1.76 O-6 McAllen Hidalgo Port of Entry 3.85 O-7 Weslaco Proposed Donna Port of Entry 0.90 O-8 Weslaco Retamal Dam 3.25 O-9 Weslaco West Progreso Port of Entry 3.87 O-10 Weslaco East Progreso Port of Entry 2.33 O-11 Harlingen Joe’s Bar-Nemo Road 2.31 O-12 Harlingen Weaver’s Mountain 0.92 O-13 Harlingen W Los Indios Port of Entry 1.58 O-14 Harlingen E Los Indios Port of Entry 3.59 O-15 Harlingen Triangle - La Paloma 1.93 O-16 Harlingen Ho Chi Minh - Estero 2.33 O-17 Brownsville Proposed Carmen Road Freight Train Bridge 1.61 O-18 Brownsville Proposed Flor De Mayo POE to Garden Park 3.58 O-19 Brownsville B&M Port of Entry to Los Tomates 3.37 O-20 Brownsville Los Tomates to Veterans International Bridge 0.93 O-21 Fort Brown Veterans International Bridge to Sea Shell Inn General Location 1.0 (estimated) Total 12.99 69.84 2 November 2007 5 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 3. Survey Methods and Limitations 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 To provide flexibility in placement of tactical infrastructure within the proposed project corridor, and to ensure consideration of potential impacts due to construction and to use, surveys were conducted in an area extending 150 feet on the north side (i.e., side away from the Rio Grande) of the 21 proposed individual tactical infrastructure sections and extending at least 0.5 miles past the proposed ends of each section. The areas thus defined are referred to hereafter as the “survey corridor.” 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Intuitive controlled investigations of the survey corridor were conducted by James Von Loh (Senior Ecologist, e²M), Valerie Whalon (Biologist, e²M), Tom Hayes (Senior Ecologist, e²M), and Nancy Hays (Senior Ecologist, e²M), and Gena Janssen of Janssen Biological (subcontractor to e²M and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] approved botanist for the Rio Grande Valley). The October 2007 surveys covered as much of the proposed project corridor known as of 2 October 2007, as well as the local CBP agents’ understanding of the proposed project corridor at the time of the survey. The proposed project corridor identified as Route B was surveyed. Surveyors walked the entire length of the proposed project corridor for each tactical infrastructure section, and examined in more detail areas containing unique species compositions or habitat that might be conducive to sensitive species. Plot data (GPS coordinates, photographs, and plant community composition) were recorded at regular intervals along the corridor and where plant communities presented substantial shifts in species composition. These data will be used to generate vegetation classifications and maps to support delineation of habitat types, analysis of potential sensitive species occurrences, and analysis of potential project impacts on biological resources. These maps will be included in the Final Report. Although no protocol surveys were conducted, surveyors did specifically look for evidence indicating the presence of state- and Federal-listed species (see Table 3-1), and habitats that might support them. Descriptions of the federally listed species are provided in Appendix A. 31 32 Table 3-1. Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species in Texas, by County Common Name Blackfin goby Opossum pipefish Rio Grande silvery minnow River goby November 2007 Scientific Name County Federal Status State Status FISH Gobionellus atripinnis Microphis brachyurus C C T T Hybognathus amarus S, H, C E H, C T Awaous banana 6 Draft Biological Survey Report Common Name Black spotted newt Mexican burrowing toad Mexican treefrog Sheep frog South Texas siren (large form) White-lipped frog Black-striped snake Green sea turtle Hawksbill sea turtle Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle Leatherback sea turtle Loggerhead sea turtle Indigo snake Northern cat-eyed snake Reticulate collared lizard Speckled racer Texas horned lizard Texas scarlet snake Texas tortoise American peregrine falcon Arctic peregrine falcon Brown pelican Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl Common black-hawk Eskimo curlew Gray hawk Least tern Mexican hooded oriole Northern Aplomado falcon Northern beardlesstyrannulet Peregrine falcon November 2007 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Scientific Name County Federal Status State Status AMPHIBIANS Notophthalmus meridionalis Rhinophrynus dorsalis Smilisca baudinii Hypopachus variolosus S, H, C S S, H, C S, H, C T T T T Siren sp 1 S, H, C T Leptodactylus fragilis REPTILES Coniophanes imperialis Chelonia mydas Eretmochelys imbricata S, H, C T Lepidochelys kempii Dermochelys coriacea Caretta caretta Drymarchon corais Leptodeira septentrionalis septentrionalis H, C C C E E T T E C E E C C S, H, C E T E T T S, H, C T S, H T Drymobius margaritiferus Phrynosoma cornutum Cemophora coccinea lineri Gopherus berlandieri BIRDS H, C S, H, C C S, H T T T T Falco peregrinus anatum S, H, C E Falco peregrinus tundrius Pelecanus occidentalis Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum Buteogallus anthracinus Numenius borealis Asturina nitida Sterna antillarum Icterus cucullatus cucullatus S, H, C C T E Crotaphytus reticulatus Falco femoralis septentrionalis E S, H, C T S, H, C C S, H, C S, H, C S T E T E T H, C E E E Camptostoma imberbe S, H, C T Falco peregrinus S, H, C E, T 7 Draft Biological Survey Report Common Name Piping plover Reddish egret Rose-throated becard Sooty tern Texas Botteri’s sparrow Tropical parula White-faced ibis White-tailed hawk Whooping crane Wood stork Zone-tailed hawk Coues’ rice rat Gulf Coast jaguarundi Ocelot Southern yellow bat White-nosed coati Ashy dogweed Johnston’s frankenia South Texas ambrosia Star cactus Texas ayenia Walker's manioc Zapata bladderpod 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Scientific Name BIRDS (Continued) Charadrius melodus Egretta rufescens Pachyramphus aglaiae Sterna fuscata Aimophila botterii texana Parula pitiayumi Plegadis chihi Buteo albicaudatus Grus Americana Mycteria americana Buteo albonotatus MAMMALS Oryzomys couesi Herpailurus (=Felis) yaguarondi Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis Lasiurus ega Nasua narica PLANTS Thymophylla tephroleuca Frankenia johnstonii Ambrosia cheiranthifolia Astrophytum asterias Ayenia limitaris Manihot walkerae Lesquerella thamnophila County H, C H, C S, H, C C H, C S, H, C H, C S, H, C S, H, C S, C S, C S, H, C S, H, C S, H, C H, C S, H, C S S C S, H,C H,C S, H S Federal Status State Status T T T T T T T T T E T T E E E E E E E E E E T E E T T E E E E E E E Sources: TPWD 2007, USFWS 2007 Notes: S: Starr County, Texas H: Hidalgo County, Texas C: Cameron County, Texas E =endangered; T =Threatened 7 November 2007 8 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 4. Environmental Setting 2 3 4 5 6 7 The project area climate is semiarid-subtropical/subhumid within the Modified Marine climatic type, e.g., summers are long and hot and winters are short, dry, and mild (Larkin and Bomar 1983, Bailey 1995). The marine climate results from the predominant onshore flow of tropical maritime air from the Gulf of Mexico. Onshore air flow is modified by a decrease in moisture content from east to west and by intermittent seasonal intrusions of continental air. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Average temperatures in Brownsville range from a low of 50 degrees Fahrenheit [°F] in January to a low of 76 F ° in July, and a high of 64 °F in December to a high of 97 °F in August. Annual low and high temperatures for Brownsville range from 12 F ° to 63 F ° and 93 F ° to 107 F ° , respectively. The average annual precipitation of the Rio Grande Delta recorded in Brownsville ranges from 22 to 30 inches (Brownsville recorded 21.68 inches for 2006), and the distribution of rainfall is irregular. Wind speeds are stable ranging from 10.4 miles per hour (mph) to 17.3 mph during the year. A long growing season is experienced for the proposed project region, from 314 to 341 days. The evaporation rate during the summer season is high, about twice the amount of precipitation. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 The vegetation of the Rio Grande Delta of southern Texas has generally been classified under the Dry Domain, Tropical/Subtropical Steppe Division of Bailey (1995). The project area is more finely classified as the Southwestern Plateau and Plains Dry Steppe and Shrub Province. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD 2007) provides discussion and describes vegetation geography to biotic provinces and natural regions using topographic features, climate, vegetation types, and terrestrial vertebrates. This system places the project area in the Tamaulipan Biotic Province, South Texas Brush Country (Rio Grande Basin) Natural Region, and the Level III Ecoregions of the Southern Texas Plains and Western Gulf Coastal Plain. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Occurring within the Lower Rio Grande Valley (technically a delta) of southern Texas and northern Mexico, Tamaulipan Brushland represents a unique ecosystem (USFWS 1988). The characteristic natural vegetation is dense and thorny, and plant species distribution can be correlated with geologic formations. The Rio Grande floodplain supports tall, dense riparian forest, woodland, shrubland, and herbaceous vegetation while the xeric upland areas support mostly spiny shrubs, short-stature trees, and dense nonnative grasslands. Between the 1920s and 1980s more than 95 percent of the native brushland and 90 percent of the riparian vegetation had been converted to agriculture and urban land use (USFWS 1988). In 1988, it was estimated that 98 percent of the lush, subtropical region of the Rio Grande Delta had been cleared of native vegetation in the United States and a large but unknown percentage cleared in Mexico. 40 November 2007 9 Draft Biological Survey Report 5. Biological Resources 1 2 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 5.1 Vegetation Classification 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 The USFWS (1988) recognized 11 biotic communities in the Lower Rio Grande Valley using a combination of plant species dominance, wildlife use, topography, hydrology, and geology. There are seven biotic communities that could be associated with the project region: (1) Chihuahuan Thorn Forest, (2) Upper Valley Flood Forest, (3) Barretal, (4) Upland Thornscrub, (5) Mid-Valley Riparian Woodland, (6) Sabal Palm Forest, and (7) Mid-Delta Thorn Forest. Chihuahuan Thorn Forest could occur near the western terminus of proposed Section O-1. Proposed SectionsO-1 and O-2 lie within the Upper Valley Flood Forest biotic community and adjacent to the Barretal. Proposed Sections O-3 and O-4 occur within the Upper Valley Flood Forest and Upland Thornscrub biotic communities. Proposed SectionsO-4 through O-20 are primarily within the Mid-Valley Riparian Woodland biotic community, with some vegetative influence from the Mid-Delta Thorn Forest which occurs to the north. The Sabal Palm Forest biotic community occurs within proposed Section O-21. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NatureServe (2007) has defined ecological systems to represent recurring groups of biological communities that are found in similar physical environments and are influenced by similar dynamic ecological processes such as fire or flooding. Ecological systems represent classification units that are readily identifiable by conservation and resource managers in the field. The ensuing vegetation description for the project area was prepared in the framework of ecological systems that include (1) Tamaulipan Calcareous Thornscrub (CES301.986), (2) Tamaulipan Mesquite Upland Scrub (CES301.984); (3) Tamaulipan Mixed Deciduous Thornscrub (CES301.983), (4) Tamaulipan Savanna Grassland (CES301.985), (5) Tamaulipan Arroyo Shrubland (CES301.992), (6) Tamaulipan Floodplain (CES301.990), (7) Tamaulipan Palm Grove Riparian Forest (CES 301.991), and (8) North American Arid West Emergent Marsh (CES300.729). 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Classification of existing vegetation within this corridor was achieved by accessing nearly the entire corridor as proposed, sampling observation points, and relating them to the NatureServe Explorer classification database (2007). At the coarsest level, the eight above-named ecological systems were determined and local vegetation types placed into the national system. A finer level of classification equaling or approximating the vegetation alliance level of the National Vegetation Classification System (NatureServe 2007) was used to prepare the plant community discussions under each ecological system. Unclassifiable vegetation stands and patches sampled within the proposed corridor typically consisted of nonnative species including Chinaberry (Koelreuteria sp.) Woodland, Athel Tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla) Woodland, Castor Bean (Ricinus communis)/Buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) Shrubland, Mediterranean Lovegrass (Eragrostis sp.) – Rough Pigweed (Amaranthus November 2007 10 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 2 3 4 5 retroflexus) Herbaceous Vegetation, Johnsongrass (Sorghum halapense) Herbaceous Vegetation; Windmill Grass (Chloris spp.) Herbaceous Vegetation; Silver Bluestem (Bothriochloa laguroides) – Buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) Herbaceous Vegetation; and Quelite Cenizo (Atriplex matamorensis) – Buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) Herbaceous Vegetation. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Habitats observed, sampled, and photographed within the project corridor range from upland thorn-scrub on the western end of Section O-1, upper and mid-valley riparian forest and woodland communities throughout the proposed middle sections, and sabal palm and mid-delta thorn forests within Section O-21. Much of the vegetation cover along the sections consists of nonnative grassland species that are themselves dominant or they often support an overstory of honey mesquite, retama, or huisache shrubs or small trees. Agricultural fields occur along much of the corridor as proposed and include sugar cane, sorghum, Johnsongrass, sunflowers, cotton, row crop vegetables particularly onions, citrus trees (grapefruit and orange), or fields that were fallow at the time of site visit. Urban development and private property with single homes occurs adjacent to several proposed sections. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A brief description of each plant community observed within the proposed sections is provided herein; they are distinguished using the NatureServe Vegetation Alliance level of classification or an approximation. To the extent possible, each community is illustrated and supported by representative ground photographs and foliar cover information for dominant species. Some vegetation patches and stands are introduced nonnative species and do not readily fit into a recognized vegetation alliance or ecological system designed for native vegetation; they are discussed at the end of this section. 26 5.1.1 Tamaulipan Floodplain Ecological System (CES301.990) 27 Texas Ebony Riparian Forest and Woodland 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Texas ebony occurred within the project corridor as trees and shrubs providing sparse to low cover in other plant communities and as individual large trees. Stands dominated by Texas ebony were not encountered, per se. Particularly large, mature Texas ebony trees that are approximately 20–25 meters tall occur within floodplain habitat in Section O-2 where they occupy the outer edge (see Figure 5-1). The large trees have emerged from an understory of the nonnative perennial grass, buffelgrass, and can exceed 100 years of age (Patterson 2007). November 2007 11 Draft Biological Survey Report 1 2 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Figure 5-1. Representative Photograph of Mature Texas Ebony Tree Sugarberry Riparian Forest and Woodland 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Sugarberry forest and woodland stands have become established on the outer floodplain and along oxbows of the Rio Grande and were sampled in Sections O-2, O-3, O-8, O-10, O-11, O-12, and O-14 (see Figure 5-2). Canopy cover for the mature sugarberry trees (15–30 meters tall) ranges from 30-75 percent. Honey mesquite trees are commonly present in the canopy layer and provide 5–20 percent cover. In one stand a subcanopy layer of granjeno, huisache, and honey mesquite, from 5–10 meters tall, provided approximately 20 percent cover. The herbaceous layer provides low to dense cover, from 5–75 percent cover and includes switchgrass, Bermuda grass, and buffelgrass. 12 Figure 5-2. Representative Photographs of Sugarberry Habitat November 2007 12 Draft Biological Survey Report 1 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Honey Mesquite Riparian Forest 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Honey mesquite forests characterized by large trees from 10-30m tall occurred on the Rio Grande floodplain margins and were sampled in Sections O-1, O-2, O-6, O-8, and O-21. In the canopy layer, honey mesquite cover ranged from 20–60 percent (see Figure 5-3). Associated canopy tree species included sugarberry, retama, and granjeno that provided low cover, from 5–15 percentcover. A subcanopy layer was typically present, provided 10–25 percent cover, and included snake eyes, huisache, retama, granjeno, brasil, Texas ebony, and colima. The tall and short shrub layers (1-5m tall) were occasionally present, provided from 5–55 percent cover, and included Texas prickly pear, snake eyes, cenizo, granjeno, and honey mesquite saplings. The herbaceous layer provided low to dense cover, from 15–85 percent cover, ranged from 0.5–2 meters tall, and included buffelgrass, switchgrass, and a variety of forbs. 14 Figure 5-3. Representative Photographs of Honey Mesquite Forest Habitat 15 Mule’s Fat Shrubland 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Mule’s fat occurs as stands and patches of riparian tall shrubs from 4–10 meters tall where near-to-surface ground water or occasional standing water is present within the project region as proposed. The densest stands with Mule’s fat tall shrub foliar cover of up to 55 percent were recorded in Section O-3 within the Los Ebanos Unit of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and in Section O-13 (see Figure 5-4). Stands can be monotypic in the tall shrub layer, or low cover, less than 10 percent cover of granjeno, tepeguaje, sugarberry November 2007 13 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 2 3 saplings, or black willow can occur. The herbaceous layer provides moderate to high cover, from 30-90 percent cover, ranges from 0.5–2 meters tall, and includes switchgrass, windmill grass, Johnsongrass, and buffelgrass. 4 Figure 5-4. Representative Photographs of Mule’s Fat Habitat 5 Black Willow Woodland and Shrubland 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Black willow tall shrubs or small trees, from 5–10 meters in height, form narrow bands or linear stands on saturated soil around permanent water bodies including the Rio Grande, canals, drainage ditches, and ponds (see Figure 5-5). Representative stands were sampled in Sections O-3, O-8, O-13, O-14, and O-20. Black willow typically provides from 10–60 percent cover in the canopy or tall shrub layer along with low to moderate cover, less than 10 percent by granjeno, honey mesquite, and retama. The herbaceous layer provides moderate to high cover, from 15-95 percent cover, ranges from 1–10 meters tall, and includes giant reed, switchgrass, narrowleaf cattail, smartweed, and buffelgrass. 16 Giant Reed Herbaceous Vegetation 17 18 19 20 21 Giant reed or Carrizo forms 5–10 meters tall, linear, dense stands (from 40–95 percent cover) on saturated soils of ditch and canal banks, standing water in ditches, and other sites with near-to-surface ground water. Some stands have apparently become established as a result of irrigation runoff draining from sugar cane and other irrigated agricultural fields. The banks of the Rio Grande support November 2007 14 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 2 3 4 5 dense stands that exceed 8 meters in height (see Figure 5-6). Switchgrass is a common associate in giant reed stands providing from 15–50 percent cover and black willow trees to 10 meters tall provided approximately 25 percent cover in one stand. Representative data were recorded from stands that occur in Sections O-2, O-9, and O-14. 6 Figure 5-5. Representative Photographs of Black Willow Habitat 7 Figure 5-6. Representative Photographs of Giant Reed Habitat November 2007 15 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 Common Reed Herbaceous Vegetation 2 3 4 5 6 Common reed was rarely observed within the project region, persisting as narrow strips along canal banks that rarely exceed 25 square meters (m2) in area covered (see Figure 5-7). Larger stands were observed outside the project corridor, as proposed, and along the banks of the Rio Grande and its associated oxbows. 7 Figure 5-7. Representative Photographs of Common Reed Habitat 8 9 5.1.2 Tamaulipan Palm Grove Riparian Forest Ecological System (CES301.991) 10 Sabal Palm Forest and Woodland 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Sabal palms are distributed predominantly in Section O-21 as scattered individuals, small groups or linear clumps, and patches and stands where they persist as seedlings, tall shrubs and as trees up to 20 meters tall (see Figure 5-8). Only a few sabal palm trees were observed in other proposed project sections. The USFWS has established the Boscaje de la Palma tract in the southernmost bend of the Rio Grande near Brownsville to preserve sabal palm forest and woodland habitat (USFWS 1988). The sabal palm was common enough in this region, extending to near the Gulf of Mexico at the time of Spanish exploration, that the Rio Grande was first named the Rio de las Palmas. In sampled stands the sabal palm ranged from 4–10 meters tall and provided from 15–30 percent cover. Low cover, less than 10 percent, was also provided by honey mesquite, tepehuaje, anacua, and Texas ebony trees and tall shrubs. In the herbaceous layer, the liana ivy treebine or hierba del buey provides up to 50 percent cover and switchgrass, up to 2 meters tall, provides from 20–55 percent cover. November 2007 16 Draft Biological Survey Report 1 2 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Figure 5-8. Representative Photographs of Sabal Palm Forest and Woodland Habitat 3 4 5.1.3 Tamaulipan Mesquite Upland Scrub Ecological System (CES301.984) 5 Granjeno Woodland and Shrubland 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Granjeno or spiny hackberry forms stands of moderate-stature trees to 15 meters tall or is a dominant understory component in the subcanopy or tall shrub layers, ranging from 3–5 meters tall. Representative stands were sampled in proposed Sections O-5, O-10, and O-17 where granjeno cover ranged from 30–75 percent (see Figure 5-9). Associated canopy trees provide low cover, up to 20 percent, and include honey mesquite, huisache, and retama. The herbaceous layer provides low to dense cover, from 5–50 percent, and includes the 2–8 meters tall switchgrass, giant reed, and Johnsongrass. 14 Figure 5-9. Representative Photographs of Granjeno Habitat November 2007 17 Draft Biological Survey Report 1 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Honey Mesquite Woodland 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Honey mesquite woodlands with small trees from 5–10 meters tall were sampled in Sections O-1, O-2, O-3, O-4, O-8, O-10, and O-18. In the canopy layer, honey mesquite cover ranged from 15–55 percent (see Figure 5-10). Associated canopy tree species, when present, included snake eyes, granjeno, retama, huisache, and Texas ebony that provided low to moderately dense cover, from 5–40 percent. The tall and short shrub layers provided low cover, up to 15 percent, and included snake eyes, Texas prickly pear, blackbrush, cenizo, kidney wood, mule’s fat, junco, goatbrush, granjeno, tasajillo, and honey mesquite saplings. The herbaceous layer contributes low to high cover, from 5–90 percent, and is dominated by buffelgrass and switchgrass. Revegetation efforts at Los Ebanos National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) were represented by this type following 5 to 6 years of growth. 14 15 Figure 5-10. Representative Photographs of Honey Mesquite Woodland Habitat 16 17 5.1.4 Tamaulipan Mixed Deciduous Thornscrub Ecological System (CES301.983) 18 Huisache Woodland 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Huisache typically occurs in the canopy, subcanopy, or as tall shrubs as a component of other plant communities (see Figure 5-11). However, two shortstature huisache woodland stands were observed in Section O-21 that could not be sampled due to lack of rights of entry. Huisache trees in the observed stands were of uniform height (approximately 4–5 meters tall) and were moderately dense providing approximately 30–45 percent cover. The understory was dominated by moderately dense stands of the nonnative buffelgrass. November 2007 18 Draft Biological Survey Report 1 2 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Figure 5-11. Representative Photograph of Huisache Woodland Habitat Honey Mesquite Shrubland 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Honey mesquite is distributed throughout the approximately 70-mile study corridor and occurs as tall shrubs becoming recently reestablished in nonnative grasslands, short woodlands where reestablishment in nonnative grasslands has occurred over several years, and as tall forests of mature trees at the edge of the Rio Grande floodplain. Honey mesquite tall shrubs sampled in Section O-1 range from 2–5 meters in height and typically provide from 5–25 percent cover (see Figure 5-12). Associated tall and short shrubs include Texas prickly pear, tasajillo, blackbrush, cenizo, Spanish dagger, and brasil, which together provide up to 10 percent cover. The herbaceous layer is typically dominated by buffelgrass, which provides up to 60 percent cover. 13 5.1.5 Tamaulipan Arroyo Shrubland Ecological System (CES301.992) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Several arroyos or deep drainages that are intermittently flooded occur primarily within Sections O-1 and O-2 (see Figure 5-13). Construction is not proposed within deep arroyos therefore they were not rigorously sampled. On inspection they support a mixture of tree and shrub species that consists of honey locust, huisache, and granjeno in the tree and tall shrub layers. The tall and short shrub layers are typified by blackbrush or chaparro, Texas prickly pear, brasil, tasajillo, cenizo, lotebush, and junco. November 2007 19 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Figure 5-12. Representative Photographs of Honey Mesquite Shrubland Habitat 1 2 November 2007 20 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 Figure 5-13. Representative Photograph of Arroyos in Section O-1 and O-2 2 3 5.1.6 Tamaulipan Calcareous Thornscrub Ecological System (CES301.986) 4 Cenizo – Blackbrush Shrubland 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 The western portion of Section O-1 traverses a short distance of gravel-covered ridges and hill slopes that support this species rich, predominantly shrub and succulent community. The gravel is small, to 10 centimeters in diameter, is glazed with desert varnish, and provides nearly 100 percent armoring of the soil surface. Additional soil armoring is provided by clam shells in some locations and a few bedrock outcrops occur immediately south of Section O-1. One stand of cenizo – blackbrush shrubland approximately 200 meters long is at the terminus of Section O-1 and has been recently root-plowed, leaving less than 20 percent cover by native shrub species while resulting in approximately 50–70 percent cover by the nonnative buffelgrass (see Figure 5-14). The short and tall shrub layers provide from 20–30 percent cover in this community and are characterized by cenizo, blackbrush, honey mesquite, Texas prickly pear, tasajillo, kidney wood, coyotillo, junco, and Spanish dagger. The herbaceous layer contributes sparse cover, less than 5 percent cover, in this vegetation type. November 2007 21 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 2 3 4 Figure 5-14. Representative Photographs of Cenizo – Blackbrush Habitat (Lower two photos represent area that has been root-plowed - fenceline contrast and buffelgrass invasion) 5 6 5.1.7 Tamaulipan Savanna Grassland Ecological System (CES301.985) 7 Retama Shrubland 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Retama has reinvaded nonnative grassland habitat to form shrublands and shortstature woodlands with low to dense cover, from 10–40 percent cover as recorded for Sections O-6, O-13, and O-18 (see Figure 5-15). Granjeno tall shrubs provided 10 percent cover in one stand and mule’s fat provided 5 percent cover in another. The herbaceous layer is usually monotypic and can be dominated by buffelgrass, windmill grass, or switchgrass, which provide low to dense cover from 15–100 percent. 15 Tepeguahe Woodland 16 17 18 A single stand of tepeguahe woodland from 10–15 meters tall was documented in Section O-18 (see Figure 5-16). Tepeguahe trees on the flat plain beyond the fenceline provided approximately 80 percent cover with low cover, less than 10 November 2007 22 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 2 3 4 percent, provided by retama and huisache in the canopy layer. Near the adjacent levee, toeslope tepeguahe trees provided 30 percent cover, while the herbaceous layer was dominated by 1–2 meters tall switchgrass, which provided approximately 60 percent cover. 5 Figure 5-15. Representative Photographs of Retama Habitat 6 Figure 5-16. Representative Photograph of Tepeguahe Habitat November 2007 23 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 2 5.1.8 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh Ecological System (CES300.729) 3 Alkali Sacaton Herbaceous Vegetation 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Two relatively large stands of alkali sacaton were observed and a representative stand sampled in Section O-4 (see Figure 5-17). Although the hydrology supporting this herbaceous wetland type is unknown, the stands occupy shallow depressions that likely capture runoff from the surrounding landscape during precipitation events. The stands are nearly monotypic with 0.5–1 meters tall alkali sacaton bunchgrass providing up to 75 percent cover and Bermuda grass, a nonnative, providing sparse cover, less than 5 percent. 11 Figure 5-17. Representative Photograph of Alkali Sacaton Habitat 12 Narrowleaf Cattail 13 14 15 16 17 18 Patches and small linear stands of narrowleaf cattail occur along perennial water bodies, particularly on pond shorelines, where the soils are saturated most of the year or where shallow water to 1-meter deep persists (see Figure 5-18). Where established, as in proposed Section O-8, narrowleaf cattail stands are monotypic, range from 2-4 meters tall, form bands approximately 10 meters wide, and provide from 60–90 percent cover. November 2007 24 Draft Biological Survey Report 1 2 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Figure 5-18. Representative Photograph of Broadleaf Cattail Habitat Smartweed Herbaceous Vegetation 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Smartweed is rare within the proposed corridor and dominates the bottom of one canal or large irrigation ditch within Section O-14 (see Figure 5-19). The stand is narrow and linear, up to 5 meters wide and smartweed forbs provide approximately 20 percent cover. The canal bottom is saturated with occasional pools of standing water. Adjacent banks support 1–3 meters tall Johnsongrass and switchgrass, primarily. In some locations along the canal or irrigation ditch, an overstory canopy of black willow provides up to 60 percent cover, which is described more fully under the black willow discussion. 11 Figure 5-19. Representative Photograph of Smartweed Habitat 12 Duckweed Herbaceous Vegetation 13 14 15 16 One small pond in Section O-9 supported approximately 90 percent cover by the floating aquatic plant species duckweed (see Figure 5-20). This pond also supported a band of narrowleaf cattail on saturated soil around its margin in addition to black willow tall shrubs. November 2007 25 Draft Biological Survey Report 1 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Figure 5-20. Representative Photograph of Duckweed Habitat 2 3 5.1.9 Non-Native Woodland, Shrubland and Herbaceous Vegetation Alliances and Associations 4 Athel Tamarisk Woodland 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A small stand of six very large and old Athel tamarisk trees occurs within Section O-2, amid a broader honey mesquite forest and woodland stand (see Figure 5-21). These trees are approximately 20 meters tall, are multiple branched from low on the trunk, and have very large basal diameters. A few scattered, large Athel tamarisk trees occur elsewhere in this stand and several were observed on the banks of the Rio Grande associated with other proposed sections. This vegetation type occurs within the Tamaulipan Floodplain ecological system of NatureServe (2007). 13 Figure 5-21. Representative Photograph of Athel Tamarisk Stand 14 November 2007 26 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 Chinaberry Woodland 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 One stand of Chinaberry, a non-native ornamental tall shrub or small tree, was documented in Section O-16 (see Figure 5-22). In this stand, Chinaberry canopy trees ranged from 6–8 meters tall and provided approximately 60 percent cover along with low cover by the canopy trees honey mesquite (5 percent cover), huisache (5 percent), and retama (15 percent). Buffelgrass and switchgrass provide moderate to high herbaceous cover for this stand, 50 percent and 5 percent cover respectively. 9 Figure 5-22. Representative Photograph of Chinaberry Habitat 10 Castor Bean / Buffelgrass Shrubland 11 12 13 14 One abandoned homestead in Section O-9 supported a tall shrubland, up to 5 meters tall, of castor bean, honey mesquite, and mule’s fat, which together provide 22 percent cover (see Figure 5-23). The commonly–occurring, nonnative buffelgrass contributed 20 percent cover within this stand. November 2007 27 Draft Biological Survey Report 1 2 3 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Figure 5-23. Representative Photograph of Castor Bean / Buffelgrass Habitat Buffelgrass Semi-Natural Herbaceous Vegetation\ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Buffelgrass, a nonnative forage and erosion–control grass introduced from Africa, is the most common vegetation type and ground cover in the project region (see Figure 5-24). Buffelgrass ranges from 0.5–1.5 meters tall and provides from 25– 100 percent cover on levee banks, canal banks, toe slopes, flats, old fields, and pastures to the exclusion of other species. Where native shrubs and trees have been introduced or have otherwise become established, buffelgrass dominates the understory often providing 90–100 percent cover. In some herbaceous stands within the project region, bufflegrass shares dominance with switchgrass, Johnsongrass, and windmill grass forming mixed stands or a type of ecotone. This vegetation type occurs within all the Tamaulipan ecological systems described by NatureServe for this region (2007). 15 Figure 5-24. Representative Photographs of Buffelgrass Habitat November 2007 28 Draft Biological Survey Report 1 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Switchgrass Herbaceous Vegetation 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Switchgrass is common throughout the project corridor on sites that are more mesic (see Figure 5-25). Switchgrass is a native bunchgrass likely introduced to the project region for livestock forage and erosion control. Switchgrass ranges from 1–2 meters tall and provides from 40–95 percent cover on levee banks, canal banks, toe slopes, flats, and pastures sometimes to the exclusion of other species. Where native shrubs and trees have been introduced (as on NWRs) or have otherwise become established, switchgrass can dominate the understory providing 25–75 percent cover. In some herbaceous stands within the project region, switchgrass shares dominance with buffelgrass, primarily forming mixed stands or a type of ecotone. This vegetation type occurs within all the Tamaulipan ecological systems described by NatureServe (2007) for this region. 13 Figure 5-25. Representative Photographs of Switchgrass Habitat 14 Silver Bluestem – Buffelgrass Herbaceous Vegetation 15 16 17 18 A large patch of silver bluestem and bufflegrass was sampled on the level embankment within Section O-5 (see Figure 5-26). Silver bluestem provided 50 percent cover and buffelgrass provided 15 percent cover. A few shrubs of Acacia sp. provide low cover, up to 4 percent. November 2007 29 Draft Biological Survey Report Figure 5-26. Representative Photograph of Silver Bluestem – Buffelgrass Habitat 1 2 3 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Johnsongrass Semi-Natural Herbaceous Vegetation 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Johnsongrass is grown as a pasture grass and to produce cured grass hay for livestock forage. Individual plants and small patches are scattered within most of the proposed sections and a few larger stands were observed, possibly as remnant stands from past farming efforts. Nearly monotypic stands occur in Sections O-11, O-13, and O-14 with Johnsongrass, up to 2 meters tall, providing 80–90 percent cover (see Figure 5-27). In one stand, switchgrass provides up to 5 meters cover and a few castor bean shrubs provide approximately 2 meters cover. These large stands are irrigated during the growing season or receive sufficient runoff following precipitation events to survive. 13 Bermuda Grass Semi-Natural Herbaceous Vegetation 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Small patches and larger stands of Bermuda grass have become established on levee banks, in ditches adjacent to canal banks, and in agricultural fields that have been allowed to go fallow for more than one–year (see Figure 5-28). Typical stands of this nonnative rhizomatous grass were sampled along proposed Sections O-8 and O-15 where Bermuda grass ranged in cover from 15–45 percent. Along O-15, heavy and apparently continual grazing by cattle drives the dominance of Bermuda grass. Associated herbaceous species that individually provide 10 percent cover or less include buffelgrass, switchgrass, windmill grass, sandbur, and morning-glory. In one stand the tall shrub huisache provided 5 percent cover. November 2007 30 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 Figure 5-27. Representative Photograph of Johnsongrass Habitat 2 Figure 5-28. Representative Photographs of Bermuda Grass Habitat 3 Windmill Grass Herbaceous Vegetation 4 5 6 7 8 9 Representative patches and stands of windmill grass were sampled in Sections O-12, O-13, O-19, and O-20 (see Figure 5-29). In some places windmill grass has become the dominant grass forming nearly pure stands on levee banks, however extensive, monotypic stands occupy fields that were historically cultivated. Windmill grass is dense and typically provides 90-95 percent cover. Associated tall shrubs, from 2-5 meters tall, include mule’s fat, huisache, and November 2007 31 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 2 retama that together provide from 1-25 percent cover in windmill grass stands and result in a shrub herbaceous classification. 3 4 Figure 5-29. Representative Photographs of Windmill Grass Herbaceous Vegetation 5 Mediterranean Lovegrass – Rough Pigweed Semi-Natural Herbaceous Vegetation 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A fallow agricultural field in Section O-2 supported a large stand of Mediterranean lovegrass and the tall, coarse forb, rough pigweed (see Figure 5-30). The nonnative grasses Mediterranean lovegrass and Bermuda grass provided approximately 45 percent and 8 percent cover, respectively, and the forbs rough pigweed and annual sunflower provided approximately 15 percent and 2 percent cover, respectively. This vegetation type would be removed by plowing or tilling if the field is prepared for planting at a future date. 13 14 Figure 5-30. Representative Photograph of Lovegrass – Rough Pigweed Habitat 15 Quelite Cenizo – Buffelgrass Semi-Natural Herbaceous Vegetation 16 17 One large patch of quelite cenizo forbs has become established within a buffelgrass matrix on the embankment between the levee road and the adjacent November 2007 32 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 2 3 4 5 6 paved highway of Section O-4 near Penitas. Quelite cenizo, providing up to 65 percent cover, dominates a short reach of this section and extends from the levee road to the pavement edge (see Figure 5-31). This stand occupies approximately 1 acre, supports the nonnative grasses buffelgrass (10 percent cover) and Johnsongrass (2 percent cover), and includes a few shrubs of honey mesquite that provide sparse cover, up to 5 percent. 7 8 Figure 5-31. Representative Photograph of Quelite Cenizo - Buffelgrass Habitat 9 10 11 12 5.2 Plant Species Identified A complete plant list of all species identified during the field surveys, including its wetland status and the fence section in which it was identified is provided in Table 5-1. 13 November 2007 33 November 2007 --------- ----- Abutilon fruticosum / Pelotazo Abutilon trisulcatum / Amantillo Acacia farnesiana / Huisache Acacia rigidula / Chaparro Prieto Acacia schaffneri / Huisachillo, Twisted Acacia Acacia wrightii / Catclaw X ----------- Agave americana / Century Plant Allionia incarnata / Trailing Allionia Aloysia gratissima / Whitebrush Aloysia macrostachya / Sweet Stem Amaranthus sp. / Amaranth X X X X X X X X O-1 Acleisanthes obtusa / Berlandier Trumpets Acalypha monostachya / Round Copperleaf --- Wetland Indictor Status Abutilon abutiloides / Berlandier Abutilon Scientific Name / Common Name O-2 X X X X X O-3 X X O-4 X X X O-5 X X O-6 X X X O-7 X X X O-8 X X X O-9 X X X O-10 X X X X O-11 X X O-12 X X X O-13 X X X X O-14 X X O-15 X X X X O-16 Table 5-1. Complete Plant List of all Species Identified O-17 X X O-18 X O-21 X 6 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 19 14 3 1 Total # of fence sections in which species occurs Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 34 O-20 O-19 November 2007 --FACU- Ambrosia sp. / Ragweed Ambrosia psilostachya / Western Ragweed FAC FACW Baccharis salicifolia / Jara, Mule’s Fat FACW- Aster spinosus (Leucosyris spinosa) / Mexican Devilweed Baccharis neglecta / Jara Dulce, Roosevelt Weed FAC+ Arundo donax / Giant Reed, Carrizo --- --- Aristida adscencionis / Sixweeks Threeawn Atriplex matamorensis / Quelite Cenizo, Matamoros Saltbush --- Antigonon leptopus / Queen’s Wreath OBL --- Anredera vesicaria / Maderia Vine Aster subulatus / Prairie Aster --- Anisocactus sheeri / Fishhook Cactus FAC FACU- Amaranthus retroflexus / Rough Pigweed Ampelopsis arborea / Peppervine FACU Amaranthus palmeri / Palmer Pigweed Scientific Name / Common Name Wetland Indictor Status O-1 X X X X X O-2 X X X X X O-3 X X X O-4 X O-5 X X O-7 X O-8 X O-9 X X X X O-10 X X X X O-11 X X X O-12 X O-13 X X X X X O-14 X X X O-15 X O-16 X O-17 X O-20 X O-21 X 5 6 1 1 5 9 1 1 1 7 2 1 1 2 Total # of fence sections in which species occurs Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 35 O-19 O-18 O-6 November 2007 --------FAC UPL --- Castela erecta / Amargosa, Goatbush Castela texana / Amargosa Celosia nitida / Albahaca Celtis laevigata / Palo blanco, Texas Sugarberry Celtis laevigata var. reticulata / Palo Blanco, Netleaf Hackberry Celtis pallida / Granjeno, Spiny Hackberry --- Bothriochloa laguroides / Silver Bluestem Cardiospermum dissectum / Balloon Vine --- Boerhaavia sp. / Boerhaavia --- --- Billieturnera helleri / Copper Sida Capsicum annuum / Chilipiquin --- Bastardia viscosa / Mexican Bastardia FAC --- Bahia absinthifolia / Hairy Seed Bahia Calyptocarpus vialis / Straggler Daisy --- Baccharis texana / Baccharis Scientific Name / Common Name Wetland Indictor Status O-1 X X X X X X X X X X X O-2 X X X X X O-3 X X X O-4 X X X O-5 X X X X O-6 X X X O-7 X X O-8 X X O-9 X X O-10 X X O-11 X X O-12 X X X O-13 X X X O-14 X X X O-15 X O-16 X X X O-17 X X X O-18 X X X O-21 X X X X 19 8 18 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 Total # of fence sections in which species occurs Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 36 O-20 O-19 November 2007 --------------- FACU- Cestrum sp. / Jessamine Cevallia sinuata / Stinging Stickleaf Chamaesyce sp. / Mat Spurge Chenopodium berlandieri / Goosefoot Chloris cucullata / Hooded Windmill grass Chloris sp. / Windmill Grass Chromoleana odorata / Crucita Cissus incisa (Cissus trifoliata) / Hierba del Buey, Ivy Treebine, Possum Grape --- --- Cercidium texanum / Paloverde Citharexylum brachyantherum / Mission Fiddlewood --- Cenchrus spinifex / Common Sandbur --- --- Cenchrus insertus / Sandbur Citharexylum berlandieri / Berlandier’s Fiddlewood --- Cenchrus ciliaris / Buffelgrass Scientific Name / Common Name Wetland Indictor Status O-1 X X X X X X X X X O-2 X X X X O-5 X X O-7 X O-8 X X O-10 X O-11 X X O-12 X O-13 X X O-14 X X X X O-15 X X O-16 X X O-17 X X O-18 X O-20 X O-21 X X 1 1 13 1 2 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 6 2 Total # of fence sections in which species occurs Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 37 O-19 O-9 O-6 O-4 O-3 --- ----------UPL ----------------- Clematis drummondii / Barbas de Chivato, Old Man’s Beard Cocculus diversifolius / Snail Vine Colubrina texensis / Hog Plum Commelina erecta / Day Flower Condalia hookeri / Brasil, Bluewood Condalia Convolvulus equitans / Texas Bindweed Conyza canadensis / Horse Weed Cordia boisseri / Anacahuita, Mexican Olive Coryphantha macromeris / Dumpling Cactus Coryphantha robertii / Runyon’s Escobaria Croton incanus / Vara Blanca Croton leucophyllus / Twocolor Croton Croton lindheimerianus / Three-seed Croton Croton sp. / Croton Cynanchum barbigerum / Milkweed Vine Scientific Name / Common Name Wetland Indictor Status O-1 November 2007 X X X X X X X X X X X X O-2 X X X X X X X O-3 X X X X O-4 X X X X O-5 X O-6 X X O-8 X X X O-9 X O-10 X X X O-11 X O-13 X O-14 X O-15 X O-17 X O-18 X X O-20 X O-21 X X 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 7 3 1 3 14 Total # of fence sections in which species occurs Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 38 O-19 O-16 O-12 O-7 November 2007 --------------- --- --- --- ------- Dactyloctenium aegyptium / Durban Crowfootgrass Dalea pogonathera / Bearded Dalea Datura inoxia / Indian Apple Desmanthus obtusus / Bluntpod Bundleflower Diospyros texana / Texas Persimmon Ditaxis humilis / Low Wild Mercury Dyssodia tenuiloba / Tiny Tim Dogweed Echinocactus texensis / Manca Caballo, Horse Crippler Echinocereus berlandieri / Berlandier’s Alicoche Echinocereus enneacanthus / Pitaya, Strawberry Cactus Echinocereus rechinbachii / Rainbow Cactus Ehretia anacua / Anacua Ephedra antisyphilitica / Clapweed Cynodon dactylon / Pato de Gallo, Bermuda Grass --- FACU+ Scientific Name / Common Name Cyperus tenuis / Flat Sedge Wetland Indictor Status O-1 X X X X X X X X X X X O-2 X O-3 X X X X X O-4 X X O-5 X X O-6 X O-7 X O-8 X X X O-9 X X O-10 X O-11 X X O-12 X X O-13 X O-14 X X O-15 X O-16 X X O-17 X X O-18 X O-21 X 1 14 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 Total # of fence sections in which species occurs Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 39 O-20 O-19 Wetland Indictor Status ----- --- --------- --- --- ----FAC ----- Scientific Name / Common Name Eragrostis barrelieri / Mediterranean Lovegrass Erioneuron pilosum / Hairy tridens Eupatorium odoratum (Chromoleana odorata) / Crucita, Christmas Bush Euphorbia albomarginata / Whitemargin Euphorbia Euphorbia laredana / Laredo Euphorbia Euphorbia serpens / Hierba de la Golondrina Evolvulus alsinoides / Ojo de Vibora Eysenhardtia texana / Vara Dulce, Texas Kidneywood Ferocactus setispinus / Rio Grande Valley Barrel Cactus Florestina tripteris / Sticky Palafoxia Forestiera angustifolia / Elbow Bush Fraxinus berlandieriana / Mexican Ash Guajacum angustifolium / Guayacan, Soap-bush, Ironwood Gaura sp. / Gaura O-1 November 2007 X X X X X X X X X X O-2 X X X X X O-3 X X O-4 X O-8 X O-10 X O-11 X X O-13 X X O-14 X X O-15 X O-16 X 1 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 6 Total # of fence sections in which species occurs Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 40 O-21 O-20 O-19 O-18 O-17 O-12 O-9 O-7 O-6 O-5 November 2007 ----------- Heliotropium confertifolium / Crowded Heliotrope Herrissantia crispa / Netveined Herissantia Heterotheca subaxillaris / Camphor Weed Hibiscus maritanus / Tulipan del Monte Ibervillea lindheimerii / Globe Berry ----- --- Ipomoea carnea / Tree Morning Glory Ipomoea rupicola / Cliff Morning Glory Ipomoea sinuata (Merremia sinuata) / Alamo Vine FACW- UPL Heliotropium angiospermum / Heliotrope Ipomoea amnicola / Morning Glory FAC Helianthus annuus / Annual Sunflower --- Havardia pallens / Tenaza FACW+ --- Gutierrezia texana var. glutinosa / Broomweed Heimia salicifolia / Hachinal NI Gaura parviflora / Lizard Tail Scientific Name / Common Name Wetland Indictor Status O-1 X X X X X X X X X O-2 X X X X X X O-3 X O-4 X O-5 X O-6 X O-7 X O-8 X X O-10 X X X X O-11 X O-13 X O-14 X X X O-15 X O-16 X O-17 X X X O-18 X X O-19 X O-20 X X X X O-21 X X 10 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 8 9 2 2 1 1 Total # of fence sections in which species occurs Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 41 O-12 O-9 FAC ------------------FACU --FACU ----FACW- Ipomoea trichocarpa / Sharppod Morning Glory Isocoma coronopifolia / Common Goldenweed Jatropha dioica / Leather Stem Jefea brevifolia / Shorthorn Zexmenia Justicia pilosella / Hairy Tubetongue Kallstroemia californica / Texas Tack Karwinskia humboldtiana / Coyotillo Koeberlinia spinosa / Junco, Allthorn Krameria ramosissima / Calderona Lantana achyranthifolia / Desert Lantana Lantana camara / Lantana Lantana urticoides / Texas Lantana Leucaena leucocephala / Poponac Leucaena pulverulenta / Tepeguaje, Lead Tree Leucophyllum frutescens / Cenizo, Purple Sage Leucosyris spinosa / Spiny Aster Scientific Name / Common Name Wetland Indictor Status O-1 November 2007 X X X X X X X X X X O-2 X X X X X X O-3 X X X X O-4 X O-5 X O-6 X O-7 X O-8 X O-9 X O-11 X X O-13 X X O-14 X X X O-17 X O-18 X X O-20 X 2 3 12 1 3 3 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total # of fence sections in which species occurs Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 42 O-21 O-19 O-16 O-15 O-12 O-10 November 2007 --- --- ----- Malvastrum coromandelianum / Threelobed False Mallow Malvaviscus arboreus var. drummondii / Turk’s Cap Mammillaria heyderi / Bizniga de Chilitos, Nipple Cactus, Little Chilis Manfreda sileri / Manfreda --- FACW+ Mentzelia lindheimeri / Linheimer Mentzelia Mikania scandens / Climbing Hempweed --- Melia azedarach / Paraiso, Chinaberry-tree FAC- --- Melampodium cinereum / Blackfoot Daisy Melochia pyramidata / Pyramid Flower --- Maurandya antirrhiniflora / Snapdragon Vine OBL --- Malvastrum americanum / Malva Loca Marsilea macropoda / Water-clover --- Lycium berlandieri / Wolfberry Lippia alba / Brushy Lippia --- FAC* Scientific Name / Common Name Lippia graveolens / Mexican Oregano Wetland Indictor Status O-1 X X X X X X X O-2 X X X O-3 X X O-4 X O-6 X O-7 X X O-8 X X O-9 X X O-10 X X O-11 X X X O-12 X X O-13 X X X O-14 X X O-15 X O-16 X X O-17 X X O-18 X 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 3 2 12 1 1 1 1 Total # of fence sections in which species occurs Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 43 O-21 O-20 O-19 O-5 November 2007 --- ----------- Opuntia leptocaulis / Tasajillo, Christmas Cactus Opuntia schottii / Clavellina, Dog Cholla Oxalis dichondrifolia / Agrito Oxalis drummondii / Wood Sorrel Palafoxia texana / Texas Palafoxia Palafoxia texana var. ambigua / Palafoxia FAC Nicotiana glauca / Tree Tobacco --- FACU* Morus alba / Mulberry Opuntia engelmannii / Nopal, Texas Prickly Pear --- Mirabilis jalapa / Fouro’clock --- --- Mimosa texana / Texas Mimosa Nyctaginia capitata / Nyctaginia --- FAC --- Mimosa stringillosa / Powderpuff Mimosa pigra var. berlandieri / Zarza Mimosa malacophylla / Raspilla Scientific Name / Common Name Wetland Indictor Status O-1 X X X X X X X X X X X O-2 X X X X X X O-3 X X X O-4 X X X O-5 X X O-6 X O-7 X O-8 X O-9 X O-10 X O-11 X O-13 X O-14 X X O-15 X X X O-17 X O-20 X O-21 X 3 2 2 1 3 4 13 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 Total # of fence sections in which species occurs Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 44 O-19 O-18 O-16 O-12 November 2007 --- --NI --- ----FACW FACW ----- --- Parkinsonia texana / Paloverde, Texas Paloverde Parthenium confertum / False Ragweed Passiflora foetida / Passion Flower Pennisetum ciliare (Cenchrus ciliaris) / Buffelgrass Phaulothamnus spinesecens / Snake Eyes Phoradendron tomentosum / Mistletoe Phragmites australis / Common Reed Phyla nodiflora / Frog Fruit Phyllanthus polygonoides / Knotweed Physalis cinerascens / Ground Cherry Pithecellobium ebano (Chloroleucon ebano, Ebanopsis ebano) / Ebano, Texas Ebony FACU FACW- Parkinsonia aculeata / Retama Polanisia dodecandra ssp. riograndensis / Clammyweed --- Panicum virginatum / Switchgrass Scientific Name / Common Name Wetland Indictor Status O-1 X X X X X X X X X X O-2 X X X X X X X X O-3 X X X X X X O-4 X X X X X O-5 X X X O-6 X X X X O-7 X X X X X O-8 X X X X X O-9 X X X X O-10 X X X X X O-11 X X X O-12 X X X X X O-13 X X X X X O-14 X X X X X X O-15 X X X X O-16 X X X X X O-17 X X X X X O-18 X X O-20 X X X O-21 X X 2 13 7 1 1 0 3 2 16 2 15 2 16 15 Total # of fence sections in which species occurs Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 45 O-19 November 2007 ------- FACW+ FACU Ruellia spp. / Ruellia Sabal sp. / Palmetto Sabal mexicana / Mexican Palmetto, Sabal Palm Salix nigra / Sauz, Black Willow Salsola australis / Russian-thistle --- FAC Rubus trivialis / Dewberry Ruellia runyonii / Wild Petunia --- FACU Rivina humilis / Coralito, Pigeonberry Ricinus communis / Castor Bean --- Rhynchosia minima / Least Snoutbean FAC+ Prosopis reptans / Tornillo, Screw-bean Mesquite --- --- Prosopis glandulosa / Mesquite, Honey Mesquite Ratibida columnaris / Mexican Hat --- FAC FACW- --- Portulaca pilosa / Chisme Populus deltoides / Eastern Cottonwood Polygonum pensylvanicum / Smartweed Polygala glandulosa / Glandular Milkwort Scientific Name / Common Name Wetland Indictor Status O-1 X X X X X X X X X O-2 X X X O-3 X X X O-5 X O-6 X X O-7 X X O-8 X X X X X X O-9 X X X O-10 X X X O-11 X X X X O-12 X O-13 X X X X X O-14 X X X X X O-15 X X O-16 X X O-17 X X X O-18 X X O-20 X O-21 X X X X 7 8 1 1 1 1 1 2 12 2 1 1 17 1 1 3 1 Total # of fence sections in which species occurs Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 46 O-19 O-4 --------------------UPL --- --- --FACU+ Sanvitalia ocymoides / Sanvitalia Sarcostema cynanchoides / Climbing Milkweed Schaefferia cunefolia / Desert Yaupon Schinus terebinthinus / Brazilian Pepper Senna bauhinoides / Twoleaved Senna Serjania brachycarpa / Serjania Setaria ramisetum / Bristlegrass Setaria scheelei / Southwest Bristlegrass Setaria texana / Texas Bristlegrass Sida abutifolia / Spreading Sida Sida spinosa / Prickly Sida Sideroxylon celastrinum / Coma Solanum elaeagnifolium / Trompillo, Silverleaf Nightshade Solanum rostratum / Mala Mujer Solidago canadensis / Tall Goldenrod Scientific Name / Common Name Wetland Indictor Status O-1 November 2007 X X X X X X X O-2 X X X X X O-3 X X O-4 X X O-5 X O-6 X X O-7 X X O-8 X X X O-9 X X O-10 X X O-11 X X O-12 X X O-13 X X O-14 X X X O-15 X O-16 X X X O-17 X O-18 X O-19 X O-20 X O-21 X 1 1 14 5 12 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 Total # of fence sections in which species occurs Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 47 November 2007 ------------------- Thamnosma texana / Dutchman’s Breetches Theolocactus bicolor / Glory of Texas Thelocactus setispinus / Fishhook Cactus Thymophylla sp. / Dogweed Tidestromia lanuginosa / Espanta Vaqueros Tiquilia canescens / Oreja de Perro Tribulus terrestris / Goathead Trichloris pluriflora / False Rhodegrass FAC+ Teucrium cubense / Germander Tetraclea coulteri / Stink Weed FACW FACW Suaeda sp. / Suaeda Tamarix aphylla / Athel Tamarisk, Saltcedar FAC Sporobolus pyramidatus / Whorled Dropseed --- FAC Sporobolus airoides / Alkali Sacaton Talinum angustissimum / Flame Flower FACU Sorghum halepense / Johnsongrass Scientific Name / Common Name Wetland Indictor Status O-1 X X X X X X X O-2 X X X X X O-3 X O-4 X X X X O-5 X X O-7 X X O-8 X O-9 X X O-10 X O-11 X O-12 X O-13 X O-14 X O-15 X O-16 X O-17 X 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 12 Total # of fence sections in which species occurs Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 48 O-21 O-20 O-19 O-18 O-6 November 2007 FAC --- --- ----------- Verbesina encelioides / Cowpen Daisy Verbesina microptera / Capitana, Frostweed Viguiera stenoloba var. chihuahuensis / Skeletonleaf Goldeneye Waltheria indica / Hierba del Soldado Wilcoxia poselgeri / Rattail Cactus Yucca treculeana / Palma Pita, Spanish Dagger Zanthoxylum fagara / Colima Ziziphus obtusifolia / Clepe, Lotebush Total # of species per fence section Total # of FACW- to OBL species per section --- Verbena halei / Slender Verbain OBL Typha domingensis / Tule, Narrow-leaf Cattail --- --- Turnera diffusa / Damiana Verbena canescens / Vervain --- Tridens muticus / Slim Tridens Scientific Name / Common Name Wetland Indictor Status O-1 143 4 X X X X X X O-2 79 6 X X X X X O-3 43 3 X X O-4 34 2 X O-5 24 2 O-6 22 1 X O-7 25 3 X O-8 40 4 X X X X O-9 29 3 X X O-10 37 2 X X X O-11 33 1 X X O-12 23 1 X X O-13 40 5 X X O-14 45 4 X X X O-15 23 2 X O-16 27 1 X X O-17 30 1 X X O-18 21 2 X X X O-19 2 0 O-20 15 2 X O-21 23 2 X X 5 8 2 1 13 1 3 5 1 4 1 1 Total # of fence sections in which species occurs Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 49 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 2 5.3 Proposed Fence Section Characteristics and Description of Habitat Quality 3 4 A general description of the habitat quality and the characteristics of each section are provided below. 5 SECTION O-1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 County: Starr Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Thymophylla tephroleuca (Ashy dogweed) (FE, SE) Frankenia johnstonii (Johnston’s frankenia) (FE, SE) Astrophytum asterias (Star Cactus) (FE, SE) Manihot walkerae (Walker’s manioc) (FE, SE) Lesquerella thamnophila (Zapata bladderpod) (FE, SE) Listed Plants Observed: None Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: No If So, Habitat Quality: NA 29 30 31 Ashy dogweed was searched for in Section O-1, but was not found. Ashy dogwood occurs in shallow to deep sand with a dominance of native grasses. The soils of the floodplain sections of Section O-1 are mostly silty clay loams. 32 33 34 35 Johnston’s Frankenia occurs in saline gypsum soils. In Starr County it is often associated with outcrops of fossil oyster shells. Fossil oyster shells outcropped with the sandstone bluffs and in the eroded arroyos of Section O-1 in Roma. Johnston’s Frankenia was searched for in the proposed ROW but not found. 36 37 38 39 40 Star cactus occurs in Starr County on gravel-covered saline soils in association with saladillo (Varilla texana; Asteraceae), Billieturnera helleri (Malvaceae), and with 12 or more species of cacti. In Section O-1, star cactus was searched for in a gravel-covered outcrop. Billieturnera helleri, an indicator of saline soils was found growing with a number of species of cacti. Absent was saladillo. Star Section Habitat Description: This section covers approximately 3.75 miles in the area of the Roma, Texas POE. The western portion of Section O-1 traverses a short distance of gravel-covered ridges and hill slopes that support cenizo – blackbrush shrubland, a species rich, predominantly shrub and succulent community. Several arroyos or deep drainages that are intermittently flooded occur within the Section O-1. Construction is not proposed within deep arroyos therefore they were not rigorously sampled. On inspection they support a mixture of tree and shrub species that consists of honey locust, huisache, and granjeno in the tree and tall shrub layers. The tall and short shrub layers are typified by blackbrush or chaparro, Texas prickly pear, brasil, tasajillo, cenizo, lotebush, and junco. Section O-1 lies within the Upper Valley Flood Forest biotic community and adjacent to the Barretal. November 2007 50 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 2 cactus was not found in the proposed ROW. Zapata bladderpod was not found in the sandstone outcrops in Section O-1. 3 4 5 Walker’s manioc occurs in Starr County in association with caliche in blackbrushcenizo and barretal (Helietta parvifolia) associations. Caliche outcrops were not observed in the proposed ROW visited. 6 SECTION O-2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 County: Starr Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Thymophylla tephroleuca (Ashy dogweed) (FE, SE) Frankenia johnstonii (Johnston’s frankenia) (FE, SE) Astrophytum asterias (Star Cactus) (FE, SE) Manihot walkerae (Walker’s manioc) (FE, SE) Lesquerella thamnophila (Zapata bladderpod) (FE, SE) Listed Plants Observed: None Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: No If So, Habitat Quality: NA 27 28 29 30 31 32 Ashy dogwood occurs in shallow to deep sand with a dominance of native grasses A sandy area supports a woodland of mesquite-prickly pear cactus in this Section, probably a secondary succession from abandoned crop and pastureland. Ashy dogwood was not observed in the proposed ROW. No rare species were observed in this section, and the habitat for the potential occurrence of other rare species was not found. 33 SECTION O-3 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 County: Hildago Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Astrophytum asterias (Star Cactus) (FE, SE) Manihot walkerae (Walker’s manioc) (FE, SE) Ayenia limitaris (Texas ayenia) (FE, SE) Listed Plants Observed: None Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: No If So, Habitat Quality: NA Section Habitat Description: This section covers approximately 8.74 miles near the Rio Grande City, Texas POE. Several arroyos or deep drainages that are intermittently flooded occur within the Section O-2. Construction is not proposed within deep arroyos therefore they were not rigorously sampled. On inspection they support a mixture of tree and shrub species that consists of honey locust, huisache, and granjeno in the tree and tall shrub layers. The tall and short shrub layers are typified by blackbrush or chaparro, Texas prickly pear, brasil, tasajillo, cenizo, lotebush, and junco. Section O-2 lies within the Upper Valley Flood Forest biotic community and adjacent to the Barretal. November 2007 51 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Section Habitat Description: This section consisted of two U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Los Ebanos tracts, an International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) easement, some residential areas surrounded by mesquite-buffelgrass pastures, and a very small (<1 acre) brush tract owned by the Mennonite Brothers Church. According to USFWS staff, both USFWS tracts were previously agricultural fields that had been re-vegetated around 2002-2003. The re-vegetation efforts were, for the most part, not successful, and the tracts consisted of mostly disturbance colonizers such as Roosevelt weed, seep willow, lead tree, and mesquite, with an herbaceous layer dominated by switchgrass and buffelgrass. The IBWC tract was also previously disturbed and contained the same species composition. The Mennonite Brothers Church tract obviously had goats in and out of there for years, but there was an interesting assemblage of brush such as goat-bush, blackbrush, bluewood condalia, coyotillo, allthorn, guayacan, and lotebush, along with seven species of cacti and an abundance of Manfreda. This brush tract was not the best quality brush and no rare or listed plants were observed. This Section occurs within the Upper Valley Flood Forest and Upland Thornscrub biotic communities. 18 SECTION O-4 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 County: Hildago Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Astrophytum asterias (Star Cactus) (FE, SE) Manihot walkerae (Walker’s manioc) (FE, SE) Ayenia limitaris (Texas ayenia) (FE, SE) Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: No If So, Habitat Quality: NA 40 SECTION O-5 41 42 43 County: Hildago Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Astrophytum asterias (Star Cactus) (FE, SE) Section Habitat Description: This Section occurs within the Upper Valley Flood Forest and Upland Thornscrub biotic communities, as well as within the MidValley Riparian Woodland biotic community. This section consisted of a very small (~an acre or less) portion of t he Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s (TPWD) Penitas tracts, many agricultural fields (some plowed and empty, some with sugar cane), other disturbed tracts in various stages of re-growth, and residential areas. The TPWD tract had a woody fenceline consisting mostly of mesquite, with an abundant number of cacti (fishhook, dog cholla, nipple cactus, tasajillo, and prickly pear) that had colonized below at the base of the tree line. Just beyond the fenceline into the TPWD property was a cleared pipeline right-ofway. All remaining areas of the section were either agricultural fields or disturbed sites that did not contain anything biologically significant with respect to rare plants. November 2007 52 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Manihot walkerae (Walker’s manioc) (FE, SE) Ayenia limitaris (Texas ayenia) (FE, SE) Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: Possible (only within the USFWS Granjeno tract) If So, Habitat Quality: Low 16 SECTION O-6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 County: Hildago Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Astrophytum asterias (Star Cactus) (FE, SE) Manihot walkerae (Walker’s manioc) (FE, SE) Ayenia limitaris (Texas ayenia) (FE, SE) Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: No If So, Habitat Quality: NA 30 SECTION O-7 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 County: Hildago Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Astrophytum asterias (Star Cactus) (FE, SE) Manihot walkerae (Walker’s manioc) (FE, SE) Ayenia limitaris (Texas ayenia) (FE, SE) Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: No If So, Habitat Quality: NA Section Habitat Description: This Section is located primarily within the MidValley Riparian Woodland biotic community. This section contained the edge of the USFWS Granjeno tract. Although we did not have permission to access across the property fenceline, the woody species along the boundary consisted of mesquite, hackberry, sugarberry, anaqua, huisache, and lead tree, with Bermuda grass and switchgrass as the dominant herbaceous cover. The remainder of Section 5 consisted of residential areas, some agricultural fields, and some small disturbed tracts. There was no rare plant potential habitat identified. Section Habitat Description: There are no tracts owned by the USFWS or TPWD within Section O-6. Within this section there is a tremendous amount of urban, industrial, and residential areas within the project boundary. There was also a small amount of agricultural fields (mostly fallow), and other highly disturbed parcels. There was no rare plant potential habitat identified. Section Habitat Description: Although this section borders a USFWS tract, the proposed project is to the north of their property and will not directly impact it. This section is entirely agricultural. Some fields are plowed and empty, some fallow, and others have sugar cane and sunflowers. There is no rare plant habitat within this section. November 2007 53 Draft Biological Survey Report 1 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS SECTION O-8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 County: Hildago Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Astrophytum asterias (Star Cactus) (FE, SE) Manihot walkerae (Walker’s manioc) (FE, SE) Ayenia limitaris (Texas ayenia) (FE, SE) Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: No If So, Habitat Quality: NA 25 SECTION O-9 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 County: Hildago Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Astrophytum asterias (Star Cactus) (FE, SE) Manihot walkerae (Walker’s manioc) (FE, SE) Ayenia limitaris (Texas ayenia) (FE, SE) Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: Possible If So, Habitat Quality: Medium 38 SECTION O-10 39 40 41 42 County: Hildago Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Astrophytum asterias (Star Cactus) (FE, SE) Manihot walkerae (Walker’s manioc) (FE, SE) Section Habitat Description: This section is composed primarily of agricultural fields (fallow, sugar cane, sunflowers, and empty plowed areas). There is also one disturbed brushy re-growth area, one tiny boundary of a TPWD tract (Las Palomas), and one USFWS tract (La Coma) that the project traverses. The Las Palomas tract boundary is dense with trees and brush consisting of retama, mesquite, spiny hackberry, lime pricklyash, bluewood condalia, sugarberry, hackberry, anaqua, ebony and chinaberry. The understory created by this dense brush is very dark and is mostly bare ground with a few pigeonberries noted. Where the sun can penetrate, switchgrass is dominant. Targeted rare plants were surveyed for within Las Palomas, but none were identified. The USFWS La Coma tract within the project boundary is yet another disturbed property with little to no rare plant potential. The understory is a dense, high stand of buffelgrass and switchgrass with scattered mesquite, huisache, and retama. There is also spiny hackberry, coma, coyotillo, anaqua, lotebush and prickly pear. Targeted rare plants were surveyed for within La Coma, but none were found. Section Habitat Description: Section O-9 has many agricultural fields (fallow, corn, sugar cane, and plowed bare). There is a small section of residential use near the Resacas, and a huge, deep ravine lined with towering sugarberries just to the south. November 2007 54 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Ayenia limitaris (Texas ayenia) (FE, SE) Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: Possible If So, Habitat Quality: Low 16 SECTION O-11 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 County: Cameron Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Ambrosia cheiranthifolia (South Texas ambrosia) (FE, SE) Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: No If So, Habitat Quality: NA 31 SECTION O-12 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 County: Cameron Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Ambrosia cheiranthifolia (South Texas ambrosia) (FE, SE) Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: No If So, Habitat Quality: NA Section Habitat Description: Section O-10 is primarily agricultural fields (sugar cane, fallow, and plowed empty) with canals and stands of giant reed throughout. There is one USFWS tract that is traversed by the project along this section. (Tract name possibly called Rosario Banco). This tract is a previously disturbed area undergoing re-growth. On the eastern portion of the tract the buffelgrass and switchgrass are so thick and high within, that it almost difficult to walk through. Scattered trees and shrubs on this tract are mesquite, spiny hackberry, retama, sugarberry, chinaberry, lime pricklyash, and bluewood condalia. At the western side of this tract, the woody vegetation becomes more dense and the understory is mostly bare ground. (Note: A Mexican tree frog was spotted on a sugarberry leaf within this tract.) Section Habitat Description: Section O-11 traverses quite a large section of the TPWD Anaqua Wildlife Management Area (WMA). The woody species consist mostly of lead tree, hackberry, sugarberry, huisache, chinaberry, spiny hackberry, anaqua, and lime pricklyash. The understory has many escaped lantanas and turk’s cap, along with many tangled vines such as least snoutbean, dewberry, ivy treebine, and peppervine. There was no suitable habitat for listed plants within this WMA. Listed plants were surveyed for, but were not found. The remainder of this section was fallow agricultural fields. Section Habitat Description: This section contained a large sugar cane field, a large disturbed brush tract with very little diversity (mostly switchgrass and huisache), and the City of Harlingen Canal. The southern portion of the canal was lined with a thin band of tall trees, primarily anaqua, chinaberry, hackberry, sugarberry, ebony, mesquite, huisache and retama. November 2007 55 Draft Biological Survey Report 1 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS SECTION O-13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 County: Cameron Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Ambrosia cheiranthifolia (South Texas ambrosia) (FE, SE) Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: No If So, Habitat Quality: NA 12 SECTION O-14 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 County: Cameron Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Ambrosia cheiranthifolia (South Texas ambrosia) (FE, SE) Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: No If So, Habitat Quality: NA 22 SECTION O-15 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 County: Cameron Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Ambrosia cheiranthifolia (South Texas ambrosia) (FE, SE) Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: No If So, Habitat Quality: NA 32 SECTION O-16 33 34 35 36 37 38 County: Cameron Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Ambrosia cheiranthifolia (South Texas ambrosia) (FE, SE) Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: No If So, Habitat Quality: NA Section Habitat Description: This section contains mostly agricultural fields (sorghum and fallow). The southern portion is nearby to a USFWS tract (name unknown), but will not impact that property directly. There was no listed plant habitat within this section. Section Habitat Description: This section is paralleled by a canal for the entire extent. No rare plants were observed in this highly disturbed section. No suitable habitat was observed in this section. Section Habitat Description: This section consisted of agricultural fields (mostly sugar cane or clear) and residential areas. There was no rare plant habitat within this section. November 2007 56 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 1 2 3 Section Habitat Description: This section consisted of mostly agricultural fields and residential neighborhoods. There was one very small woody area, but it was highly disturbed and contained no listed plant habitat. 4 SECTION O-17 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 County: Cameron Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Ambrosia cheiranthifolia (South Texas ambrosia) (FE, SE) Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: No If So, Habitat Quality: NA 18 SECTION O-18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 County: Cameron Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Ambrosia cheiranthifolia (South Texas ambrosia) (FE, SE) Ayenia limitaris (Texas ayenia) (FE, SE) Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: No If So, Habitat Quality: NA 30 SECTION O-19 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 County: Cameron Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Ambrosia cheiranthifolia (South Texas ambrosia) (FE, SE) Ayenia limitaris (Texas ayenia) (FE, SE) Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: No If So, Habitat Quality: NA Section Habitat Description: Section O-17 was situated next to agricultural fields, along a canal edge, and nearby residential or multi-use property (an area of abandoned vehicles). There was one small brushy tract with low diversity (mostly switchgrass understory with a mesquite, retama, spiny hackberry overstory). Within this tract there was a tiny mesic depression with water-clover along the edge. All areas of this section were disturbed in some way, and there was no listed plant habitat observed. Section Habitat Description: A single stand of tepeguahe woodland from 1015m tall was documented in Section O-18. Retama has reinvaded non-native grassland habitat to form shrublands and short-stature woodlands in Section O-18. Section Habitat Description: In some places of Section O-19, windmill grass has become the dominant grass forming nearly pure stands on levee banks, however extensive, monotypic stands occupy fields that were historically cultivated. November 2007 57 Draft Biological Survey Report 1 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS SECTION O-20 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 County: Cameron Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Ambrosia cheiranthifolia (South Texas ambrosia) (FE, SE) Ayenia limitaris (Texas ayenia) (FE, SE) Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: No If So, Habitat Quality: NA 13 SECTION O-21 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 County: Cameron Potential Listed Plant Occurrence: Ambrosia cheiranthifolia (South Texas ambrosia) FE, SE) Ayenia limitaris (Texas ayenia) (FE, SE) Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: Yes If So, Habitat Quality: Good 32 5.4 33 34 35 36 37 Wetland delineations have not yet been conducted. The most current information available to identify wetlands in Route B is the NWI (USFWS 2007). No NWI coverage is currently available for Sections O-1, O-2, O-3, O-5, O-6, O7, and O-8. Approximately 7.3 acres of wetlands are within the remaining sections of the proposed project corridor of Route B (see Table 5-2). Section Habitat Description: In some places of Section O-20, windmill grass has become the dominant grass forming nearly pure stands on levee banks, however extensive, monotypic stands occupy fields that were historically cultivated. Section Habitat Description: Sabal palms are distributed predominantly in proposed Section O-21 as scattered individuals, small groups or linear clumps, and patches and stands where they persist as seedlings, tall shrubs and as trees up to 20 meters tall. Only a few sabal palm trees were observed in other proposed project sections. The USFWS has established the Boscaje de la Palma tract in the southernmost bend of the Rio Grande near Brownsville to preserve sabal palm forest and woodland habitat (USFWS 1988). The sabal palm was common enough in this region, extending to near the Gulf of Mexico at the time of Spanish exploration that the Rio Grande was first named the Rio de las Palmas. In addition, two short-stature huisache woodland stands were observed in Section O-21. Wetlands and WOUS November 2007 58 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Table 5-2. NWI Identified Wetlands that Occur within the Proposed Project Corridor 1 2 Section Wetland Type Acreage O-4 Freshwater Pond O-9 Freshwater Pond Freshwater Emergent Wetland negligible 0.8 O-10 Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake 0.7 0.1 O-11 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 0.2 negligible O-13 Riverine Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.8 O-15 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.8 O-17 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.8 O-19 Riverine 0.5 O-20 Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 0.9 negligible Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Pond 0.8 0.2 O-21 Source: USFWS 2007 – NEED CORRECT CITATION FOR NWI Note: Wetland acreage is based on NWI data. No NWI coverage is currently available for Sections O-1, O-2, O-3, O-5, O-6, O-7, O-8. 3 4 5.5 Wildlife Observed 5 6 7 8 Table 5-3 below lists wildlife observed during the field surveys. The table can provide a general indication of species richness in each section. Based on the number of species observed, Sections O-1, O-2, and O-14 presented the greatest wildlife diversity in terms of species richness. 9 November 2007 59 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Table 5-3. Wildlife Observed During Natural Resources Surveys Conducted October 1 to 7, 2007 Section Numbers Common Name / Scientific Name Fish Mosquito Fish / Gambusia affinis Texas Cichlid / Herichthys cyanoguttatus Amphibians Giant (Marine) Toad / Bufo marinus Gulf Coast Toad / Bufo valliceps Mexican Burrowing Toad / Rhinophrynus dorsalis Mexican Treefrog (2) / Smilisca baudinii Rio Grande Chirping Frog / Eleutherodactylus cystignathoides Rio Grande Leopard Frog / Rana berlandieri White-lipped Frog / Leptodactylus labialis Reptiles Blue Spiny Lizard / Sceloporus serrifer cyanogenys Laredo Striped Whiptail / Aspidoscelis laredoensis Prairie Racerunner / Aspidoscelis sexlineatus viridis Rio Grande River Cooter / Pseudemys gorzugi Texas Horned Lizard / Phrynosoma cornutum Texas Spiny Softshell Turtle / Apalone spinifera emoryi Birds American Avocet / Recurvirostra americana American Coot / Fulica americana American Kestrel / Falco sparverius Anhinga / Anhinga anhinga Barn Owl / Tyto alba Barn Swallow / Hirundo rustica Black Vulture / Coragyps atratus Black-bellied Whistling Duck / Dendrocygna autumnalis Black-necked Stilt / Himantopus mexicanus Northern Bobwhite / Colinus virginianus Brewer's Blackbird / Euphagus cyanocephalus Bronzed Cowbird / Molothrus aeneus Brown Jay / Cyanocorax morio Brown-crested Flycatcher / Myiarchus tyrannulus Brown-headed Cowbird / Molothrus ater Cactus Wren / Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus Cattle Egret / Bubulcus ibis Chihuahuan Raven / Corvus cryptoleucus Common Ground Dove / Columbina passerina Couch's Kingbird / Tyrannus couchii Crested Caracara / Caracara cheriway Double-crested Cormorant / Phalacrocorax auritus Eastern Meadowlark / Sturnella magna November 2007 Status O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6 O-7 O-10 O-11 O-12 O-13 O-14 O-15 O-16 O-17 O-18 O-19 O-20 O-21 1 1 x C C Potential Habitat State Threatened Species C C Potential Habitat C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C O-9 x x C C C C C C State Threatened Species C O-8 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 8 3 1 1 1 x x x x Total # of species occurrences within proposed project corridor sections x x x x x x 1 2 5 1 1 7 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 12 18 1 2 1 60 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Section Numbers Common Name / Scientific Name Status European Starling / Sturnus vulgaris Golden-fronted Woodpecker / Melanerpes aurifrons Great Blue Heron / Ardea herodias Great Egret / Ardea alba Great Kiskadee / Pitangus sulphuratus Greater Roadrunner / Geococcyx californianus Greater Yellowlegs / Tringa melanoleuca Great-tailed Grackle / Quiscalus mexicanus Green Heron / Butorides virescens Green Jay / Cyanocorax yncas Groove-billed Ani / Crotophaga sulcirostris Harris's Hawk / Parabuteo unicinctus Hooded Oriole / Icterus cucullatus House Finch / Carpodacus mexicanus House Sparrow / Passer domesticus Killdeer / Charadrius vociferus Lesser Nighthawk / Chordeiles acutipennis Lesser Yellowlegs / Tringa flavipes Loggerhead Shrike / Lanius ludovicianus Long-billed Curlew / Numenius americanus Long-billed Dowitcher / Limnodromus scolopaceus Long-billed Thrasher / Toxostoma longirostre Mourning Dove / Zenaida macroura Northern Cardinal / Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Flicker / Colaptes auratus Northern Harrier / Circus cyaneus Northern Mockingbird / Mimus polyglottos Pied -billed Grebe / Podilymbus podiceps Plain Chachalaca / Ortalis vetula Purple Gallinule / Porphyrula martinica Red-tailed Hawk / Buteo jamaicensis Red-winged Blackbird / Agelaius phoeniceus Rock Pigeon / Columba livia Scissor-tailed Flycatcher / Tyrannus forficatus Turkey Vulture / Cathartes aura Vermillion Flycatcher / Pyrocephalus rubinus Western Sandpiper / Calidris mauri Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo / Coccyzus americanus occidentalis White Ibis / Eudocimus albus White-winged Dove / Zenaida asiatica Mammals Bobcat / Lynx rufus Collared Peccary (Javelina) / Pecari tajacu Common Gray Fox / Urocyon cinereoargenteus Common Raccoon / Procyon lotor C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Candidate Species C C November 2007 C C C C O-1 O-2 x x O-3 O-4 O-5 x x x O-6 O-7 O-8 x x O-9 O-10 O-11 O-12 x x x x x x O-13 x O-15 O-16 O-17 x x x O-14 x x x x x O-18 O-19 x x x x O-20 O-21 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Total # of species occurrences within proposed project corridor sections 1 12 5 6 6 1 1 15 2 3 6 1 1 10 4 6 2 1 1 1 1 2 15 9 7 2 17 1 1 1 2 8 2 12 8 1 1 1 2 2 1 4 1 1 61 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Section Numbers Common Name / Scientific Name Coyote / Canis latrans Desert Cottontail / Sylvilagus audubonii Eastern Cottontail / Sylvilagus floridanus Fulvous Harvest Mouse / Reithrodontomys fulvescens Gulf Coast Kangaroo Rat / Dipodomys compactus Hispid Cotton Rat / Sigmodon hispidus Mexican Ground Squirrel / Spermophilus mexicanus Nine-banded Armadillo / Dasypus novemcinctus Striped Skunk / Mephitis mephitis Status C C C C C C C C C Total # Species Per Section: O-1 x x O-2 x O-3 x O-4 O-5 O-6 O-7 O-8 O-9 O-10 O-11 O-12 O-13 O-14 O-15 O-16 O-17 O-18 O-19 O-20 O-21 3 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 x x x x x x x x x x x x 26 22 14 12 12 6 5 x 14 16 10 4 9 5 23 12 8 8 18 9 Total # of species occurrences within proposed project corridor sections 8 11 Note: C = Common November 2007 62 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 6. Avoidance and Minimization Measures A part of the coordination between USBP and USFWS, best management practices are under development for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed tactical infrastructure. The best management practices are designed to avoid and minimize impacts to biotic resources, specifically threatened and endangered resources. These measures will be presented in the Final Report. November 2007 63 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 7. Permits, Technical Studies and Notifications In compliance with state and federal regulations, the following should be investigated or conducted to assess the potential that regulatory requirements have been met. It should be noted that additional permits, studies, or notifications may be required which are not listed herein. Permits Permit Type Issuing Agency Reason Legislation 404 Permit USACE Wetland and WOUS delineation Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the USACE to issue permits regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States, including wetlands. General permits are often issued by USACE for categories of activities that are similar in nature and would have only minimal individual or cumulative adverse environmental effects. A general permit can also be issued on a programmatic basis ("programmatic general permit") to avoid duplication of permits for state, local or other Federal agency programs. 401 Water Quality Certification Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Wetland and WOUS delineation Section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) specifies that any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity, including but not limited to the construction or operation of facilities that may result in any discharge into navigable waters, shall provide the federal licensing or permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge originates or will originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the navigable water at the point where the discharge originates or will originate, that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act (SWRCB 2007). November 2007 64 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Permits Permit Type Issuing Agency Reason Legislation Section 7 of the ESA directs all Federal agencies to use their existing authorities to conserve threatened and endangered species and, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Section 7 applies to the management of Federal lands as well as other Federal actions that may affect listed species, such as Federal approval of private activities through the issuance of Federal funding, permits, licenses, or other actions. The MBTA established a Federal prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird,. . . or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird. Section 7 (ESA) consultation USFWS Allow the proposed action to proceed while avoiding impacts to listed species. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) coordination (Migratory Bird Depredation Permit) USFWS Fence constructed during breeding season. The Migraotry Bird Depredation Permit is USFWS Form 3-200-13. Special Use Permits for access to National Wildlife Refuge areas November 2007 USFWS As requested by LRGNWR managers. N/A 65 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Permits Issuing Agency Permit Type Take Permit State of Texas, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Reason Legislation Texas Endangered Speceis Act compliance. Animals: Laws and regulations pertaining to endangered or threatened animal species are contained in Chapters 67 and 68 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPW) Code and Sections 65.171 65.176 of Title 31 of the Texas Administrative Code (T.A.C.). Plants: Laws and regulations pertaining to endangered or threatened plant species are contained in Chapter 88 of the TPW Code and Sections 69.01 69.9 of the T.A.C. Notification Agency Contact Information USFWS – Regional Larisa Ford, PhD, MPA Fish & Wildlife Biologist, Ecological Services United States Fish & Wildlife Service Texas A&M University at Corpus Christi 6300 Ocean Drive, USFWS -Unit 5837 Corpus Christi, TX 78412-5837 361-994-9005 361-994-8262 (fax) USFWS – Refuge Bryan Winton Refuge Manager Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge (956) 784-7521 (956) 874-4304 cell Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife No contact available at this time. Additional Studies Agency USACE November 2007 Study Wetland Delineation and Determination 66 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 8. List of Preparers 1 2 3 4 Domenick Alario B.A. Geography Years of Experience: 2 5 6 7 8 David Boyes, REM, CHMM M.S. Natural Resources B.S. Applied Biology Years of Experience: 31 9 10 11 12 Stuart Gottlieb B.A. Geography GIS Professional Certificate Years of Experience: 5 13 14 15 16 Shawn Gravatt M.S. Environmental Studies B.S. Earth Science and Geography Years of Experience: 10 17 18 19 20 Brian Hoppy B.S. Biology Certified Environmental Manager Years of Experience: 17 21 22 23 24 Gena Jannsen B.S. Geography M.S. Biology Years of Experience: 17 25 26 27 28 29 Ronald E. Lamb M.S. Environmental Science M.A. Political Science/International Economics B.A. Political Science Years of Experience: 22 30 31 32 Cheryl Myers A.A.S. Nursing Years of Experience: 17 33 34 35 36 Steve Pyle B.S. Natural Resource Management J.D. with Certificate in Environmental Law Years of Experience: 11 November 2007 67 Draft Biological Survey Report 1 2 3 4 5 Cheryl Schmidt B.S. Biology M.S. Biology Ph.D. Biology Years of Experience: 22 6 7 8 9 Sue Sill B.S. Biology Ph.D. Botany Years of Experience: 24 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 10 11 12 Sarah Spratlen Masters of Engineering Years of Experience: 5 13 14 15 16 Karen Stackpole B.S. Biology M.S. Environmental Science and Education Years of Experience: 9 17 18 19 Tom Patterson Ph.D Botany Years of Experience: 30 20 21 22 23 Jim Von Loh B.S. Biology M.S. Biology Years of Experience: 32 24 25 26 Lauri Watson B.S. Environmental Science Years of Experience: 5 27 28 29 30 Valerie Whalon M.S. Fisheries Science B.S. Marine Science Years of Experience: 12 31 November 2007 68 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS 9. References 1 Bailey 1995 Bailey, Robert F. 1995. Ecoregions of the United States. U.S. Forest Service. Accessed On-line at: http://www.fs.fed.us/colorimagemap/images/300.html. Larkein and Bomar 1983 Larkin, Thomas J. and George W. Bomar. 1983. Climatic Atlas of Texas. Texas Department of Water Resources. Austin, TX. NatureServe 2007 NatureServe Explorer. 2007. Ecological System Comprehensive Reports. Accessed On-line at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/. Patterson 2007 Patterson, Thomas Ph.D. 2007. Personal Communication with J. Von Loh (e2M). South Texas College. McAllen, TX. USDA NRCS 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. PLANTS Database. Accessed On-line at: http://plants.usda.gov/. USFWS 1998 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Tamaulipan Brushland of the Lower Rio Grande Valley of South Texas: Description, Human Impacts, and Management Options. Biological Report 88(36). S. E. Jahradoerfer and D. M. Leslie, Jr. Washington, D.C. 2 3 November 2007 69 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1 2 November 2007 70 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS BIOLOGICAL SURVEY APPENDIX A DESCRIPTION OF FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) Cameron County The brown pelican was listed as endangered on October 13, 1970. Distribution: The brown pelican’s historical range included the Atlantic and Gulf coasts from South Carolina to Florida and west to Texas. Currently, the brown pelican occurs throughout its historic range but in greatly reduced numbers. Within Texas, numbers dropped drastically from an estimated 5,000 birds in 1918 to less than 100 individuals and only 10 breeding pairs in 1974. According to a 2003 survey, there were 8 colonies and 3,895 active nests in Texas. Today, brown pelicans are found along the Texas coast from Chambers County on the upper coast to Cameron County on the lower coast. Most of the breeding birds nest on Pelican Island in Corpus Christi Bay and Sundown Island near Port O’Connor. Natural History: Habitat: The brown pelican is a coastal bird that is rarely seen inland or far out at sea. They feed in shallow estuarine waters usually less than 40 miles from shore. Pelicans use sand spits, offshore sand bars, and islets for roosting and loafing. Breeding: Egg laying times vary with the location of the brown pelican. In Texas, brown pelican populations nest irregularly usually beginning in late fall and extending through June. The clutch size average 2-3 and incubation lasts 28-30 days. The young pelicans leave the nests around 35 days after hatching, fledge around 63 days after hatching, and fly around 71-88 days after hatching. Reproductive success is highly variable and susceptible to disturbance by humans, starvation of young, and/or flooding of nests. In Texas, brown pelicans build their nests on small isolated coastal islands that are safe from predators such as raccoons and coyotes. Diet: The brown pelican is a piscivore that primarily feeds upon menhaden and mullet in Texas. They spot the fish from above and the dive beak-first into the water to scoop up the fish. Threats: The brown pelican has undergone several sharp population declines in Texas. The first decline occurred in the 1920-30’s when local fishermen would kill the birds because of incorrect assumptions that the brown pelican competed with humans for fish. The second sharp decline occurred in the 1960’s and 1970’s when the brown pelican would eat menhaden loaded with DDT and Endrin. This caused a severe decline in brown pelican reproductive success. Currently, human encroachment and development of the Texas coast provides the most significant threat to brown pelican populations. A-1 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) Cameron County The green sea turtle was listed as endangered on July 28, 1978. Distribution: The green sea turtles are found in tropical waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. Their main nesting grounds are found on Aves Island in Costa Rica and Surinam. They have rarely been observed nesting in Texas including a single female recently observed in Kenedy County, Texas. Juveniles exist in offshore areas from Texas to Massachusetts (NatureServe 2007). Natural History: Habitat: Hatchlings restrict themselves to floating in masses of sea plants in the convergence zone while juveniles roam into temperate waters. Adults stay in the coral reefs and rocky outcrops near feeding pastures in tropical waters (NatureServe 2007). Breeding: The green sea turtle nests from March-October in the Gulf of Mexico region with the peak between May and June. The female lays 1-8 clutches of 90140 eggs. The incubation period is 1.5-3 monthgs and the hatchlings emerge between early June and late December (NatureServe 2007). Diet: The green sea turtle feeds in shallow waters with abundant submerged vegetation. The adults are herbivorous and eat seagrass, macroalgae, and other marine plants while the juveniles are more invertivorous and prey on mollusks, sponges, crustaceans, and jellyfish (NatureServe 2007). Threats: The major threats to green sea turtle populations are degradation of nesting habitat, collection of nesting females and eggs for human consumption, mortality in fishing gear, and contact with pollution (NatureServe 2007). NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 6.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: October 17, 2007). A-2 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Gulf Coast jaguarundi (Herpailurus yagouaroundi cacomitli) Cameron, Hidalgo, and Starr Counties The Gulf Coast jaguarundi was listed as endangered on June 14, 1976. Distribution: Because of the secretive nature of the jaguarundi, little is known about its exact distribution within Texas. The only documented sighting of a jaguarundi in Texas was a road killed specimen found in Cameroun County. Possible counties where the jaguarundi may exist include Cameron, Duval, Hidalgo, Jim Wells, Kenedy, Kleberg, Live Oak, Nueces, San Patricio, Starr, Willacy, and Zapata. Jaguarundi still roam Central and South America in greater numbers than seen in the United States (USFWS 1990). Natural History: Habitat: The habitat of the jaguarundi is similar to the ocelot and is found within the Tamaulipan Biotic Province which includes several variations of sub-tropical thornscrub brush. Potential habitat includes four different areas of the Lower Rio Grande Valley: Mesquite-Granjeno Parks, Mesquite-Blackbrush Brush, Live oak Woods/Parks, and Rio Grande Riparian. Jaguarundi prefer dense thornscrub habitats with greater than 95% canopy cover . Their minimal home range is about 40 ha (USFWS 1990). Breeding: The jaguarundi mates in November or December and gestation lasts 9-10 weeks. There may be two litters of 1-4 (average 2) young per year. In Mexico, the young are born between March and August. Little is known of the breeding habits within the United States. Diet: The jaguarundi is active at night and preys primarily on birds, small rodents, and rabbits. Threats: The largest threat to jaguarundi populations in the United States is habitat loss and fragmentation in southern Texas. The jaguarundi requires a large hunting area and appropriate habitat is being lost to development and agriculture. This creates islands of habitat where the jaguarundi cannot migrate from area to area leaving them vulnerable. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Listed Cats of Texas and Arizona Recovery Plan (With Emphasis on the Ocelot). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 131 pp. A-3 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Cameron County Distribution: The hawksbill sea turtle occurs in tropical and sub-tropical seas of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. It is widely distributed in the Caribbean Sea and western Atlantic Ocean. The sea turtle utilizes the northern Gulf of Mexico (especially near Texas) for some of its life history stages (NMFS and USFWS 1993). Natural History: Habitat: Hawksbill habitat use depends on their life stage. Posthatchling hawksbills occupy the pelagic environment, hiding from predators in the weedlines. Juveniles then enter coastal waters with coral reefs a preferred habitat for foraging for juveniles, sub-adults, and adults (NMFS and USFWS 1993). Breeding: The hawksbill chooses low- and high-energy beaches in tropical oceans of the world for nests. The hawksbill has a 6 month nesting season with the peak season depending on location. The courtship and mating occur earlier and either during the migratory route or off the nesting beach. They nest an average of 4.5 times per season and not every attempt is successful. Clutch size averages 140 eggs with some variation (NMFS and USFWS 1993). Diet: The diet of posthatchling hawksbills is largely unknown. Eggs of pelagic fish and pelagic species of Sargassum have been found in their gut contents. Adults feed primarily on sponges (NMFS and USFWS 1993). Threats: Threats to hawksbill populations are split into those that affect their nesting sites and those that affect their feeding sites in the ocean. Nesting sites are threatened by poaching, beach erosion, erosion control measures, sand mining, and use of off-road vehicles on beaches. Threats to their marine environment include entanglement in nets, ingestion of marine debris, and the loss and/or degradation of coral reefs (NMFS and USFWS 1993). National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Recovery Plan for Hawksbill Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida. A-4 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) Cameron County Kemp’s ridley sea turtle was listed as endangered on December 2, 1970. Distribution: Kemp’s ridley sea turtle has a restricted breeding range with one nesting beach that receives the majority of the nesting females. This beach is located near Rancho Nuevo in southern Tamaulipas, Mexico. The ridley sea turtle has the most restricted nesting distribution of any sea turtle. An attempt has been made to create another nesting site on San Padre Island, Texas. Adults are essentially restricted to the Gulf of Mexico while juveniles also inhabit the U.S. Atlantic coast (USFWS and NMFS 1992). Natural History: Habitat: The sea turtles usually remain in the Gulf of Mexico. Young sea turtles frequent bays, coastal lagoons, and river mouths while the adults are found near the Mississippi River mouth and the Campeche Banks (USFWS and NMFS 1992). Breeding: Courtship and mating areas of the ridley sea turtle are not well known. Nesting occurs from April into July and is restricted to the beaches of the western Gulf of Mexico, primarily the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. The clutch averages 101 eggs and the incubation period is 45-58 days. Diet: Posthatchling ridley sea turtles likely feed on the available sargassum and associated infauna and other epipelagic species found in the Gulf of Mexico. Juveniles and adults appear to be shallow water, benthic feeders whose diet is composed primarily of crabs with a preference for portunid crabs (USFWS and NMFS 1992). Threats: Before the ridley’s sea turtle was protected, eggs were removed from the Rancho Nuevo nesting beach from the 1940’s to early 1960’s. Another threat to ridley sea turtle populations is the trawling industry within the Gulf of Mexico which caught turtles in their trawls and decimated ridley sea turtle populations (USFWS and NMFS 1992). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1992. Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida. A-5 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Cameron County The leatherback sea turtle was listed as endangered on June 2, 1970. Distribution: The leatherback sea turtle is a circumglobal species that forages in temperate waters. It nests on the beaches of the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans in tropical and sub-tropical latitudes. Historically, there were nesting sites along the coast of Texas, but none have been reported recently (NatureServe 2007). Natural History: Habitat: The leatherback usually occupies habitats along the continental shelf and pelagic environments. It also is found in seas, gulfs, bays, and estuaries (NMFS and USFWS 1998) Breeding: The female lays over 10 clutches of 50-170 eggs at 1-2 week intervals. The female nests at night from March-August and the incubation period is 8-10 days. There are no known nesting sites in the United States. The greatest number of leatherback sea turtles nest on the Pacific coast of Mexico, mostly in the states of Michoacá n, Guerrero, and Oaxaca (NMFS and USFWS 1998). Diet: The leatherback’s diet consists of medusa, siphonophores, and salpae in temperate and boreal latitudes with jellyfish as their primary prey (NatureServe 2007). Threats: The greatest threat to the leatherback sea turtle is disruption to their nesting sites, especially those along the Pacific coast of Mexico. Increased human presence and construction and the corresponding habitat loss or degradation occurs along many coastal Pacific areas. Harvest of sea turtles and/or eggs for food is still a threat. Incidental take by fisheries also poses a great threat to the leatherback sea turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1998). National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 6.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: October 17, 2007). A-6 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) Cameron County The loggerhead sea turtle was listed as endangered on July 28, 1978. Distribution: The loggerhead sea turtle occupies the warmer parts of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans and range into temperate zones to feed in the summer. Major nesting sites include the southeastern U.S., Mexico, Oman, and South Africa. A few nests have been spotted on the barrier islands along the Texas coast. The waters of the Gulf of Mexico are used for feeding during nonbreeding times (NatureServe 2007). Natural History: Habitat: The loggerhead sea turtle occupies the open seas up to 500 miles from the shore primarily over the continental shelf, in bays, estuaries, lagoons, creeks, and the mouths of rivers. Nesting occurs on open, sandy beaches above hightide mark (NatureServe 2007). Breeding: In the southeastern United States, mating occurs in late March to early June with the female laying 1-9 clutches of 45-200 eggs from late April to early September. Incubation takes 7-11 weeks with the hatchlings emerging from the nests after a few days (NatureServe 2007). Diet: The loggerhead sea turtle feeds on a variety of invertebrates including crustaceans, mollusks, sponges, cnidaria, and echinoderms. They also eat plants and fish. Adults forage on the bottom while the young feed on prey concentrated at the surface (NatureServe 2007). Threats: The loggerhead turtle is threatened by collection of adult turtles and eggs for food, drowning by entanglement in shrimp trawls, and by habitat degradation from beach development (NatureServe 2007). NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 6.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: October 17, 2007). A-7 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Northern aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis septentrionalis) Cameron and Hidalgo Counties The northern aplomado falcon was designated as a federally endangered species on March 27, 1986. Distribution: The geographic distribution of the northern aplomado falcon includes most of South America from Tierra del Fuego to Ecuador and from sea level to 3000m in the Andes. The falcon also inhabits areas in most of Latin America. The historic range includes areas of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. In Texas, they are still observed in south Texas and the Trans-Pacos region (USFWS 1990). Natural History: Habitat: In populations found in the United States, northern aplomado falcons inhabited yucca-covered sand ridges in coastal prairies, riparian woodlands in open grasslands, and in desert grasslands with scattered mesquite (Hilaria belangeri) and yucca. They do not construct their own stick platform nests and must use abandoned nests of other species including the Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), crested caracara (Caracara cheriway), and the Chihuahuan raven (Corvus cryptoleucus) (USFWS 1990). Breeding: Most clutches are laid during April and May with a clutch size of 2-3 eggs. The incubation period is 31-32 days. The nestlings fled at 32-40 days and are dependent on their parents for an additional four weeks after fledging (USFWS 1990). Diet: Northern aplomado falcons prey on a variety of small birds, insects, rodents, and reptiles. Preferred bird species include doves, cuckoos, woodpeckers, blackbirds, flycatchers, thrushes, and other fringillids that feed in trees. Common insect species include grasshoppers, beetles, dragonflies, cicadas, crickets, butterflies, moths, wasps, and bees (USFWS 1990). Threats: Populations in the United States experienced a severe decline due to loss of habitat from over-grazing and encroachment of agricultural lands on traditional northern aplomado falcon habitat. The use of DDT during the 1970’s also caused a decline in populations due to the inability for falcons to produce viable eggs. Overall, the greatest threat to populations in the United States is habitat loss through development (USFWS 1990). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Northern aplomado falcon recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 56pp. A-8 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Ocelot (Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis) Cameron, Hidalgo, and Starr Counties The ocelot was listed as endangered on March 28, 1972. Distribution: The ocelot is found from northern Mexico into the southern extremes of Texas and Arizona to northern Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Little is known of the exact distribution of the ocelot in Texas. Ocelots recorded by trapping or photo documentation include several areas within five counties: Cameron, Willacy, Kenedy, Jim Wells, and Hidalgo. Areas that have been identified as having potential ocelot habitat include Cameron, Duval, Hidalgo, Jim Wells, Kenedy, Kleberg, Live Oak, Nueces, San Patricio, Starr, Willacy, and Zapata (USFWS 1990). Natural History: Habitat: The habitat of the ocelot and is found within the Tamaulipan Biotic Province which includes several variations of sub-tropical thornscrub brush. Potential habitat includes four different areas of the Lower Rio Grande Valley: Mesquite-Granjeno Parks, Mesquite-Blackbrush Brush, Live oak Woods/Parks, and Rio Grande Riparian. Ocelot prefer dense thornscrub habitats with greater than 95%canopy cover. Thei r average home range is about 15 km2 (USFWS 1990). Breeding: In Texas, the ocelot breeds in late summer with gestation lasting about 70 days. Births occur in fall and winter and the litter size is 2-4. Dens are found in caves, hollow trees, thickets, or the spaces between closed buttress roots of large trees (NatureServe). Juveniles appear to travel with their mother even after lactation had ceased and one study found two young females up to 2 years old with home ranges that significantly overlapped their mother’s home range (USFWS 1990). Diet: The ocelot is active at night and preys primarily on birds, small rodents, and rabbits, but may also include reptiles, fish and invertebrates. Other potential prey species include other rodents, opossum, raccoon, javelina, white-tailed deer, skunks, nine-banded armadillo, feral swine, poultry, quail, doves, chachalaca, numerous passerine birds and waterfowl, snakes, and lizards. Threats: Habitat loss and fragmentation especially along the Rio Grande pose a critical threat to the long term survival of the ocelot. Efforts need to be taken to preserve key habitat and biological corridors necessary for ocelot survival (USFWS 1990). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Listed Cats of Texas and Arizona Recovery Plan (With Emphasis on the Ocelot). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 131 pp. A-9 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) Cameron County The piping plover was listed as endangered on July 10, 1986. Distribution: The piping plover is a migratory bird that breeds on coastal beaches from Newfoundland to North Carolina and winters along the Atlantic Coast from North Carolina south, along the Gulf Coast including the coast of Texas, and in the Caribbean (USFWS 1996). Natural History: Habitat: Piping plovers choose the accreting ends of barrier islands, sandy peninsulas, and coastal inlets for their winter grounds. In the winter, they prefer sandflats adjacent to inlets or passes, sandy mudflats along prograding spits, and overwash areas for foraging (USFWS 1996). Breeding: Piping plover nests are located above the high tide line on coastal beaches, sandflats, foredunes, and washover areas cut into or between dunes. Eggs are laid from mid-April to late July and clutch size is usually 4 eggs. Incubation time averages 27-30 days and the chicks fledge in 25-35 days. Piping plovers migrate to their breeding grounds in late February through early April and return to their winter grounds from late July to September (USFWS 1996). Diet: The piping plover feeds on inverterbrates including marine worms, fly larvae, beetles, crustaceans, and mollusks. They feed along the intertidal portions of ocean beaches, and the shorelines of coastal ponds, lagoons, or salt marshes (USFWS 1996). Threats: The piping plover’s winter grounds have been threatened by recreational activities (both motorized and pedestrian), inlet and shoreline stabilization, dredging of inlets, beach maintenance and renourishment, and pollution (USFWS 1996). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Piping Plover (Charadnus melodus), Atlantic Coast Population, Revised Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 258 pp. A-10 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS South Texas ambrosia (Ambrosia cheiranthifolia) Cameron County The south Texas ambrosia was listed as endangered on September 23, 1994. Distribution: The South Texas ambrosia is an endemic species to southern Texas and northern Mexico that historically occupied areas of Cameron, Jim Wells, Kleberg, and Nueces Counties in Texas, and the state of Tamaulipas in Mexico. Only three populations are known to exist at the moment including two populations in Nueces County and one in Kleberg County. Natural History: Morphology: The south Texas ambrosia is a perennial herb that is a member of the aster family. It is erect with a silvery to grayish-green appearance that is 1030 cm tall. It has simple, opposite leave on the bottom that transition to alternate near the inflorescence. The flowers are dioecious with the staminate flowers on terminal races and the pistillate flowers in small clusters along the leaf axils. Habitat: The south Texas ambrosia grows on open clay-loam to sandy-loam prairies and savannas. Associated native grasses include Texas grama (Booteloua rigidiseta), buffalo grass (Buchloe dactyloides), Texas speargrass (Stipa leucotricha), and tobosa (Hilaria mutica). Threats: The native habitat for the south Texas ambrosia has largely been converted to agricultural fields, improved pastures, or urban areas. Humans have also altered the fire regime of these grasslands allowing thorny shrub and tree species to invade the grasslands. A-11 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Star cactus (Astrophytum asterias) Cameron, Hidalgo, and Starr Counties The star cactus was listed as endangered on October 18, 1993. Distribution: The star cactus is an endemic species to southern Texas and northern Mexico whose historical range includes Hidalgo, Starr, Zapata, and possibly Cameron Counties in Texas and the states of Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas in Mexico. Known populations exist on private land in Starr County, Texas, Tamaulipas, Mexico, and Nuevo Leon, Mexico. Other populations likely exist but remain unknown because of difficulty surveying private lands (USFWS 2003). Natural History: Morphology: The star cactus is a disk or dome-shaped member of the cactus family that is spineless. It is 2-15 cm across and up to 7 cm tall. The color is dull green-to-brown and the plant is often covered in tiny white scales. The cactus is divided into eight, vaguely triangular sections. The flowers are yellow with orange centers and up to 15 cm in diameter while the fruits are green to grayishred and fleshy when mature. The cactus flowers from March through May with fruiting between April and June(USFWS 2003). Habitat: The star cactus occupies sparse, open thorn shrub and grasslands in a warm-temperate, sub-tropical steppe climate in the United States and dry, hot thorn shrub in Mexico. These habitats are characterized by scattered mesquite and grasses on sandy soils and thorn brush on heavier soils (USFWS 2003). Threats: The star cactus is threatened by habitat destruction and modification, collection, and decreased population numbers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery Plan for Star Cactus (Astrophytum asterias). U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-vii +38pp., A1-19, B-1-8. A-12 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Texas ayenia (Ayenia limitaris) Cameron and Hidalgo Counties The Texas ayenia was listed as endangered on September 23, 1994. Distribution: The Texas ayenia is an endemic species of southern Texas and northern Mexico whose historical range included Cameron and Hidalgo Counties, Texas and the states of Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas in Mexico. The status of Mexican populations is unknown at the time. The only confirmed population of the Texas ayenia lies on private property within Hidalgo County. Natural History: Morphology: The Texas ayenia is a sub-shrub with pubescent leaves and stems that is between 60 cm and 150 cm. The leaves are alternate, simple leaves. The flowers are axillary with up to 4 per node and their color alternates between green, pink, and cream. Habitat: The Texas ayenia occupies dense sub-tropical woodland communities at low elevations. The current population occupies a Texas Ebony – Anacua (Pithecellobium ebano-Ehretia anacua) plant community. This plant community occurs on well-drained riparian terraces with canopy cover close to 95% . Species found in this community includes Ia coma (Bumelia celastrina), brasil (Condalia hookeri), granjeno (Celtis pollicki), and snake-eyes (Phaulothamnus spinesceris). Threats: Habitat loss and degradation from agriculture or urban development have reduced the Texas Ebony – Anacua vegetation community by greater than 95% . The species has been reduced to one known population of 20 individuals that is extremely vulnerable to extinction. A-13 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Walker's manioc (Manihot walkerae) Hidalgo and Starr Counties Walker’s manioc was listed as endangered on October 2, 1991. Distribution: Walker’s manioc is an endemic species of the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas and northern Mexico. One population exists in Tamaulipas, Mexico and ten populations have been observed in the United States in Starr and Hidalgo counties of Texas. Natural History: Morphology: Walker’s manioc is a perennial, branched herb that is about 0.5 m in height. The leaves are alternate, deeply incised, and palmately 5-lobed. Flowers are dioecious with staminate flowers tubular and light purplish. Pistillate flowers are white and purple. The known Texas plant flowers in late spring and autumn in response to seasonal rainfall (USFWS 1993). Habitat: Walker’s manioc usually grows among low shrubs, native grasses and herbaceous plants, either in full sunlight, or in partial shade of shrubs. It is found in sandy, calcareous soil, shallowly overlying indurated caliche and conglomerate of the Goliad Formation on rather xeric slopes and uplands, or over limestone. Threats: Over 95% of Walker’s manioc nati ve brush habitat has been cleared in the United States for agriculture, urban development, and recreation. The U.S. population has been reduced to a single plant that makes the species extremely vulnerable to extinction in the United States (USFWS 1993). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Walker’s Manioc (Manihot walkerae) Recovery Plan. USD1 Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 57 pp. A-14 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Ashy dogweed (Thymophylla tephroleuca) Starr County The ashy dogweed was listed as endangered on July 19, 1984. Distribution: The ashy dogweed is a relict species whose only known population exists of 1 acre in Zapata County, Texas. The population includes approximately 1,300 individuals. Natural History: Morphology: The ashy dogweed is a perennial herb with erect stems up to 30 cm in height. The leaves are linear and covered with soft, woolly, white hairs that emit a pungent odor when crushed. The flower head are yellow and flowering occurs from March to May. Habitat: The ashy dogweed grows on fine, sandy-loam soils in open areas of a grassland-shrub community. The dominant genera of these areas include Costela, Cordia, Prosopis, Microrhamnus, Leucophyllum, Cercidium, and Yucca. Threats: The existence of this species is endangered by overgrazing, habitat loss through roadside blading and brush clearing, oil and gas development, and possible collecting or vandalism. A-15 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Johnston's frankenia (Frankenia johnstonii) Starr County Johnston’s frankenia was listed as endangered on August 7, 1984; however, it has been proposed for delisting. Distribution: Johnston’s frankenia is an endemic species of southern Texas and northern Mexico. When it was first listed as an endangered species, only five populations were known in Texas and another population from near Monterrey, Mexico. However, the frankenia has been found on 30 new sites in Starr and Zapata Counties in Texas (NatureServe 2007). Natural History: Morphology: Johnston’s frankenia is a member of the family Frankeniaceae. The plant is blue-green with a wiry appearance. The branches appear hedged possibly from browsing by large herbivores. It is a perennial shrub that grows up to 62 cm. The leaves and stems are grayish- or bluish-green from a dense covering of short-whitish hairs. The shrub flowers from September to May. Habitat: Johnston’s frankenia grows on rocky flats or slopes of open thorn shrublands. The soils are saline, sometimes with a high gypsum content (NatureServe 2007). Threats: The species is still threatened by brush clearing and oil and gas development, but conservation agreements are being signed by private landowners to protect the plant (NatureServe 2007). NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 6.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: October 16, 2007). A-16 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Least tern (Sterna antillarum) Starr County The interior population of the least tern was listed as endangered on June 27, 1985. Distribution: The historic breeding range of the least tern included the Mississippi, Red, and Rio Grande River. The breeding range extended from Texas to Montana and from eastern Colorado and New Mexico to southern Indiana. Currently, the least tern maintains breeding grounds on all these river systems although suitable habitat has dwindled. In Texas, populations have been observed on the Red River System and along the Texas/Oklahoma border as far east as Burkburnett, Texas. Least terns have been observed on three reservoirs (including Amistad Reservoir in Val Verde County) along the Rio Grande River and along the Pecos River at the Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge, New Mexico (USFWS 1990). Natural History: Habitat: Along river systems such as the Rio Grande, least terns nest on sparsely vegetated sand and gravel bars along a wide, unobstructed river channel or salt flats along lake shorelines. Least terns also have been observed to nest on artificial habitats such as sand and gravel pits and dredge islands (USFWS 1990). Breeding: Least terns reside on the breeding grounds for 4-5 months arriving from late April to early June. Nests are shallow depressions in open, sandy areas, gravelly patches, or exposed flats. The tern nests in colonies. Clutch size is usually 2-3 eggs and the eggs are laid by late May. Incubation lasts 20-25 days and fledgling occurs after three weeks. Parental attention continues until migration at the end of the breeding season (USFWS 1990). Diet: The least tern is a fish eater that hunts in the shallow waters of rivers, streams and lakes. Fish prey is small-sized and include the following genera: Fundulus, Notropis, Campostoma, Pimephales, Gambusia, Blonesox, Morone, Dorosoma, Lepomis and Carpiodes. They usually hunt near their nesting sites (USFWS 1990). Threats: The taming of wild river systems for irrigation, navigation, hydroelectric power, and recreation has altered the river channels that the least tern depends on for breeding grounds. Stabilized river systems eliminate most of the sandbars that terns utilize for breeding grounds by channeling wide, braided rivers into single, narrow navigation channels. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Recovery plan for the interior population of the least tern (Sterna antillarum). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota. 90 pp. A-17 Draft Biological Survey Report Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS Zapata bladderpod (Lesquerella thamnophila) Starr County The Zapata bladderpod was listed as endangered on November 22, 1999 Distribution: The Zapata bladderpod is an endemic species to southern Texas and possibly northern Mexico. Four populations are known in Starr County. Two populations are found on the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and two occur on private land. Three populations are known from Zapata County. Two are located on highway rights-of-way between the towns of Zapata and Falcon and another lies near Falcon Lake (USFWS 2004). Natural History: Morphology: The Zapata bladdepod is a pubescent, silvery-green perennial plant of the Mustard Family. It has sprawling stems 43-85 cm long and the basal leaves are narrowly elliptical to oblanceolate and acute with entire or slightly toothed margins. The leaves have stellate trichomes that give the plant its silvery-green appearance. The inflorescence is a loose raceme of bright, yellow flowers. The plant flowers at all times of the year depending on weather conditions (USFWS 2004). Habitat: The Zapata bladderpod occurs on graveled to sandy-loam upland terracs above the Rio Grande flood plain. It is associated with highly calcareous sandstones and clays. The bladderpod is a component of an open Leucophyllum fretescens – Acacia berlanderi shrubland alliance. The shrublands are sparsely vegetated and include the following species Acacia ridigula, Prosopis sp., Celtis pallida, Yucca treculeana, Zizyphus obtusifolia, and Guaiacum angustifolium (USFWS 2004). Threats: Habitat modification and destruction from increased road and highway construction and urban development, increased oil and gas exploration and development, and conversion of plant communities to improve pastures, overgrazing and vulnerability due to low population numbers are all threats to the Zapata bladderpod U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Zapata Bladderpod (Lesquerella thamnophila) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-vii +30 pp ., Appendices A-B. A-18 APPENDIX Preliminary Cultural Resources Findings APPENDIX J PRELIMINARY CULTURAL RESOURCES FINDINGS 1. General Historic Context 1.1 Precontact (Archaeological) Overview The precontact history of the lower Rio Grande is rich, unique, and important. The river has been a critical conduit for trade and transportation, and a natural border between interests to the north and the south. The area’s archaeological record is dominated by open-air sites, burned rock middens, lithic artifact scatters, clay dunes in the Rio Grande delta, and shell middens near the coast. These sites are difficult to identify and date because of heavy erosion, shallow soil horizons, and extensive artifact removal by collectors. The lack of excavation of deeply stratified subsurface sites means that the chronology of the south Texas plains is poorly understood. The following discussion of the precontact history of the south Texas plains is divided into three general cultural periods. The Paleoindian period represents the first documented human occupation of the region. Evidence of the earliest Paleoindian complexes, Clovis and Folsom, has been found throughout southern Texas, although most of this evidence is from surface collections of the distinctive fluted points that characterize these complexes. Clovis and Folsom hunters appear to have specialized in hunting large animals, including mammoth and bison. Two stratified Paleoindian sites have been excavated in the South Texas region, Berger Bluff (41GD30) in Goliad County, and Buckner Ranch (41BE2) in Bee County. The Archaic period in southern Texas is divided into the early, middle, and late subperiods based on subtle changes in material cultural and settlement patterns. During this period, hunting and gathering continued as the primary means of subsistence, but populations responded to fluctuations in regional climate by exploiting an increasingly wide range of plant and animal resources and geographic settings for settlement and subsistence Specifically, the Early and Middle Archaic overlap with the Altithermal (ca. 6000–2000 B.C.), a warm and dry climate episode. The Early Archaic is poorly documented in the southern Texas region, especially on the Rio Grande Delta, due to deep sediment deposition. The available evidence suggests that population density was unchanged from the Paleoindian period, and that Early Archaic hunters continued to live in small, highly mobile groups. Middle Archaic sites appear to be more common than Early Archaic sites, and are found in upland, alluvial, and tributary settings and estuary bays. Middle Archaic sites in southern Texas are also distinguished by the occurrence of ground stone artifacts (Hester et al. 1989) and other evidence for expanded plant use, including an increase in the J-1 number of burned rock middens. Exploitation of coastal resources also appears to have increased. The increasing breadth of subsistence-related resources is accompanied by an increase in site size and artifact abundance, suggesting an increase in population (Hester et al. 1989). Sites from the later Middle Archaic also contain evidence of trade between the Rio Grande plain and the coastal delta, and elaboration of ritual or ceremonial practices in the form of cemeteries for burial of the dead. Late Archaic sites are relatively common in the project area, suggesting increasing population density (Hester et al. 1989). Along with increasing site density, the period is marked by a continued expansion in the variety of resources exploited for subsistence, with rodents and rabbits becoming more common in the archaeological record and specialized plant resource extraction features, such as hearths, increasing in frequency. Sites also appear to have been used repeatedly, suggesting a more sedentary settlement pattern or an increasingly scheduled subsistence regime. Regional trade of items such as marine shell pendants continues, as does use of cemeteries. The Late Prehistoric period is well-documented in the region. It is characterized by the appearance of pottery and the bow and arrow, although point typologies have not been formalized (Hester et al. 1989). In much of southern Texas, the Late Prehistoric period has two distinct horizons: the Austin (A.D. 800–1350) and the Toyah (A.D. 1350–1600) (Black 1986). Bone-tempered pottery with incised designs appears by A.D. 1000. The Toyah horizon is the best documented and is associated with the occurrence of Perdiz points, small end scrappers, flake knives, beveled knives, Leon Plain bone-tempered pottery, ceramic figurines and pipes, and shell and bone ornaments and beads. Toyah sites are generally found near streams. Along the coast, the Late Prehistoric period begins around A.D. 1200 with the Rockport complex. In the Rio Grande delta area, the Late Prehistoric begins around A.D. 1200 with the Brownsville complex. This complex is similar to the Austin and Toyah horizons, and is characterized in large part by bone-tempered ceramics virtually identical to inland types and a well-developed shell-working industry (THC 2007b). 1.2 Overview of Postcontact History In the nearly 500 years since initial Spanish exploration, the area has been claimed and influenced by four nations: Spain, Mexico, Republic of Texas, and the United States. Each has pursued its own interests and left its mark as historic landmarks or in patterns of land use and settlement. Missions were the focus during the Spanish colonial period (ca. 1519–1822) (USACE 1999). Spanish-speaking peoples established ranches in support of the missions. During the Early Anglo-European period (1822–1845), the missions of northern Mexico and Texas were secularized and became less important. AngloAmericans and Anglo-Europeans began rapidly settling in Texas, bringing with them their own customs, traditions, and influences. Some were of Irish and Mexican descent, and practiced small-scale farming and ranching. These Empresarios had been granted lands in exchange for settling in the area and J-2 becoming Mexican citizens. Large-scale Mexican/Spanish ranching interests continued in the area. Roma became an important port town in this period because of its favored location where river boats met overland routes. In 1836, the Anglo colonists revolted against Mexico and won their independence by defeating Santa Anna at San Jacinto. During the Texas Republic period (1836–1846), the lower Rio Grande was central to the border tensions between the newly independent Texan republic and the government of Mexico, culminating in the Mexican-American War (1846– 1848). On behalf of the Texans, U.S. troops under General Zachary Taylor landed their forces at Port Isabel and established Fort Brown on the Rio Grande across from Matamoros. The presence of these troops provoked the Mexican government to attack, starting the Mexican-American War. Besides military action at Fort Brown, significant battles occurred at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma in the lower Rio Grande. During the American period (1848–present), Anglo-European farmers and ranchers continued to settle the lower Rio Grande area. They continued the large-scale, export cattle ranching started by the Mexicans. To protect the U.S. border, the U.S. Army constructed a line of forts from north-central Texas to the Rio Grande. A second line of forts was established, including Fort Ringgold. As Anglo-American and Anglo-European settlers moved in, towns grew at road and river crossings. Potteries, brick kilns, and local commercial centers were established. The lower Rio Grande Valley played an important role during the Civil War as local supporters used the river to transport cotton and war materials to support the Confederate effort. Roma and Brownsville, in particular, prospered during the period. The last battle of the Civil War occurred at Fort Brown, ironically a month after the war’s official end at Appomattox. The decades following the Civil War were the years of the large cattle drives north on Chisolm Trail, which began at Brownsville. Railroads, drought, and the use of barbed wire contributed to the eventual breakup of large ranches, open range ranching, and the large cattle drives. The large ranches and open ranges were broken into smaller farms, many owned by immigrants from the Midwestern states. New irrigation systems enabled large-scale agriculture and the lower Rio Grande became noted for its rich croplands, sugar cane production, and citrus groves. In recognition of the important-contribution of the lower Rio Grande to Texas and American history, the Texas Historical Commission designated the 200-mile area from Laredo to Brownsville along the Rio Grande as the Los Rios del Camino Heritage Trail (THC 2007a; Sanchez 2007, 1997). The binational Los Caminos del Rio Heritage Project was created to support the understanding and appreciation of the history of the area (Sanchez 2007). J-3 The location of the Proposed Action along the lower Rio Grande places it in an area rich in cultural resources. Alternatives 2 and 3 would cross within two historic districts that are designated NHLs: the Roma Historic District and Fort Brown. Each would extend adjacent to or within the bounds of four additional NRHP-listed historic districts: Fort Ringgold Historic District, Louisiana-Rio Grande Canal Company Irrigation System Historic District (including Old Hidalgo Pumphouse), Neale House, and Old Brulay Plantation. It would be in the general vicinity of many other NRHP-listed properties, such as the Rancho Toluca Historic District, La Lomita Historic District, Gems Building, and Stillman House. It is known that additional architectural resources eligible for the NRHP but not formally nominated for listing are also in the vicinity of the Proposed Action. Others that meet the NRHP eligibility criteria but have not been inventoried or evaluated are expected. Historic-era property types in the lower Rio Grande area include historic residential, commercial, and institutional buildings both in settled communities and in rural contexts; military forts; transportation resources (ferry crossing and ferry, suspension bridge); cemeteries; religious complexes; industrial resources (irrigation systems and associated water pumphouses); and farmsteads, plantations, and ranch complexes. These might be found as standing structures or historic archaeological sites. Such sites are known to include shipwrecks, forts, homesteads, and trash scatters. One site is listed on the NRHP (Fort Brown). 2. Specific Historic Property Discussion In the following discussion, historic districts and individual properties listed in the NRHP that occur near Alternatives 2 and 3 would be described. Previously identified archaeological resources would also be noted. This discussion is based on information contained in the THC Texas Historic Sites Atlas and Texas Archaeological Sites Atlas. Cultural resources surveys of the APEs that would be directly impacted under Alternatives 2 and 3, are underway or about to commence; these surveys are anticipated to identify additional resources. Table J-1 summarizes the resources discussed in this section. 2.1 Roma Historic District The Roma Historic District was designated an NHL by the Secretary of the Interior in 1993. The 15-block historic district comprises 35 contributing buildings, including the Nestor Sá enz Store (1884) and Manuel Guerra House and Store (1878–84). The Roma-San Pedro International Bridge (1928) is a contributing property of the historic district. It is anticipated that architectural survey efforts would identify additional buildings that are individually eligible for listing in the NRHP, both within and outside of historic district. The 19th-century town of Roma was an important shipping point for steamboats along the Rio Grande. The site was first settled in 1760 by Spanish colonists from the colonial settlement, Mier, on the south bank of the Rio Grande. With the J-4 Table J-1. Table of Known Historic Properties That Might Be Affected Fence Section Historic Property NRHP Status O-1 Roma Historic District NRHP–listed, NHL O-2 Fort Ringgold Historic District (including an archaeological component) NRHP–listed O-3 Los Ebanos Crossing, Ferry, and Community Likely NRHP–eligible O-5 La Lomita Historic District NRHP–listed O-6 Louisiana-Rio Grande Canal Company Irrigation System Historic District (including Old Hidalgo Pumphouse) NRHP–listed O-10 Toluca Ranch Historic District NRHP–listed O-14 Landrum House Registered Texas Historic Landmark, likely NRHP–eligible O-19 Brownsville and Fort Brown Historic District (including an archaeological component) Fort Brown – NRHP–listed, NHL Brownsville has many NRHP–listed and Registered Texas Historic Landmark properties (depends on delineations of APE) O-19 Neale House NRHP–listed O-21 Old Brulay Plantation Historic District NRHP–listed development of steamboat river commerce in the middle of the 19th century, Roma prospered as the western port for flatbed ships carrying cotton down the Rio Grande and supplies upriver. It also was a connection point for overland trade into western Texas and the eastern interior of Mexico. The Roma Historic District represents an outstanding example of the building techniques of the Lower Rio Grande. These techniques, derived from the 18thcentury traditions of northern Mexico, are best exemplified by the finely detailed brick commercial and residential buildings designed and constructed by German emigrant mason Heinrich Portscheller. Influenced by the architecture of its sister city of Mier across the river and by the architecture of Guerrero Viejo, Mexico, Roma possesses buildings of river sandstone, caliche limestone, and molded brick. Masons used both rejoneado and sillar construction techniques in Roma. The International Bridge linking Roma to Mexico is the last suspension bridge on the Rio Grande and a contributing element of the historic district (Weitze 1993). J-5 2.2 Fort Ringgold Historic District Fort Ringgold was one of four military posts the Federal government organized along the Lower Rio Grande following the Mexican-American War. Its location on the Rio Grande made the post an important supplier of goods and materials to military installations further upriver. Troops stationed at Fort Ringgold helped quell numerous border conflicts that erupted from 1849 to 1917. The troops ultimately helped bring stability, which contributed to economic development on both sides of the Rio Grande. The fort was deactivated by the Army in 1944 and sold to the Rio Grande City school system. The Fort Ringgold Historic District encompasses much of the U.S. Army installation established in 1848. The Fort Ringgold Historic District was listed in the NRHP in 1993 under Criteria A and C at the state level of significance. The district, which includes approximately 75 acres, has 41 contributing properties. Most of the buildings are at the northern end of the historic district surrounding the parade ground. They are associated with the post-1869 development of the older fort. During the earlier phase (1848–1869), frame buildings were constructed to the south on two hills overlooking the Rio Grande and a steamboat dock. A small settlement grew called Davis Landing or Davis Rancho. The 1848 buildings included a hospital, storehouses, barracks, Commandant’s house, stables, mess hall and fort store, and cemetery. When new buildings were constructed to the north in 1869, these earlier structures were given new uses. The Commandant’s house (also known as the Lee House or Robert E. Lee House) from the earlier post was used later as the quartermaster’s office after construction of the new post. Archaeological site 41SR142 is the archaeological component of the earlier fort, and encompasses an area larger than the historic district (Clark 1975). 2.3 Los Ebanos Crossing, Ferry, and Community of Los Ebanos The Los Ebanos ferry crossing lies on an ancient river ford site used during the 1740s by the Spanish colonist, Jose de Escandó n. Historically, a salt trail led from the ford crossing to La Sal del Rey, an inland salt lake 40 miles northeast that produced the first export from the region. The ford also was used over several centuries, notably by troops of the Mexican-American War, 1846; by Texas Rangers chasing cattle rustlers, 1874; and by smugglers in many eras, especially during the American prohibition years, 1920–33 (THC 2007a). A ferry and inspection station are located at the crossing today. Los Ebanos Ferry, established in 1950, is notable as the only government-licensed, hand-pulled ferry on any boundary of the United States. The ferry has capacity for 3 automobiles and approximately 12 persons. The ferry cable is connected to an estimated 250-year–old Texas ebony tree that is included in the Texas Forest Service’s Famous Trees of Texas (Texas Forest Service 2007). It is possible that the Los Ebanos Ferry is eligible for listing in the NRHP and that the area including the ferry is a historic landscape. The community of Los Ebanos is an J-6 historic town, and has a cemetery where veterans of many wars are buried. It was named for and associated with the unique ebony trees. 2.4 La Lomita Historic District La Lomita Historic District, listed in the NRHP in 1975, comprises three contributing properties. The earliest remaining property is the stucco and stone mission chapel with a bell tower constructed in 1899. On the small hill is the mission-style St. Peter’s Novitiate erected in 1912 that served as a novitiate training center for student priests. Together, the Mission chapel, 122 acres of farm and ranch lands, and novitiate are tangible reminders of the important role of the Catholic Church in the lower Rio Grande Valley. They also document the contribution of the Oblate Fathers in settling this southern tip of Texas (Landon 1975). 2.5 Louisiana-Rio Grande Canal Company Irrigation System Historic District The Louisiana-Rio Grande Canal Company Irrigation System Historic District was listed in the NRHP in 1995. The 31,200-acre historic district comprises the firstlift and second-lift pumphouses and the associated historic irrigation canal network. The first-lift pumphouse, known as the Old Hidalgo Pumphouse, is significant for its historical associations and engineering and retains original equipment. The historic canal system extends for approximately 500 miles, and includes border-to-border earthen canals, concrete-lined facilities, and canals in pipes on original alignments. The historic district is significant at the state level under Criterion A with a period of significance from 1904 to 1949. The system contributed to the early 20th century agricultural revolution in the Lower Rio Grande. Private irrigation systems, like the Louisiana-Rio Grande system constructed by the Louisiana-Rio Grande Canal Company, transformed the arid brush land of the Lower Rio Grande Valley into a vast patchwork of 20- to 80-acre irrigated farms within two decades following the 1904 arrival of the first railroad to the isolated area. Once established, the successful production of those farms defined South Texas as one of the nation’s three largest winter agricultural regions until a freeze in 1949. Today the irrigation system, except the Old Hidalgo Pumphouse, is owned by the Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 2 (Moore et al. 1992). 2.6 Toluca Ranch The Toluca Ranch, listed in the NRHP in 1983 as a historic district, is one of the few intact ranch ensembles in the Rio Grande Valley. Originally the ranch land holdings included 5,900 acres. The four contributing properties constituting Toluca Ranch are the Church of St. Joseph of the Worker, a two-story house, a store, and a schoolhouse. Constructed in 1899 by Florencio Saenz, the Gothic Revival church with a tower served the Saenz family and local community. The J-7 two-story Italianate-style house was constructed in 1906 by Saenz. The schoolhouse was built in 1903 and operated for the children of the local community and the Saenz family until 1911. Saenz was a progressive farmer. Four hundred acres of Saenz’s croplands were irrigated to grow beans, corn, melons, and sugar cane for ranch consumption. On pasturelands further north of the river he raised horses, sheep, goats, and cattle (Victor 1981). 2.7 Landrum House The Landrum House has been a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark since 1978. It is not listed in the NRHP, but is likely to be eligible for its historical and architectural significance. The house was constructed in 1902 for Frances and James Landrum (THC 2007a). 2.8 Sabas Cavazos Cemetery The Sabas Cavazos Cemetery was established in 1878 with the burial of rancher and businessman, Sabas Cavazos. Cavazos was great grandson to Jose Salvador de la Garza, recipient of the Espiritu Santo royal land grant of approximately 250,000 acres encompassing present-day Brownsville (ACHP 2007b). It lies approximately 0.25 miles north of the Section O-17 corridor (THC 2007a). 2.9 Brownsville and Fort Brown Historic District Brownsville is rich in historic buildings and sites, many of which are listed in the NRHP. Fort Brown, a historic district designated an NHL, was established in April 1846 by Brigadier General Zachary Taylor and became the first U.S. military post in Texas. The fort was important in some of the earliest battles of the Mexican-American War, the Battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma. The early fort comprised earthworks with six bastions in the form of a six-pointed star with 15-foot thick walls. During the Civil War, Brownsville became an important Confederate port town. Boats transported cotton bound for Europe and inbound war material for the Confederacy. Union troops fought for control of Fort Brown, which was held by the Confederate army until the end of the war. Troops from Fort Brown engaged in the last battle of Civil War, the Battle of Palmetto Hill, nearly a month after the Confederacy surrendered at Appomattox (NPS 2007). After the Civil War, the fort was re-occupied by the U.S. Army and expanded. Under the efforts of Lieutenant Wouldiam Gorgas (later U.S. Army Surgeon General), Fort Brown had a major role in the medical research related to the control of yellow fever. Fort Brown also contributed to efforts to control the Mexican bandit trouble of 1913–1917. In 1948, the fort was transferred to the city of Brownsville. Today the former hospital and other historic buildings are part of the University of Texas/Southmost College campus. Archaeological site J-8 41CF96, south of the later fort complex, is the remnants of the earthworks of the original Fort Brown (THC 2007a). Brownsville has many other NRHP-listed historic buildings and sites. Near Fort Brown is the Neale House (ca. 1850). Although relocated, the Neale House is significant as one of the oldest houses in Brownsville. Within downtown Brownsville are the Gems Building and the Stillman House. Constructed in 1850 and listed in the NRHP in 1979, the Stillman House is one of the earliest Greek Revival-style brick structures in the region (ACHP 2007c). The house was originally built for and occupied by Charles Stillman, who hired a surveyor to lay out the town lots adjacent to Fort Brown before Brownsville was founded. The house was later occupied by Thomas Carson, Brownsville mayor from 1879 to 1892 and judge of the Cameron County Commissioners Court. There also are a number of historic shipwrecks that are reported west of Fort Brown including archaeological site 41CF177, a steamboat shipwreck site (THC 2007b). 2.9 Old Brulay Plantation Historic District The Old Brulay Plantation, listed in the NRHP in 1975, is composed of the twostory brick house of French emigrant George N. Brulay and nine buildings associated with his sugar cane plantation. The Brulay Plantation was purchased in 1870 by Brulay. In 1872, he built the first commercial sugar mill in the area to produce piloncillo (a dark brown sugar) on his 300-acre plantation and began irrigating his fields. In irrigating his plantation, Brulay revolutionized agricultural practices in the lower Rio Grande Valley; in the early 20th century, irrigation districts established elaborate irrigation systems throughout the valley. Brulay’s cultivated fields are north of the structures (Clark 1975). The Brulay Cemetery is north and east of the plantation complex. 2.10 Archaeological Resources Previously reported prehistoric archaeological resources within a mile of the Proposed Action are primarily open–air campsites and lithic scatters. Temporal and cultural affiliations of the sites are unclear, and few sites are very extensive. The recorders did not evaluate the NRHP eligibility of most of them. Additional prehistoric sites are expected to be found. In general, historic archaeological sites can be expected to include early Spanish and Mexican colonial remains, forts, shipwrecks, early Republic and Americanperiod sites, homesteads, industrial archaeological sites such as potteries and early irrigation and agricultural sites and features, and historic trash scatters. There might be additional types of historic archaeological sites identified upon further research. Should any sites be found through archaeological surveys, they would be considered for various treatment options such as redesigning the project or data recovery. J-9 3. Cultural Resource Surveys 3.1 Area of Potential Effects According to 36 CFR 800, the Area of Potential Effects (APE) of a Federal undertaking is defined as the geographical area within which effects on historic properties could occur if such properties hypothetically exist. According to 36 CFR 800, the APE should account for both direct and indirect effects. 36 CFR 800.5(a)(2) specifically cites as adverse effects both visual effects and changes to the setting of a historic property where the setting contributes to the significance of the property. Under Alternative 2 of the Proposed Action, direct construction impacts would occur within a 60-foot–wide corridor that accounts for grading of vegetation and fence construction. Under Alternative 3, the direct construction APE would directly affect a 130-foot-wide corridor. In addition, there are ancillary areas outside the corridor of both alternatives such as construction staging areas. Thus, for direct construction purposes, the APE considers a 150-foot-wide corridor plus ancillary areas outside that corridor. A second APE for both Alternatives 2 and 3 is being delineated by USBP in consultation with the THC to account for visual impacts, noise, and other potential impacts that extend beyond immediate construction locations. Topography, type and density of vegetation and intervening development, orientation of streets and properties in relation to the Proposed Action, traffic patterns, and surrounding development all are factors to be considered in the definition of this latter APE. Finally, several Native American tribes with ancestral ties to lands within the Rio Grande Valley Sector have been contacted for input into the cultural resources survey as required under NHPA. 3.2 Identification of Historic Properties Efforts are underway to identify historic properties potentially affected by the Proposed Action. An archaeological survey is in progress, and an architectural survey would begin in the near future (November 2007). To prepare for these studies, information about previously recorded archaeological, historical, and architectural sites within the 150-foot survey corridor and within a 1-mile radius of the corridor was gathered from the two THC atlases. This information was plotted on project maps, aerial photographs, and topographic maps to identify areas of interest for further identification and evaluation. This data set was considered as a starting point because it has inherent limitations. Much of the survey data from the THC atlases are not recent and might not be complete. Not all of the area of the corridor has had recent archaeological surveys, and the information from past surveys is quite fragmentary. Information about architectural resources from the Texas Historic Sites Atlas is limited to buildings and historic districts listed in the NRHP. It is assumed that additional buildings J-10 and resources are eligible for listing in the NRHP but have not been formally listed or previously surveyed and evaluated. 3.3 Archaeological Resources Pedestrian and subsurface archaeological survey of accessible portions of fence sections began October 19, 2007. Accessibility has been limited by Right of Entry (ROE) agreements for privately owned parcels, issuance of a Special Use Permit for surveys on lands managed by the USFWS, and Texas Antiquities Permit requirements for all non-Federal publicly owned land (e.g., Texas Parks and Wildlife, county land, municipal parks). The USFWS has found that the surveys would not be harmful to the refuge. The finding is in a public comment period through November 15, 2007. The archaeological survey is being conducted in accordance with the Texas Archaeological Research Council requirements and standards identified in Archaeological Survey Standards of Texas. The survey also is being conducted in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation Projects (including the Standards and Guidelines for Identification, Evaluation, and Archaeological Documentation). The survey is subject to a State Antiquities Permit from the THC, and the THC has been consulted in the development of the survey methodology. Professional archaeologists meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards are conducting the survey (NPS). Priority for archaeological survey was determined based upon the general proportion of land in a given section for which access is available. At the time this document is being prepared, an archaeological survey has been completed for 20.6 miles of the 68.06 miles of surveyable alignment. This represents all accessible portions of the McAllen Sector (Sections O-3, O-4, and O-6), the Weslaco Sector (Sections O-7, O-8, O-9, and O-10), and portions of the Harlingen Sector (Sections O-11, O-12, O-13, and portions of O-14). Accessible portions of the Rio Grande City Sector (Sections O-1 and O-2), the Brownsville Sector (Sections O-17, O-18, O-19, and O-20), the Fort Brown Sector (Section O-21), and the remaining portions of the Harlingen Sector (Sections O-15 and O-16) are slated for survey beginning mid-November 2007. The status of archaeological survey is presented in more detail in Table J-2. Archaeological survey to date has resulted in the identification of 11 previously unrecorded sites. The majority of these (n= 8) are historic in age or have historic components. Five sites are either prehistoric or have prehistoric components. Preliminary results support a recommendation of eligible for listing in the NRHP for 6 sites, not eligible for 4 sites, and eligible for 1 site. These recommendations are preliminary and are subject to change as investigation continues. Sites recommended as NRHP eligible might require further testing before a determination can be made. J-11 Table J-2. Archaeological Survey Status for All Fence Sections, as of November 1, 2007 Fence Section Number County Border Patrol Station Total Mileage Approximate Mileage Completed Approximate Percentage Completed O-1 Starr Rio Grande City 5.28 0.00 0.0 O-2 Starr Rio Grande City 7.3 0.00 0.0 O-3 Hidalgo McAllen 1.85 0.56 30.0 O-4 Hidalgo McAllen 4.35 3.48 80.0 O-5 Hidalgo McAllen 1.72 0.00 0.0 O-6 Hidalgo McAllen 3.85 2.70 70.0 O-7 Hidalgo Weslaco 2.43 2.43 100.0 O-8 Hidalgo Weslaco 2.04 1.63 80.0 O-9 Hidalgo Weslaco 3.01 3.01 100.0 O-10 Hidalgo Weslaco 2.42 1.45 60.0 O-11 Cameron Harlingen 2.32 1.51 65.0 O-12 Cameron Harlingen 0.95 0.81 85.0 O-13 Cameron Harlingen 1.58 1.50 95.0 O-14 Cameron Harlingen 3.06 1.53 50.0 O-15 Cameron Harlingen 1.92 0.00 0.0 O-16 Cameron Harlingen 2.97 0.00 0.0 O-17 Cameron Brownsville 1.62 0.00 0.0 O-18 Cameron Brownsville 3.58 0.00 0.0 O-19 Cameron Brownsville 1.62 0.00 0.0 O-20 Cameron Brownsville 0.9 0.00 0.0 O-21 Cameron Fort Brown 13.29 0.00 0.0 20.60 30.3 Total 68.06 The THC requires backhoe trenching of deep sediments on lands with high archaeological potential if the lands fall under the State Antiquities Permit. All recorded archaeological resources would be evaluated for their NRHP eligibility using the National Register Criteria (36 CFR 60.4) and relevant guidance of the NPS such as National Register Bulletins 15 and 22. USBP would request the THC’s concurrence regarding determination of a resource’s NRHP eligibility; a determination of eligibility from the Keeper of the National Register (NPS) would be sought if the THC does not concur with USBP’s evaluation. J-12 3.4 Resources of the Built Environment An architectural survey of buildings and structures that might be affected by the Proposed Action was begun in November 2007. The APE to be surveyed for indirect impacts related to the Proposed Action is being determined in discussion with the THC and would vary depending on the visual field in a given area, relative to the Proposed Action. Types of resources expected to be surveyed and evaluated include residences, commercial and institutional resources, ranches and plantations, levees, irrigation canals and pumphouses, ferry crossing, bridges, and industrial facilities such as water treatment plants as appropriate. Resources that pre-date 1968 would be surveyed and evaluated, consistent with THC requirements. Based on a windshield survey conducted on October 30–November 1, 2007, it is estimated that as many as 325 buildings and other resources predating 1968 mightrequire survey. Information about past surveys of architectural resources available at the THC is being evaluated for completeness, level of effort, conformance to current standards, and survey results. This information would help to focus survey efforts so that resources are considered to the extent and manner appropriate. The architectural survey would be conducted in accordance with both the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the THC’s Historic Resources Survey Form and survey guidance. Professionals who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for architectural historian, historian, and other appropriate discipline would conduct the survey (ACHP 2007a, DOI 1983). The THC has been consulted in the delineation of the APEs and the development of the survey methodology. All surveyed resources would be evaluated for their NRHP eligibility using the National Register Criteria (36 CFR 60.4) and relevant guidance of the NPS such as National Register Bulletins 15 and 22. USBP would request THC concurrence regarding determination of a property’s NRHP eligibility; a determination of eligibility from the keeper of the National Register (NPS) would be sought if the THC does not concur with USBP’s evaluation. J-13 4. References ACHP 2007a ACHP 2007b ACHP 2007b Black 1986 Clark 1975 DOI 1983 Hester et al. 1989 Landon 1975 Moore et al. 1992 NPS 2007 Sanchez 1997 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). 2007. Protection of Historic Properties, 36 CFR Part 800. 2004. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1 July 2007. ACHP. 2007. “Texas Historic Sites Atlas and Texas Archaeological Sites Atlas.” Texas Historical Commission. Available online: . Accessed 18 October 2007. ACHP. 2007. “Stillman House Museum.” Brownsville Historical Association. Available online: . Accessed 17 October 2007. Black, Stephen L. 1986. The Clement and Herminia Hinojosa Site, 41JW8-A Toyah Horizon Campsite in Southern Texas. Special Report 18. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio. Clark, John, Jr. Old Brulay Plantation. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. Texas Historical Commission, 1975. United States Department of the Interior (DOI). 1983. “Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines.” Federal Register 48: 44716-44742 (1983). Hester, Thomas R. 1989. From the Gulf to the Rio Grande: human adaptation in Central, South, and Lower Pecos Texas. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, Ark. 1989. Landon, Marie D. La Lomita Historic District. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, Texas Historical Commission, Austin, 1975. Moore, David, Terri Myers, Matt Groebel. Lousiania-Rio Grande Canal Company Irrigation Canal District. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, 1993. HHM, Inc., Austin. National Park Service. “How To Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation” National Register Bulletin 15 (1997):5. Sá nchez, Mario L. and Ki tty A. Henderson. “Los Caminos del Rio: A Bi-national National Heritage Study Along the Lower Rio Grande.” Cultural Resource Management Magazine 20:11 (1997): 13. J-14 Sanchez 2007 Texas Forest Service 2007 THC 2007a THC 2007b USACE 1999 Victor 1981 Weitze 1993 Sá nchez, Mario Ed. “A Shared Experience: The History, Architecture and Historic Designations of the Lower Rio Grande Heritage Corridor.” 1994. Texas Historical Commission. 18 October 2007. http://www.rice.edu/armad illo/Past/Book/index.html> < . Texas Forest Service “Las Cuevas Ebony.” Famous Trees of Texas, Texas A&M University System. 2005. 18 October 2007. h Texas Historical Commission (THC). 2007. Historic Sites Atlas. http://www.atlas.thc.tx.us. Various pages accessed from September 15, 2007 to November 2, 2007. THC. 2007. Archaeological Sites Atlas (Limited access website). Various pages accessed from September 15, 2007 to November 2, 2007. U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers. Draft Environmental Baseline Document In Support Of The Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement For Ins And Jtf-6 Activities Along The U.S./Mexico Border, Volume 2 Texas Land Border Study Area. 1999 March. Fort Worth. Victor, Sally S. Toluca Ranch Historic District. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, 1981. Victor and Victor Consultants, Inc. Austin. Weitze, Karen. Roma Historic District. National Historic Landmark Nomination Form. National Register of Historic Places. 1993. J-15 THIS PA GE IN TEN TIONALI. LEFT BLANK J-16 APPENDIX Air Quality Information Greenhouse Gases In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Court declared that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has the authority to regulate emissions from new cars and trucks under the landmark environment law. Many chemical compounds found in the Earth’s atmosphere act as “greenhouse gases.” These gases allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. Over time, the trapped heat results in the phenomenon of global warming. Many gases exhibit these “greenhouse” properties. The sources of the majority of greenhouse gases come mostly from natural sources but are also contributed to by human activity and are shown in Figure K-1. It is not possible to state that a specific gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect because the influences of the various gases are not additive. Source: Energy Information Administration 2003 Figure K-1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Burning of Gas (Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent) Figure K-2 displays the annual greenhouse gas emissions by sector in the United States. Most government agencies and military installations are just beginning to establish a baseline for their operations and their impact on the greenhouse effect. Since the USEPA has not promulgated an ambient standard or de minimis level for CO2 emissions for Federal actions, there is no standard value to compare an action against in terms of meeting or violating the standard. Hence, we shall attempt to establish the effects on air quality as a result of the amount of CO2 produced by the Federal action and what could be done to minimize the impact of these emissions. K-1 Source: Rosmarino 2006 Figure K-2. Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector References Energy Information Administration. 2003. “Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy.” EIA Brochure. 2003. Available online: . Last updated April 2, 2004. Accessed November 4, 2007. Tanyalynnette Rosmarino, Director of Field Engineering, Northeast, BigFix, Inc. 2006. “A Self-Funding Enterprise Solution to Reduce Power Consumption and Carbon Emissions.” Slide presentation for the NYS Forum’s May Executive Committee Meeting Building an Energy Smart IT Environment. 2006. Available online: . Accessed November 4, 2007. K-2 Estimates fine particulate emissions from earthmoving, vehicle traffic, and windblown dust Estimates the number of days of site preparation, to be used for estimating heavy equipment exhaust and earthmoving dust emissions Estimates the total emissions from future maintenance of fencelines and patrol roads from mowers. Estimates the total emissions from emergency generators to power construction equipment. Summarizes total emissions for the Brownsville-Laredo Intrastate AQCR Tier Reports for 2001, to be used to compare project to regional emissions. Fugitive Grading Maintenance Emissions Generator Emissions AQCR Tier Report K1-1 Estimates emissions from non-road equipment exhaust as well as painting. Combustion Alternative 2, Route A Summarizes total emissions by calendar year. Summary Summary Construction Combustion Construction Fugitive Dust Maintenance Emissions Generator Emissions TOTAL CY2008 PM10 (ton) 15.782 646.336 0.005 1.601 663.724 662.118 Alternative 2, Route A K1-2 Determination Significance (Significance Threshold = 10%) for Construction Activities Point and Area Sources Combined NOx VOC CO SO2 (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) Minimum - 2001 44,137 73,577 317,422 2,940 2008 Emissions 493.263 71.992 554.516 10.917 Alternative 2, Route A % 1.118% 0.098% 0.175% 0.371% PM10 (tpy) 132,788 663.724 0.500% Point and Area Sources Combined VOC CO SO2 PM10 NOx Year (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) 2001 44,137 73,577 317,422 2,940 132,788 Source: USEPA-AirData NET Tier Report (http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html). Site visited on 15 October 2007. Brownsville-Laredo Intrastate AQCR Since future year budgets were not readily available, actual 2001 air emissions inventories for the counties were used as an approximation of the regional inventory. Because the Alternative 2, Route A is several orders of magnitude below significance, the conclusion would be the same, regardless of whether future year budget data set were used. CY2008 Air Quality Emissions from Alternative 2, Route A NOx VOC CO SO2 (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) 470.443 70.127 549.588 9.409 0.042 0.005 0.021 0.010 22.777 1.859 4.907 1.498 493.263 71.992 554.516 10.917 Summary 22,134,816 ft2 Alternative 2, Route A Total Building Construction Area: Total Demolished Area: Total Paved Area: Total Disturbed Area: Construction Duration: Annual Construction Activity: ft2 ft2 ft2 ft2 year(s) days/yr K1-3 0 0 0 22,134,816 1.0 190 (none) (none) (none) Assumptions: Total ground disturbance for pedestrian fence and patrol road would be 69.87 miles long by 60 feet wide (22,134,816 ft 2). No grading would be required in construction staging areas. Patrol road would be graded and lined with gravel. No paving would be included in Alternative 2, Route A. Construction would occur between March and December 2008 for a total of 190 working days. 100% of Construct Pedestrian Fence and Patrol Road Includes: Construction Combustion Emissions for CY 2008 Combustion Emissions of VOC, NO x, SO2, CO and PM10 Due to Construction CY2008 Combustion Generator Set Industrial Saw Welder Equipment Alternative 2, Route A Note: Footnotes for tables are on following page Truck Forklift Crane Total per 10 acres of activity Mobile (non-road) Stationary d Equipment Loader Haul Truck Total per 10 acres of activity Equipment Paver Roller Total per 10 acres of activity Equipment Bulldozer Motor Grader Water Truck Total per 10 acres of activity Building Construction Demolition Paving Grading 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 per 10 acres No. Reqd.a No. Reqd.a per 10 acres 1 1 2 No. Reqd.a per 10 acres 1 1 2 No. Reqd.a per 10 acres 1 1 1 3 K1-4 20.89 4.57 8.37 67.16 11.83 17.02 4.48 (lb/day) NOx NOx (lb/day) 7.86 20.89 28.75 NOx (lb/day) 7.93 5.01 12.94 NOx (lb/day) 29.40 10.22 20.89 60.51 Emissions factors are taken from Table 3-2. Assumptions regarding the type and number of equipment are from Table 3-1 unless otherwise noted. Reference: Guide to Air Quality Assessment, SMAQMD, 2004 Emissions Factors Used for Construction Equipment 3.60 0.79 1.44 9.98 1.47 2.12 0.56 (lb/day) VOCb VOCb (lb/day) 1.35 3.60 4.95 VOCb (lb/day) 1.37 0.86 2.23 VOCb (lb/day) 3.66 1.76 3.60 9.02 30.62 6.70 12.27 78.03 10.09 14.52 3.83 (lb/day) CO CO (lb/day) 11.52 30.62 42.14 CO (lb/day) 11.62 7.34 18.96 CO (lb/day) 25.09 14.98 30.62 70.69 0.84 0.18 0.33 2.02 0.24 0.34 0.09 SO2c 0.16 0.42 0.58 SO2c 0.16 0.10 0.26 SO2c 0.59 0.20 0.42 1.21 SO2c CY2008 Combustion 0.58 0.13 0.23 2.27 0.47 0.68 0.18 (lb/day) PM10 PM10 (lb/day) 0.22 0.58 0.80 PM10 (lb/day) 0.22 0.14 0.36 PM10 (lb/day) 1.17 0.28 0.58 2.03 No. Reqd.a per 10 acres 1 1 NOx (lb/day) 6.83 6.83 VOCb (lb/day) 0.85 0.85 CO (lb/day) 5.82 5.82 0.14 0.14 SO2c PM10 (lb/day) 0.27 0.27 Alternative 2, Route A K1-5 CY2008 Combustion SMAQMD Emissions Factors (lb/day) Equipment NOx VOC CO SO2** PM10 Multiplier* Source Grading Equipment 51 156814.195 23375.707 183196.091 3136.284 5260.830 Paving Equipment 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Demolition Equipment 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Building Construction 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Air Compressor for Architectural Coating 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Architectural Coating** 0.000 *The equipment multiplier is an integer that represents units of 10 acres for purposes of estimating the number of equipment required for the project **Emissions factor is from the evaporation of solvents during painting, per "Air Quality Thresholds of Significance", SMAQMD, 1994 Example: SMAQMD Emissions Factor for Grading Equipment NOx = (Total Grading NOx per 10 ac*((total disturbed area/43560)/10))*(Equipment Multiplier) PROJECT-SPECIFIC EMISSIONS FACTOR SUMMARY a) The SMAQMD 2004 guidance suggests a default equipment fleet for each activitiy, assuming 10 acres of that activity, (e.g., 10 acres of grading, 10 acres of paving, etc.). The default equipment fleet is increased for each 10 acre increment in the size of the construction project. That is, a 26 acre project would round to 30 acres and the fleet size would be three times the default fleet for a 10 acre project. b) The SMAQMD 2004 reference lists emissions factors for reactive organic gas (ROG). For the purposes of this worksheet ROG = VOC. c) The SMAQMD 2004 reference does not provide SO 2 emissions factors. For this worksheet, SO 2 emissions have been estimated based on approximate fuel use rate for diesel equipment and the assumption of 500 ppm sulfur diesel fuel. For the average of the equipment fleet, the resulting SO 2 factor was found to be approximately 0.04 times the NOx emissions factor for the mobile equipment (based upon 2002 USAF IERA "Air Emissions Inventory Guidance") and 0.02 times the NOx emissions factor for all other equipment (based on AP-42, Table 3.4-1) d) Typical equipment fleet for building construction was not itemized in SMAQMD 2004 guidance. The equipment list above was assumed based on SMAQMD 1994 guidance. Equipment Air Compressor Total per 10 acres of activity Architectural Coatings Total Area (ft2) Grading: 22,134,816 Paving: 0 Demolition: 0 Building Construction: 0 Architectural Coating 0 Total Area (acres) 508.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 0 0 0 0 Total Days (per the SMAQMD "Air Quality of Thresholds of Significance", 1994) (from "CY2008 Grading" worksheet) Total Emissions (lbs): NOx 940,885.17 470.44 NOx 940,885.17 940,885.17 VOC 140,254.24 70.13 VOC 140,254.24 140,254.24 CO 1,099,176.55 549.59 CO 1,099,176.55 1,099,176.55 SO2 18,817.70 9.41 SO2 18,817.70 18,817.70 Alternative 2, Route A Estimate emissions of CO2 for BLIAQCR region is 995,000 tons per year K1-6 30 vehicles x 10 miles/day/vehicle x 190 days working x 1 gal/10 miles x 19.5 lb co2/gal x ton/2000lb = 55 tons CO2 It is assumed that the average vehicle will produce 19.5 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gas used. (www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients) It is further assumed that the total approximate average miles per day per vehicle would be 10 miles It is assumed that 30 vehicles consisting of bulldozer, grader, forklift, cranes, rollers, and light duty trucks would be usefor this project. CO2 Emissions Total Project Emissions (lbs) Total Project Emissions (tons) Results: Total Project Annual Emissions Rates Grading Equipment Paving Demolition Building Construction Architectural Coatings Total Project Emissions by Activity (lbs) PM10 31,564.98 15.78 PM10 31,564.98 31,564.98 CY2008 Combustion NOTE: The 'Total Days' estimate for paving is calculated by dividing the total number of acres by 0.21 acres/day, which is a factor derived from the 2005 MEANS Heavy Construction Cost Data, 19th Edition, for 'Asphaltic Concrete Pavement, Lots and Driveways - 6" stone base', which provides an estimate of square feet paved per day. There is also an estimate for 'Plain Cement Concrete Pavement', however the estimate for asphalt is used because it is more conservative. The 'Total 'Days' estimate for demolition is calculated by dividing the total number of acres by 0.02 acres/day, which is a factor also derived from the 2005 MEANS reference. This is calculated by averaging the demolition estimates from 'Building Demolition - Small Buildings, Concrete', assuming a height of 30 feet for a two-story building; from 'Building Footings and Foundations Demolition - 6" Thick, Plain Concrete'; and from 'Demolish, Remove Pavement and Curb - Concrete to 6" thick, rod reinforced'. Paving is double-weighted since projects typically involve more paving demolition. The 'Total Days' estimate for building construction is assumed to be 230 days, unless project-specific data is known. Summary of Input Parameters Alternative 2, Route A TSP - Total Suspended Particulate VMT - Vehicle Miles Traveled Fraction of TSP, J: Mean vehicle speed, S: Dozer path width: Qty construction vehicles: On-site VMT/vehicle/day: PM10 Adjustment Factor k PM10 Adjustment Factor a PM10 Adjustment Factor b Mean Vehicle Weight W User Input Parameters / Assumptions Acres graded per year: Grading days/yr: Exposed days/yr: Grading Hours/day: Soil piles area fraction: Soil percent silt, s: Soil percent moisture, M: Annual rainfall days, p: Wind speed > 12 mph %, I: 0.5 5 8 152.44 5 1.5 0.9 0.45 40 508.15 5.59 90 8 0.10 8.5 85 70 39.5 K1-7 acres/yr (From "CY2008 Combustion" worksheet) days/yr (From "CY2008 Grading worksheet) assumed days/yr graded area is exposed hr/day (assumed fraction of site area covered by soil piles) % (mean silt content; expected range: 0.56 to 23, AP-42 Table 13.2.2-1) % (http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/soilmst/w.shtml) days/yr rainfall exceeds 0.01 inch/day (AP-42 Fig 13.2.2-1) Ave. of wind speed at Brownsville, TX % (ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/downloads/climate/windrose/texas/brownsville/) per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993, p. A9-99 mi/hr (On-site) ft vehicles (From "CY2008 Grading worksheet) mi/veh/day (Excluding bulldozer VMT during grading) lb/VMT (AP-42 Table 13.2.2-2 12/03 for PM 10 for unpaved roads) (dimensionless) (AP-42 Table 13.2.2-2 12/03 for PM 10 for unpaved roads) (dimensionless) (AP-42 Table 13.2.2-2 12/03 for PM 10 for unpaved roads) tons assumed for aggregate trucks Calculation of PM 10 Emissions Due to Site Preparation (Uncontrolled). Construction Fugitive Dust Emissions for CY 2008 CY2008 Fugitive Empirical Equation 0.75(s1.5)/(M1.4) (0.60)(0.051)s 2.0 [(k(s/12)a (W/3) b)] [(365-P)/365] Units lbs/hr lbs/VMT lbs/VMT AP-42 Section (5th Edition) Table 11.9-1, Overburden Table 11.9-1, Section 13.2.2 (Travel on unpaved surfaces within site) (Miles traveled by bulldozer during grading) Alternative 2, Route A Operation Bulldozing Grading Vehicle Traffic (unpaved roads) Emissions (mass/ 0.04 0.77 2.85 Factor unit) lbs/hr lbs/VMT lbs/VMT Calculation of PM 10 Emissions Factors for Each Operation Operation 0.1 1 8.4 K1-8 Parameter hr/acre VMT/acre VMT/acre Emissions (lbs/ 0.00 0.80 24.00 Factor acre) lbs/acre lbs/acre lbs/acre Source: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, Vol. I, USEPA AP-42, Section 11.9 dated 10/98 and Section 13.2 dated 12/03 Operation Bulldozing Grading Vehicle Traffic (unpaved roads) Equations Used (Corrected for PM 10) Operation Parameters (Calculated from User Inputs) Grading duration per acre 0.1 hr/acre Bulldozer mileage per acre 1 VMT/acre Construction VMT per day 762 VMT/day Construction VMT per acre 8.4 VMT/acre Emissions Due to Soil Disturbance Activities CY2008 Fugitive 15.9 lbs/day/acre covered by soil piles Alternative 2, Route A Back calculate to get EF: Soil Disturbance EF: Wind Erosion EF: Source Bulldozing Grading Vehicle Traffic Erosion of Soil Piles Erosion of Graded Surface TOTAL 455.46 lbs/acre/grading day 24.80 lbs/acre 27.99 lbs/acre/day Emissions 0.00 0.80 24.00 1.59 26.40 Factor lbs/acre lbs/acre lbs/acre lbs/acre/day lbs/acre/day Graded Acres/yr 508.15 508.15 508.15 508.15 508.15 K1-9 Exposed days/yr NA NA NA 90 90 Emissions lbs/yr 0 407 12,195 72,716 1,207,354 1,292,671 26.4 lbs/day/acre (recommended in CEQA Manual, p. A9-93). Graded Surface EF = Calculation of Annual PM 10 Emissions 0.10 (Fraction of site area covered by soil piles) 1.59 lbs/day/acres graded Soil piles area fraction: Soil Piles EF = Consider soil piles area fraction so that EF applies to graded area Soil Piles EF = Soil Piles EF = 1.7(s/1.5)[(365 - p)/235](I/15)(J) = (s)(365 - p)(I)(J)/(3110.2941), p. A9-99. Reference: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993. Emissions Due to Wind Erosion of Soil Piles and Exposed Graded Surface Emissions tons/yr 0.000 0.203 6.098 36.358 603.677 646.34 CY2008 Fugitive 508.15 acres/yr (from "CY2008 Combustion" Worksheet) 152.44 (calculated based on 3 pieces of equipment for every 10 acres) Operation Site Clearing Stripping Excavation Backfill Compaction Description Dozer & rake, medium brush Topsoil & stockpiling, adverse soil Bulk, open site, common earth, 150' haul Structural, common earth, 150' haul Vibrating roller, 6 " lifts, 3 passes 8 1,650 800 1,950 2,300 Output Units acre/day cu. yd/day cu. yd/day cu. yd/day cu. yd/day 851.46 152.44 5.59 Alternative 2, Route A (Equip)(day)/yr: Qty Equipment: Grading days/yr: K1-10 Calculation of days required for the indicated pieces of equipment to grade the designated acreage. Means Line No. 2230 200 0550 2230 500 0300 2315 432 5220 2315 120 5220 2315 310 5020 TOTAL Reference: Means Heavy Construction Cost Data, 19th Ed., R. S. Means, 2005. Calculation of days required for one piece of equipment to grade the specified area. Acres/yr Acres per equip-days (project- Equip-days equip-day) per acre specific) per year 8 0.13 508.15 63.52 2.05 0.49 508.15 248.43 0.99 1.01 254.07 256.19 2.42 0.41 254.07 105.10 2.85 0.35 508.15 178.22 851.46 Assumptions. Terrain is mostly flat. An average of 6" soil is excavated from one half of the site and backfilled to the other half of the site; no soil is hauled off-site or borrowed. 200 hp bulldozers are used for site clearing. 300 hp bulldozers are used for stripping, excavation, and backfill. Vibratory drum rollers are used for compacting. Stripping, Excavation, Backfill and Compaction require an average of two passes each. Excavation and Backfill are assumed to involve only half of the site. Input Parameters Construction area: Qty Equipment: Estimate of time required to grade a specified area. Construction (Grading) Schedule for CY 2008 CY2008 Grading NOx 84.954 0.042 VOC 10.195 0.005 CO 42.477 0.021 SO2 20.219 0.010 PM10 10.195 0.005 NOx (g/hp-hr) 5.0 VOC (g/hp-hr) 0.6 CO (g/hp-hr) 2.5 SO2 (g/hp-hr) 1.19 Alternative 2, Route A K1-11 Total Maintenance Emissions (lbs of NO x) = (40 hp)*(43/100)*(224 hr/yr)*(2 Equipment)*(5.0 g/hp-hr)*(0.002205 lb/g) = 84.95 lbs/yr Example: Total Maintenance Emissions (lbs of NO x) = (Rated power output of equipment engine)*(Loading Factor/100)*(Operating Time)*(Number of Equipment)*(Emissions Factor)*(Conversion factor) Total Maintenance Emissions (lbs) Total Maintenance Emissions (tons) Results: Total Maintenance Annual Emissions Rates Emissions Factors Rated Power Loading Factor Operating Time BSFC Equipment (hp) (% of Max Power) (hr/yr) (lb/hp-hr) Agricultural Mower (Diesel) 40 43 224 0.408 BSFC = Brake Specific Fuel Consumption Reference: USAF IERA "Air Emissions Inventory Guidance", July 2001, Table 7-6. Criteria Pollutant Emissions Factors for Nonroad Diesel Engines. Emissions Factors Used for Maintenance Equipment Assumptions: Approximately 508.15 acres of land would be mowed twice per year. Two agricultural mowers (40 horsepower) would operate for approximately 14 days. Each working day would be 8 hours. Agricultural mowers operate at 43% load capacity (17.2 horsepower). PM10 (g/hp-hr) 0.6 Maintenance The pedestrian fenceline and patrol road would require mowing approximately two times per year to maintain vegetation height and allow enhanced visibility and security. Maintenance Activities Emissions for CY 2008 Combustion Emissions of VOC, NO x, SO2, CO and PM10 Due to Maintenance Activities 75 hp 0.5262 MMBtu/hr 4,799 MMBtu/yr 6 8 hrs/day 190 10.581 0.864 2.279 0.696 0.744 tpy tpy tpy tpy tpy lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu K1-12 Generators Emissions Factors: USEPA AP-42 Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources, Table 3.3-1 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s03.pdf) Alternative 2, Route A Source: Example: Total NOx Emissions = (Annual MMBtu/year*(EF)/2000 = (4,799*4.41)/2000 = 10.581 tpy Emissions (Diesel) NOx VOC CO SOx PM10 4.41 0.36 0.95 0.29 0.31 Generators horsepower output capacity is only 0.363 percent efficient (AP-42 Chapter 3.3). USEPA AP-42 Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources, Table 3.3-1 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s03.pdf) Generator Emissions Factors (Diesel) NOx VOC CO SOx PM10 Note: Source: Example: 1hp=0.002546966 MMBtu/Hr Hourly Rate (MMBtu) = (75 Hp/0.363)*(0.002546699 MMBtu/hr) =0.5262 MMBtu/hr Annual Use (MMBtu) = (Number of Generator * Hours Operation/Day * Number of Construction Days) = (6*8*190*0.5262) = 4,799 MMBtu/yr Total Generator Capacity Hourly Rate Annual Use Number of Generators Maximum Hours of Operation Number of Construction Days Alternative 2, Route A would require six diesel powered generators to power construction equipment. These generators would operate approximately 8 hours per day for 190 working days. Emissions from Diesel Powered Generators for Construction Equipment 6 hp 0.0421 MMBtu/hr 5,531 MMBtu/yr 30 12 hrs/day 365 12.196 0.996 2.627 0.802 0.857 tpy tpy tpy tpy tpy lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu K1-13 Generators Emissions Factors: USEPA AP-42 Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources, Table 3.3-1 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s03.pdf) Alternative 2, Route A Source: Example: Total NOx Emissions = (Annual MMBtu/year*(EF)/2000 = (5,531*4.41)/2000 = 12.196 tpy Emissions (Diesel) NOx VOC CO SOx PM10 4.41 0.36 0.95 0.29 0.31 Generators horsepower output capacity is only 0.363 percent efficient (AP-42 Chapter 3.3). USEPA AP-42 Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources, Table 3.3-1 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s03.pdf) Generator Emissions Factors (Diesel) NOx VOC CO SOx PM10 Note: Source: Example: 1hp=0.002546966 MMBtu/Hr Hourly Rate (MMBtu) = (75 Hp/0.363)*(0.002546699 MMBtu/hr) =0.5262 MMBtu/hr Annual Use (MMBtu) = (Number of Generator * Hours Operation/Day * Number of Construction Days) = (6*8*190*0.5262) = 4,799 MMBtu/yr Total Generator Capacity Hourly Rate Annual Use Number of Generators Maximum Hours of Operation Number of Construction Days To be conservative, it was assumed that up to 30 portable light units would be needed for construction. These portable lights are powered by 6-kilowatt self-contained diesel generators. Portable lights would generally operate continuously every night (approximately 12 hours) 365 days per year. Emissions from Diesel Powered Generators for Portable Lights 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TX TX TX TX TX TX TX State Cameron Co Hidalgo Co Jim Hogg Co Starr Co Webb Co Willacy Co Zapata Co County 311,138 84,539 145,505 1,621 17,040 47,946 9,021 5,466 CO 36,950 25,148 6,679 11,285 291 2,259 2,380 1,777 477 2,707 849 1,161 18.5 141 376 121 40.1 SO2 71,745 15,988 27,056 763 4,287 13,764 2,753 7,134 VOC 6,284 386 4,064 77.3 433 755 144 425 CO 7,187 1,169 2,697 293 1,144 1,128 253 503 NOx Alternative 2, Route A K1-14 510 149 319 3.32 0.47 36.7 1.61 0.18 465 111 313 3.32 0.42 35.6 1.61 0.17 Point Source Emissions PM10 PM2.5 Brownsville-Laredo Intrastate AQCR (40 CFR 81.135): In the State of Texas: Cameron County, Hidalgo County, Jim Hogg County, Starr County, Webb County, Willacy County, Zapata County 132,278 36,197 61,198 1,229 12,645 9,943 9,238 1,828 Area Source Emissions PM10 PM2.5 10,659 17,041 110 2,251 5,122 1,371 396 NOx SOURCE: http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html USEPA - AirData NET Tier Report *Net Air pollution sources (area and point) in tons per year (2001) Site visited on 15 October 2007. Grand Total Row # SORT Brownsville-Laredo Intrastate Air Quality Control Region 1,832 516 773 50 215 124 49.6 104 VOC AQCR Tier Report 233 136 41 0.08 30.4 25.2 0.02 0.21 SO2 Estimates fine particulate emissions from earthmoving, vehicle traffic, and windblown dust Estimates the number of days of site preparation, to be used for estimating heavy equipment exhaust and earthmoving dust emissions Estimates the total emissions from future maintenance of fencelines and patrol roads from mowers. Estimates the total emissions from emergency generators to power construction equipment. Summarizes total emissions for the Brownsville-Laredo Intrastate AQCR Tier Reports for 2001, to be used to compare project to regional emissions. Fugitive Grading Maintenance Emissions Generator Emissions AQCR Tier Report K2-1 Estimates emissions from non-road equipment exhaust as well as painting. Combustion Alternative 2, Route B Summarizes total emissions by calendar year. Summary Summary Construction Combustion Construction Fugitive Dust Maintenance Emissions Generator Emissions TOTAL CY2008 PM10 (ton) 15.776 645.982 0.005 1.601 663.364 Alternative 2, Route B K2-2 Determination Significance (Significance Threshold = 10%) for Construction Activities Point and Area Sources Combined NOx VOC CO SO2 (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) Minimum - 2001 44,137 73,577 317,422 2,940 2008 Emissions 493.061 71.961 554.280 10.913 Alternative 2, Route B % 1.117% 0.098% 0.175% 0.371% PM10 (tpy) 132,788 663.364 0.500% Point and Area Sources Combined VOC CO SO2 PM10 NOx Year (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) 2001 44,137 73,577 317,422 2,940 132,788 Source: USEPA-AirData NET Tier Report (http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html). Site visited on 15 October 2007. Brownsville-Laredo Intrastate AQCR Since future year budgets were not readily available, actual 2001 air emissions inventories for the counties were used as an approximation of the regional inventory. Because Alternative 2, Route B is several orders of magnitude below significance, the conclusion would be the same, regardless of whether future year budget data set were used. CY2008 Air Quality Emissions from Alternative 2, Route B NOx VOC CO SO2 (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) 470.241 70.097 549.352 9.405 0.042 0.005 0.021 0.010 22.777 1.859 4.907 1.498 493.061 71.961 554.280 10.913 Summary 22,125,312 ft2 Alternative 2, Route B Total Building Construction Area: Total Demolished Area: Total Paved Area: Total Disturbed Area: Construction Duration: Annual Construction Activity: ft2 ft2 ft2 ft2 year(s) days/yr K2-3 0 0 0 22,125,312 1.0 190 (none) (none) (none) Assumptions: Total ground disturbance for pedestrian fence and patrol road would be 69.84 miles long by 60 feet wide (22,125,312 ft 2). Alternative 2 Patrol road would be graded and lined with gravel. No paving would be included in Alternative 2, Route B. Construction would occur between March and December 2008 for a total of 190 working days. 100% of Construct Pedestrian Fence and Patrol Road Includes: Construction Combustion Emissions for CY 2008 Combustion Emissions of VOC, NO x, SO2, CO and PM10 Due to Construction CY2008 Combustion Generator Set Industrial Saw Welder Equipment Alternative 2, Route B Note: Footnotes for tables are on following page Truck Forklift Crane Total per 10 acres of activity Mobile (non-road) Stationary d Equipment Loader Haul Truck Total per 10 acres of activity Equipment Paver Roller Total per 10 acres of activity Equipment Bulldozer Motor Grader Water Truck Total per 10 acres of activity Building Construction Demolition Paving Grading 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 per 10 acres No. Reqd.a No. Reqd.a per 10 acres 1 1 2 No. Reqd.a per 10 acres 1 1 2 No. Reqd.a per 10 acres 1 1 1 3 K2-4 20.89 4.57 8.37 67.16 11.83 17.02 4.48 (lb/day) NOx NOx (lb/day) 7.86 20.89 28.75 NOx (lb/day) 7.93 5.01 12.94 NOx (lb/day) 29.40 10.22 20.89 60.51 3.60 0.79 1.44 9.98 1.47 2.12 0.56 (lb/day) VOCb VOCb (lb/day) 1.35 3.60 4.95 VOCb (lb/day) 1.37 0.86 2.23 VOCb (lb/day) 3.66 1.76 3.60 9.02 Emissions factors are taken from Table 3-2. Assumptions regarding the type and number of equipment are from Table 3-1 unless otherwise noted. Reference: Guide to Air Quality Assessment, SMAQMD, 2004 Emissions Factors Used for Construction Equipment 30.62 6.70 12.27 78.03 10.09 14.52 3.83 (lb/day) CO CO (lb/day) 11.52 30.62 42.14 CO (lb/day) 11.62 7.34 18.96 CO (lb/day) 25.09 14.98 30.62 70.69 0.84 0.18 0.33 2.02 0.24 0.34 0.09 SO2c 0.16 0.42 0.58 SO2c 0.16 0.10 0.26 SO2c 0.59 0.20 0.42 1.21 SO2c CY2008 Combustion 0.58 0.13 0.23 2.27 0.47 0.68 0.18 (lb/day) PM10 PM10 (lb/day) 0.22 0.58 0.80 PM10 (lb/day) 0.22 0.14 0.36 PM10 (lb/day) 1.17 0.28 0.58 2.03 No. Reqd.a per 10 acres 1 1 NOx (lb/day) 6.83 6.83 VOCb (lb/day) 0.85 0.85 CO (lb/day) 5.82 5.82 0.14 0.14 SO2c PM10 (lb/day) 0.27 0.27 Alternative 2, Route B K2-5 CY2008 Combustion SMAQMD Emissions Factors (lb/day) Equipment NOx VOC CO SO2** PM10 Multiplier* Source Grading Equipment 51 156746.864 23365.670 183117.432 3134.937 5258.571 Paving Equipment 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Demolition Equipment 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Building Construction 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Air Compressor for Architectural Coating 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Architectural Coating** 0.000 *The equipment multiplier is an integer that represents units of 10 acres for purposes of estimating the number of equipment required for the project **Emissions factor is from the evaporation of solvents during painting, per "Air Quality Thresholds of Significance", SMAQMD, 1994 Example: SMAQMD Emissions Factor for Grading Equipment NOx = (Total Grading NOx per 10 ac*((total disturbed area/43560)/10))*(Equipment Multiplier) PROJECT-SPECIFIC EMISSIONS FACTOR SUMMARY a) The SMAQMD 2004 guidance suggests a default equipment fleet for each activitiy, assuming 10 acres of that activity, (e.g., 10 acres of grading, 10 acres of paving, etc.). The default equipment fleet is increased for each 10 acre increment in the size of the construction project. That is, a 26 acre project would round to 30 acres and the fleet size would be three times the default fleet for a 10 acre project. b) The SMAQMD 2004 reference lists emissions factors for reactive organic gas (ROG). For the purposes of this worksheet ROG = VOC. c) The SMAQMD 2004 reference does not provide SO 2 emissions factors. For this worksheet, SO 2 emissions have been estimated based on approximate fuel use rate for diesel equipment and the assumption of 500 ppm sulfur diesel fuel. For the average of the equipment fleet, the resulting SO 2 factor was found to be approximately 0.04 times the NOx emissions factor for the mobile equipment (based upon 2002 USAF IERA "Air Emissions Inventory Guidance") and 0.02 times the NOx emissions factor for all other equipment (based on AP-42, Table 3.4-1) d) Typical equipment fleet for building construction was not itemized in SMAQMD 2004 guidance. The equipment list above was assumed based on SMAQMD 1994 guidance. Equipment Air Compressor Total per 10 acres of activity Architectural Coatings Grading: Paving: Demolition: Building Construction: Architectural Coating Total Area (ft2) 22,125,312 0 0 0 0 Total Area (acres) 507.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 0 0 0 0 Total Days (per the SMAQMD "Air Quality of Thresholds of Significance", 1994) (from "CY2008 Grading" worksheet) Total Emissions (lbs): Alternative 2, Route B CO2 Emissions Total Project Emissions (lbs) Total Project Emissions (tons) Results: Total Project Annual Emissions Rates Grading Equipment Paving Demolition Building Construction Architectural Coatings Total Project Emissions by Activity (lbs) VOC 140,194.02 70.10 VOC 140,194.02 140,194.02 K2-6 NOx 940,481.19 470.24 NOx 940,481.19 940,481.19 CO 1,098,704.59 549.35 CO 1,098,704.59 1,098,704.59 SO2 18,809.62 9.40 SO2 18,809.62 18,809.62 PM10 31,551.43 15.78 PM10 31,551.43 31,551.43 CY2008 Combustion NOTE: The 'Total Days' estimate for paving is calculated by dividing the total number of acres by 0.21 acres/day, which is a factor derived from the 2005 MEANS Heavy Construction Cost Data, 19th Edition, for 'Asphaltic Concrete Pavement, Lots and Driveways - 6" stone base', which provides an estimate of square feet paved per day. There is also an estimate for 'Plain Cement Concrete Pavement', however the estimate for asphalt is used because it is more conservative. The 'Total 'Days' estimate for demolition is calculated by dividing the total number of acres by 0.02 acres/day, which is a factor also derived from the 2005 MEANS reference. This is calculated by averaging the demolition estimates from 'Building Demolition - Small Buildings, Concrete', assuming a height of 30 feet for a two-story building; from 'Building Footings and Foundations Demolition - 6" Thick, Plain Concrete'; and from 'Demolish, Remove Pavement and Curb - Concrete to 6" thick, rod reinforced'. Paving is double-weighted since projects typically involve more paving demolition. The 'Total Days' estimate for building construction is assumed to be 230 days, unless project-specific data is known. Summary of Input Parameters Alternative 2, Route B TSP - Total Suspended Particulate VMT - Vehicle Miles Traveled Fraction of TSP, J: Mean vehicle speed, S: Dozer path width: Qty construction vehicles: On-site VMT/vehicle/day: PM10 Adjustment Factor k PM10 Adjustment Factor a PM10 Adjustment Factor b Mean Vehicle Weight W User Input Parameters / Assumptions Acres graded per year: Grading days/yr: Exposed days/yr: Grading Hours/day: Soil piles area fraction: Soil percent silt, s: Soil percent moisture, M: Annual rainfall days, p: Wind speed > 12 mph %, I: 0.5 5 8 152.38 5 1.5 0.9 0.45 40 507.93 5.56 90 8 0.10 8.5 85 70 39.5 K2-7 acres/yr (From "CY2008 Combustion" worksheet) days/yr (From "CY2008 Grading worksheet) assumed days/yr graded area is exposed hr/day (assumed fraction of site area covered by soil piles) % (mean silt content; expected range: 0.56 to 23, AP-42 Table 13.2.2-1) % (http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/soilmst/w.shtml) days/yr rainfall exceeds 0.01 inch/day (AP-42 Fig 13.2.2-1) Ave. of wind speed at Brownsville, TX % (ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/downloads/climate/windrose/texas/brownsville/) per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993, p. A9-99 mi/hr (On-site) ft vehicles (From "CY2008 Grading worksheet) mi/veh/day (Excluding bulldozer VMT during grading) lb/VMT (AP-42 Table 13.2.2-2 12/03 for PM 10 for unpaved roads) (dimensionless) (AP-42 Table 13.2.2-2 12/03 for PM 10 for unpaved roads) (dimensionless) (AP-42 Table 13.2.2-2 12/03 for PM 10 for unpaved roads) tons assumed for aggregate trucks Calculation of PM 10 Emissions Due to Site Preparation (Uncontrolled). Construction Fugitive Dust Emissions for CY 2008 CY2008 Fugitive Empirical Equation 0.75(s1.5)/(M1.4) (0.60)(0.051)s 2.0 [(k(s/12)a (W/3) b)] [(365-P)/365] Units lbs/hr lbs/VMT lbs/VMT AP-42 Section (5th Edition) Table 11.9-1, Overburden Table 11.9-1, Section 13.2.2 (Travel on unpaved surfaces within site) (Miles traveled by bulldozer during grading) Alternative 2, Route B Operation Bulldozing Grading Vehicle Traffic (unpaved roads) Emissions (mass/ 0.04 0.77 2.85 Factor unit) lbs/hr lbs/VMT lbs/VMT Calculation of PM 10 Emissions Factors for Each Operation Operation 0.1 1 8.3 K2-8 Parameter hr/acre VMT/acre VMT/acre Emissions (lbs/ 0.00 0.80 23.70 Factor acre) lbs/acre lbs/acre lbs/acre Source: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, Vol. I, USEPA AP-42, Section 11.9 dated 10/98 and Section 13.2 dated 12/03 Operation Bulldozing Grading Vehicle Traffic (unpaved roads) Equations Used (Corrected for PM10) Operation Parameters (Calculated from User Inputs) Grading duration per acre 0.1 hr/acre Bulldozer mileage per acre 1 VMT/acre Construction VMT per day 762 VMT/day Construction VMT per acre 8.3 VMT/acre Emissions Due to Soil Disturbance Activities CY2008 Fugitive 15.9 lbs/day/acre covered by soil piles Alternative 2, Route B Back calculate to get EF: Soil Disturbance EF: Wind Erosion EF: Source Bulldozing Grading Vehicle Traffic Erosion of Soil Piles Erosion of Graded Surface TOTAL 457.26 lbs/acre/grading day 24.50 lbs/acre 27.99 lbs/acre/day Emissions 0.00 0.80 23.70 1.59 26.40 Factor lbs/acre lbs/acre lbs/acre lbs/acre/day lbs/acre/day Graded Acres/yr 507.93 507.93 507.93 507.93 507.93 K2-9 Exposed days/yr NA NA NA 90 90 Emissions lbs/yr 0 406 12,038 72,684 1,206,835 1,291,964 26.4 lbs/day/acre (recommended in CEQA Manual, p. A9-93). Graded Surface EF = Calculation of Annual PM 10 Emissions 0.10 (Fraction of site area covered by soil piles) 1.59 lbs/day/acres graded Soil piles area fraction: Soil Piles EF = Consider soil piles area fraction so that EF applies to graded area Soil Piles EF = Soil Piles EF = 1.7(s/1.5)[(365 - p)/235](I/15)(J) = (s)(365 - p)(I)(J)/(3110.2941), p. A9-99. Reference: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993. Emissions Due to Wind Erosion of Soil Piles and Exposed Graded Surface Emissions tons/yr 0.000 0.203 6.019 36.342 603.418 645.98 CY2008 Fugitive 507.93 acres/yr (from "CY2008 Combustion" Worksheet) 152.38 (calculated based on 3 pieces of equipment for every 10 acres) Operation Site Clearing Stripping Excavation Backfill Compaction Description Dozer & rake, medium brush Topsoil & stockpiling, adverse soil Bulk, open site, common earth, 150' haul Structural, common earth, 150' haul Vibrating roller, 6 " lifts, 3 passes 8 1,650 800 1,950 2,300 Output Units acre/day cu. yd/day cu. yd/day cu. yd/day cu. yd/day 851.09 153.00 5.56 Alternative 2, Route B (Equip)(day)/yr: Qty Equipment: Grading days/yr: K2-10 Calculation of days required for the indicated pieces of equipment to grade the designated acreage. Means Line No. 2230 200 0550 2230 500 0300 2315 432 5220 2315 120 5220 2315 310 5020 TOTAL Reference: Means Heavy Construction Cost Data, 19th Ed., R. S. Means, 2005. Calculation of days required for one piece of equipment to grade the specified area. Acres/yr Acres per equip-days (project- Equip-days equip-day) per acre specific) per year 8 0.13 507.93 63.49 2.05 0.49 507.93 248.32 0.99 1.01 253.96 256.08 2.42 0.41 253.96 105.06 2.85 0.35 507.93 178.14 851.09 Assumptions. Terrain is mostly flat. An average of 6" soil is excavated from one half of the site and backfilled to the other half of the site; no soil is hauled off-site or borrowed. 200 hp bulldozers are used for site clearing. 300 hp bulldozers are used for stripping, excavation, and backfill. Vibratory drum rollers are used for compacting. Stripping, Excavation, Backfill and Compaction require an average of two passes each. Excavation and Backfill are assumed to involve only half of the site. Input Parameters Construction area: Qty Equipment: Estimate of time required to grade a specified area. Construction (Grading) Schedule for CY 2008 CY2008 Grading NOx 84.954 0.042 VOC 10.195 0.005 CO 42.477 0.021 SO2 20.219 0.010 PM10 10.195 0.005 VOC (g/hp-hr) 0.6 CO (g/hp-hr) 2.5 SO2 (g/hp-hr) 1.19 Alternative 2, Route B K2-11 Total Maintenance Emissions (lbs of NOx) = (40 hp)*(43/100)*(224 hr/yr)*(2 Equipment)*(5.0 g/hp-hr)*(0.002205 lb/g) = 84.95 lbs/yr Example: Total Maintenance Emissions (lbs of NOx) = (Rated power output of equipment engine)*(Loading Factor/100)*(Operating Time)*(Number of Equipment)*(Emissions Factor)*(Conversion factor) Total Maintenance Emissions (lbs) Total Maintenance Emissions (tons) Results: Total Maintenance Annual Emissions Rates Emissions Factors NOx Rated Power Loading Factor Operating Time BSFC Equipment (hp) (% of Max Power) (hr/yr) (lb/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) Agricultural Mower (Diesel) 40 43 224 0.408 5.0 BSFC = Brake Specific Fuel Consumption Reference: USAF IERA "Air Emissions Inventory Guidance", July 2001, Table 7-6. Criteria Pollutant Emissions Factors for Nonroad Diesel Engines. Emissions Factors Used for Maintenance Equipment Assumptions: Approximately 507.93 acres of land would be mowed twice per year. Two agricultural mowers (40 horsepower) would operate for approximately 14 days. Each working day would be 8 hours. Agricultural mowers operate at 43% load capacity (17.2 horsepower). PM10 (g/hp-hr) 0.6 The fenceline and patrol road would require mowing approximately two times per year to maintain vegetation height and allow enhanced visibility and security. Maintenance Activities Emissions for CY 2008 Combustion Emissions of VOC, NOx, SO2, CO and PM10 Due to Maintenance Activities Maintenance 75 hp 0.5262 MMBtu/hr 4,799 MMBtu/yr 6 8 hrs/day 190 tpy tpy tpy tpy 0.744 tpy 10.581 0.864 2.279 0.696 0.31 lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu K2-12 Generators Emissions Factors: USEPA AP-42 Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources, Table 3.3-1 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s03.pdf) Alternative 2, Route B Source: Example: Total NOx Emissions = (Annual MMBtu/year*(EF)/2000 = (4,799*4.41)/2000 = 10.581 tpy PM10 Emissions (Diesel) NOx VOC CO SOx PM10 4.41 0.36 0.95 0.29 Generators horsepower output capacity is only 0.363 percent efficient (AP-42 Chapter 3.3). USEPA AP-42 Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources, Table 3.3-1 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s03.pdf) Generator Emissions Factors (Diesel) NOx VOC CO SOx Note: Source: Example: 1hp=0.002546966 MMBtu/Hr Hourly Rate (MMBtu) = (75 Hp/0.363)*(0.002546699 MMBtu/hr) =0.5262 MMBtu/hr Annual Use (MMBtu) = (Number of Generator * Hours Operation/Day * Number of Construction Days) = (6*8*190*0.5262) = 4,799 MMBtu/yr Total Generator Capacity Hourly Rate Annual Use Number of Generators Maximum Hours of Operation Number of Construction Days Alternative 2, Route B would require six diesel powered generators to power construction equipment. These generators would operate approximately 8 hours per day for 190 working days. Emissions from Diesel Powered Generators for Construction Equipment 6 hp 0.0421 MMBtu/hr 5,531 MMBtu/yr 30 12 hrs/day 365 tpy tpy tpy tpy 0.857 tpy 12.196 0.996 2.627 0.802 0.31 lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu K2-13 Generators Emissions Factors: USEPA AP-42 Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources, Table 3.3-1 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s03.pdf) Alternative 2, Route B Source: Example: Total NOx Emissions = (Annual MMBtu/year*(EF)/2000 = (5,531*4.41)/2000 = 12.196 tpy PM10 Emissions (Diesel) NOx VOC CO SOx PM10 4.41 0.36 0.95 0.29 Generators horsepower output capacity is only 0.363 percent efficient (AP-42 Chapter 3.3). USEPA AP-42 Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources, Table 3.3-1 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s03.pdf) Generator Emissions Factors (Diesel) NOx VOC CO SOx Note: Source: Example: 1hp=0.002546966 MMBtu/Hr Hourly Rate (MMBtu) = (75 Hp/0.363)*(0.002546699 MMBtu/hr) =0.5262 MMBtu/hr Annual Use (MMBtu) = (Number of Generator * Hours Operation/Day * Number of Construction Days) = (6*8*190*0.5262) = 4,799 MMBtu/yr Total Generator Capacity Hourly Rate Annual Use Number of Generators Maximum Hours of Operation Number of Construction Days To be conservative, it was assumed that up to 30 portable light units would be needed for construction. These portable lights are powered by 6-kilowatt self-contained diesel generators. Portable lights would generally operate continuously every night (approximately 12 hours) 365 days per year. Emissions from Diesel Powered Generators for Portable Lights 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TX TX TX TX TX TX TX State Cameron Co Hidalgo Co Jim Hogg Co Starr Co Webb Co Willacy Co Zapata Co County 311,138 84,539 145,505 1,621 17,040 47,946 9,021 5,466 CO 36,950 25,148 6,679 11,285 291 2,259 2,380 1,777 477 2,707 849 1,161 18.5 141 376 121 40.1 SO2 71,745 15,988 27,056 763 4,287 13,764 2,753 7,134 VOC 6,284 386 4,064 77.3 433 755 144 425 CO 7,187 1,169 2,697 293 1,144 1,128 253 503 NOx Alternative 2, Route B K2-14 510 149 319 3.32 0.47 36.7 1.61 0.18 465 111 313 3.32 0.42 35.6 1.61 0.17 Point Source Emissions PM10 PM2.5 Brownsville-Laredo Intrastate AQCR (40 CFR 81.135): In the State of Texas: Cameron County, Hidalgo County, Jim Hogg County, Starr County, Webb County, Willacy County, Zapata County 132,278 36,197 61,198 1,229 12,645 9,943 9,238 1,828 Area Source Emissions PM10 PM2.5 10,659 17,041 110 2,251 5,122 1,371 396 NOx SOURCE: http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html USEPA - AirData NET Tier Report *Net Air pollution sources (area and point) in tons per year (2001) Site visited on 15 October 2007. Grand Total Row # SORT Brownsville-Laredo Intrastate Air Quality Control Region 1,832 516 773 50 215 124 49.6 104 VOC AQCR Tier Report 233 136 41 0.08 30.4 25.2 0.02 0.21 SO2 Estimates fine particulate emissions from earthmoving, vehicle traffic, and windblown dust Estimates the number of days of site preparation, to be used for estimating heavy equipment exhaust and earthmoving dust emissions Estimates the total emissions from future maintenance of fencelines and patrol roads from mowers. Estimates the total emissions from emergency generators to power construction equipment. Summarizes total emissions for the Brownsville-Laredo Intrastate AQCR Tier Reports for 2001, to be used to compare project to regional emissions. Fugitive Grading Maintenance Emissions Generator Emissions AQCR Tier Report K3-1 Estimates emissions from non-road equipment exhaust as well as painting. Combustion Alternative 3 Summarizes total emissions by calendar year. Summary Summary Construction Combustion Construction Fugitive Dust Maintenance Emissions Generator Emissions TOTAL CY2008 PM10 (ton) 98.212 1,615.145 0.015 1.601 1,714.973 Alternative 3 K3-2 Determination Significance (Significance Threshold = 10%) for Construction Activities Point and Area Sources Combined NOx VOC CO SO2 (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) Minimum - 2001 44,137 73,577 317,422 2,940 2008 Emissions 2,950.383 438.263 3,424.958 60.078 Alternative 3 % 6.685% 0.596% 1.079% 2.044% PM10 (tpy) 132,788 1,714.973 1.292% Point and Area Sources Combined VOC CO SO2 PM10 NOx Year (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) 2001 44,137 73,577 317,422 2,940 132,788 Source: USEPA-AirData NET Tier Report (http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html). Site visited on 15 October 2007. Brownsville-Laredo Intrastate AQCR Since future year budgets were not readily available, actual 2001 air emissions inventories for the counties were used as an approximation of the regional inventory. Because Alternative 3 is several orders of magnitude below significance, the conclusion would be the same, regardless of whether future year budget data set were used. CY2008 Air Quality Emissions from Alternative 3 NOx VOC CO SO2 (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) 2,927.478 436.388 3,419.987 58.550 0.127 0.015 0.064 0.030 22.777 1.859 4.907 1.498 2,950.383 438.263 3,424.958 60.078 Summary 55,313,280 ft2 Alternative 3 Total Building Construction Area: Total Demolished Area: Total Paved Area: Total Disturbed Area: Construction Duration: Annual Construction Activity: ft2 ft2 ft2 ft2 year(s) days/yr K3-3 0 0 0 55,313,280 1.0 190 (none) (none) (none) Assumptions: Total ground disturbance for pedestrian fence and patrol road would be 69.84 miles long by 150 feet wide (55,313,280 ft 2). No grading would be required in construction staging areas. Patrol road would be graded and lined with gravel. No paving would be included in Alternative 3. Construction would occur between March and December 2008 for a total of 190 working days. 100% of Construct Pedestrian Fences and Patrol Road Includes: Construction Combustion Emissions for CY 2008 Combustion Emissions of VOC, NO x, SO2, CO and PM10 Due to Construction CY2008 Combustion Generator Set Industrial Saw Welder Equipment Alternative 3 Note: Footnotes for tables are on following page Truck Forklift Crane Total per 10 acres of activity Mobile (non-road) Stationary d Equipment Loader Haul Truck Total per 10 acres of activity Equipment Paver Roller Total per 10 acres of activity Equipment Bulldozer Motor Grader Water Truck Total per 10 acres of activity Building Construction Demolition Paving Grading 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 per 10 acres No. Reqd.a No. Reqd.a per 10 acres 1 1 2 No. Reqd.a per 10 acres 1 1 2 No. Reqd.a per 10 acres 1 1 1 3 K3-4 20.89 4.57 8.37 67.16 11.83 17.02 4.48 (lb/day) NOx NOx (lb/day) 7.86 20.89 28.75 NOx (lb/day) 7.93 5.01 12.94 NOx (lb/day) 29.40 10.22 20.89 60.51 Emissions factors are taken from Table 3-2. Assumptions regarding the type and number of equipment are from Table 3-1 unless otherwise noted. Reference: Guide to Air Quality Assessment, SMAQMD, 2004 Emissions Factors Used for Construction Equipment 3.60 0.79 1.44 9.98 1.47 2.12 0.56 (lb/day) VOCb VOCb (lb/day) 1.35 3.60 4.95 VOCb (lb/day) 1.37 0.86 2.23 VOCb (lb/day) 3.66 1.76 3.60 9.02 30.62 6.70 12.27 78.03 10.09 14.52 3.83 (lb/day) CO CO (lb/day) 11.52 30.62 42.14 CO (lb/day) 11.62 7.34 18.96 CO (lb/day) 25.09 14.98 30.62 70.69 0.84 0.18 0.33 2.02 0.24 0.34 0.09 SO2c 0.16 0.42 0.58 SO2c 0.16 0.10 0.26 SO2c 0.59 0.20 0.42 1.21 SO2c CY2008 Combustion 0.58 0.13 0.23 2.27 0.47 0.68 0.18 (lb/day) PM10 PM10 (lb/day) 0.22 0.58 0.80 PM10 (lb/day) 0.22 0.14 0.36 PM10 (lb/day) 1.17 0.28 0.58 2.03 No. Reqd.a per 10 acres 1 1 NOx (lb/day) 6.83 6.83 VOCb (lb/day) 0.85 0.85 CO (lb/day) 5.82 5.82 0.14 0.14 SO2c Alternative 3 K3-5 PM10 32737.183 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 PM10 (lb/day) 0.27 0.27 CY2008 Combustion SMAQMD Emissions Factors (lb/day) Equipment NOx VOC CO SO2** Multiplier* Source Grading Equipment 127 975826.067 145462.752 1139995.780 19516.521 Paving Equipment 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Demolition Equipment 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Building Construction 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Air Compressor for Architectural Coating 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Architectural Coating** 0.000 *The equipment multiplier is an integer that represents units of 10 acres for purposes of estimating the number of equipment required for the project **Emissions factor is from the evaporation of solvents during painting, per "Air Quality Thresholds of Significance", SMAQMD, 1994 Example: SMAQMD Emissions Factor for Grading Equipment NOx = (Total Grading NOx per 10 ac*((total disturbed area/43560)/10))*(Equipment Multiplier) PROJECT-SPECIFIC EMISSIONS FACTOR SUMMARY a) The SMAQMD 2004 guidance suggests a default equipment fleet for each activitiy, assuming 10 acres of that activity, (e.g., 10 acres of grading, 10 acres of paving, etc.). The default equipment fleet is increased for each 10 acre increment in the size of the construction project. That is, a 26 acre project would round to 30 acres and the fleet size would be three times the default fleet for a 10 acre project. b) The SMAQMD 2004 reference lists emissions factors for reactive organic gas (ROG). For the purposes of this worksheet ROG = VOC. c) The SMAQMD 2004 reference does not provide SO 2 emissions factors. For this worksheet, SO 2 emissions have been estimated based on approximate fuel use rate for diesel equipment and the assumption of 500 ppm sulfur diesel fuel. For the average of the equipment fleet, the resulting SO 2 factor was found to be approximately 0.04 times the NOx emissions factor for the mobile equipment (based upon 2002 USAF IERA "Air Emissions Inventory Guidance") and 0.02 times the NOx emissions factor for all other equipment (based on AP-42, Table 3.4-1) d) Typical equipment fleet for building construction was not itemized in SMAQMD 2004 guidance. The equipment list above was assumed based on SMAQMD 1994 guidance. Equipment Air Compressor Total per 10 acres of activity Architectural Coatings Grading: Paving: Demolition: Building Construction: Architectural Coating Total Area (ft2) 55,313,280 0 0 0 0 Total Area (acres) 1,269.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 0 0 0 0 Total Days (per the SMAQMD "Air Quality of Thresholds of Significance", 1994) (from "CY2008 Grading" worksheet) Total Emissions (lbs): NOx 5,854,956.40 2,927.48 NOx 5,854,956.40 5,854,956.40 VOC 872,776.51 436.39 VOC 872,776.51 872,776.51 CO 6,839,974.68 3,419.99 CO 6,839,974.68 6,839,974.68 SO2 117,099.13 58.55 SO2 117,099.13 117,099.13 Alternative 3 Estimate emissions of CO2 for BLIAQCR region is 995,000 tons per year K3-6 75 vehicles x 10 miles/day/vehicle x 190 days working x 1 gal/10 miles x 19.5 lb co2/gal x ton/2000lb = 137.5 tons CO2 It is assumed that the average vehicle will produce 19.5 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gas used. (www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients) It is further assumed that the total approximate average miles per day per vehicle would be 10 miles It is assumed that 75 vehicles consisting of bulldozer, grader, forklift, cranes, rollers, and light duty trucks would be usefor this project. CO2 Emissions Total Project Emissions (lbs) Total Project Emissions (tons) Results: Total Project Annual Emissions Rates Grading Equipment Paving Demolition Building Construction Architectural Coatings Total Project Emissions by Activity (lbs) CY2008 Combustion PM10 196,423.10 98.21 PM10 196,423.10 196,423.10 NOTE: The 'Total Days' estimate for paving is calculated by dividing the total number of acres by 0.21 acres/day, which is a factor derived from the 2005 MEANS Heavy Construction Cost Data, 19th Edition, for 'Asphaltic Concrete Pavement, Lots and Driveways - 6" stone base', which provides an estimate of square feet paved per day. There is also an estimate for 'Plain Cement Concrete Pavement', however the estimate for asphalt is used because it is more conservative. The 'Total 'Days' estimate for demolition is calculated by dividing the total number of acres by 0.02 acres/day, which is a factor also derived from the 2005 MEANS reference. This is calculated by averaging the demolition estimates from 'Building Demolition - Small Buildings, Concrete', assuming a height of 30 feet for a two-story building; from 'Building Footings and Foundations Demolition - 6" Thick, Plain Concrete'; and from 'Demolish, Remove Pavement and Curb - Concrete to 6" thick, rod reinforced'. Paving is double-weighted since projects typically involve more paving demolition. The 'Total Days' estimate for building construction is assumed to be 230 days, unless project-specific data is known. Summary of Input Parameters Alternative 3 TSP - Total Suspended Particulate VMT - Vehicle Miles Traveled Fraction of TSP, J: Mean vehicle speed, S: Dozer path width: Qty construction vehicles: On-site VMT/vehicle/day: PM10 Adjustment Factor k PM10 Adjustment Factor a PM10 Adjustment Factor b Mean Vehicle Weight W User Input Parameters / Assumptions Acres graded per year: Grading days/yr: Exposed days/yr: Grading Hours/day: Soil piles area fraction: Soil percent silt, s: Soil percent moisture, M: Annual rainfall days, p: Wind speed > 12 mph %, I: 0.5 5 8 380.95 5 1.5 0.9 0.45 40 1269.82 5.59 90 8 0.10 8.5 85 70 39.5 K3-7 acres/yr (From "CY2008 Combustion" worksheet) days/yr (From "CY2008 Grading worksheet) assumed days/yr graded area is exposed hr/day (assumed fraction of site area covered by soil piles) % (mean silt content; expected range: 0.56 to 23, AP-42 Table 13.2.2-1) % (http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/soilmst/w.shtml) days/yr rainfall exceeds 0.01 inch/day (AP-42 Fig 13.2.2-1) Ave. of wind speed at Brownsville, TX % (ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/downloads/climate/windrose/texas/brownsville/) per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993, p. A9-99 mi/hr (On-site) ft vehicles (From "CY2008 Grading worksheet) mi/veh/day (Excluding bulldozer VMT during grading) lb/VMT (AP-42 Table 13.2.2-2 12/03 for PM 10 for unpaved roads) (dimensionless) (AP-42 Table 13.2.2-2 12/03 for PM 10 for unpaved roads) (dimensionless) (AP-42 Table 13.2.2-2 12/03 for PM 10 for unpaved roads) tons assumed for aggregate trucks Calculation of PM 10 Emissions Due to Site Preparation (Uncontrolled). Construction Fugitive Dust Emissions for CY 2008 CY2008 Fugitive Empirical Equation 0.75(s1.5)/(M1.4) (0.60)(0.051)s 2.0 [(k(s/12)a (W/3) b)] [(365-P)/365] Units lbs/hr lbs/VMT lbs/VMT AP-42 Section (5th Edition) Table 11.9-1, Overburden Table 11.9-1, Section 13.2.2 (Travel on unpaved surfaces within site) (Miles traveled by bulldozer during grading) Alternative 3 Operation Bulldozing Grading Vehicle Traffic (unpaved roads) Emissions (mass/ 0.04 0.77 2.85 Factor unit) lbs/hr lbs/VMT lbs/VMT Calculation of PM 10 Emissions Factors for Each Operation Operation 0 1 8.4 K3-8 Parameter hr/acre VMT/acre VMT/acre Emissions (lbs/ 0.00 0.80 24.00 Factor acre) lbs/acre lbs/acre lbs/acre Source: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, Vol. I, USEPA AP-42, Section 11.9 dated 10/98 and Section 13.2 dated 12/03 Operation Bulldozing Grading Vehicle Traffic (unpaved roads) Equations Used (Corrected for PM10) Operation Parameters (Calculated from User Inputs) Grading duration per acre 0 hr/acre Bulldozer mileage per acre 1 VMT/acre Construction VMT per day 1905 VMT/day Construction VMT per acre 8.4 VMT/acre Emissions Due to Soil Disturbance Activities CY2008 Fugitive 15.9 lbs/day/acre covered by soil piles Alternative 3 Back calculate to get EF: Soil Disturbance EF: Wind Erosion EF: Source Bulldozing Grading Vehicle Traffic Erosion of Soil Piles Erosion of Graded Surface TOTAL 455.46 lbs/acre/grading day 24.80 lbs/acre 27.99 lbs/acre/day Emissions 0.00 0.80 24.00 1.59 26.40 Factor lbs/acre lbs/acre lbs/acre lbs/acre/day lbs/acre/day Graded Acres/yr 1269.82 1269.82 1269.82 1269.82 1269.82 K3-9 Exposed days/yr NA NA NA 90 90 Emissions lbs/yr 0 1,016 30,476 181,711 3,017,088 3,230,290 26.4 lbs/day/acre (recommended in CEQA Manual, p. A9-93). Graded Surface EF = Calculation of Annual PM 10 Emissions 0.10 (Fraction of site area covered by soil piles) 1.59 lbs/day/acres graded Soil piles area fraction: Soil Piles EF = Consider soil piles area fraction so that EF applies to graded area Soil Piles EF = Soil Piles EF = 1.7(s/1.5)[(365 - p)/235](I/15)(J) = (s)(365 - p)(I)(J)/(3110.2941), p. A9-99. Reference: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993. Emissions Due to Wind Erosion of Soil Piles and Exposed Graded Surface Emissions tons/yr 0.000 0.508 15.238 90.855 1,508.544 1,615.15 CY2008 Fugitive 1,269.82 acres/yr (from "CY2008 Combustion" Worksheet) 380.95 (calculated based on 3 pieces of equipment for every 10 acres) Operation Site Clearing Stripping Excavation Backfill Compaction Description Dozer & rake, medium brush Topsoil & stockpiling, adverse soil Bulk, open site, common earth, 150' haul Structural, common earth, 150' haul Vibrating roller, 6 " lifts, 3 passes 8 1,650 800 1,950 2,300 Output Units acre/day cu. yd/day cu. yd/day cu. yd/day cu. yd/day Alternative 3 (Equip)(day)/yr: Qty Equipment: Grading days/yr: 2127.73 380.95 5.59 K3-10 Calculation of days required for the indicated pieces of equipment to grade the designated acreage. Means Line No. 2230 200 0550 2230 500 0300 2315 432 5220 2315 120 5220 2315 310 5020 TOTAL Reference: Means Heavy Construction Cost Data, 19th Ed., R. S. Means, 2005. Calculation of days required for one piece of equipment to grade the specified area. Acres/yr Acres per equip-days (project- Equip-days equip-day) per acre specific) per year 8 0.13 1269.82 158.73 2.05 0.49 1269.82 620.80 0.99 1.01 634.91 640.20 2.42 0.41 634.91 262.65 2.85 0.35 1269.82 445.36 2127.73 Assumptions. Terrain is mostly flat. An average of 6" soil is excavated from one half of the site and backfilled to the other half of the site; no soil is hauled off-site or borrowed. 200 hp bulldozers are used for site clearing. 300 hp bulldozers are used for stripping, excavation, and backfill. Vibratory drum rollers are used for compacting. Stripping, Excavation, Backfill and Compaction require an average of two passes each. Excavation and Backfill are assumed to involve only half of the site. Input Parameters Construction area: Qty Equipment: Estimate of time required to grade a specified area. Construction (Grading) Schedule for CY 2008 CY2008 Grading NOx 254.863 0.127 VOC 30.584 0.015 CO 127.431 0.064 SO2 60.657 0.030 PM10 30.584 0.015 NOx (g/hp-hr) 5.0 VOC (g/hp-hr) 0.6 CO (g/hp-hr) 2.5 SO2 (g/hp-hr) 1.19 Alternative 3 K3-11 Total Maintenance Emissions (lbs of NO x) = (40 hp)*(43/100)*(224 hr/yr)*(2 Equipment)*(5.0 g/hp-hr)*(0.002205 lb/g) = 84.95 lbs/yr Example: Total Maintenance Emissions (lbs of NO x) = (Rated power output of equipment engine)*(Loading Factor/100)*(Operating Time)*(Number of Equipment)*(Emission Factor)*(Conversion factor) Total Maintenance Emissions (lbs) Total Maintenance Emissions (tons) Results: Total Maintenance Annual Emission Rates Emission Factors Rated Power Loading Factor Operating Time BSFC Equipment (hp) (% of Max Power) (hr/yr) (lb/hp-hr) Agricultural Mower (Diesel) 40 43 224 0.408 BSFC = Brake Specific Fuel Consumption Reference: USAF IERA "Air Emissions Inventory Guidance", July 2001, Table 7-6. Criteria Pollutant Emission Factors for Nonroad Diesel Engines. Emission Factors Used for Maintenance Equipment Assumptions: Approximately 1,269.82 acres of land would be mowed twice per year. Six agricultural mowers (40 horsepower) would operate for approximately 14 days. Each working day would be 8 hours. Agricultural mowers operate at 43% load capacity (17.2 horsepower). PM10 (g/hp-hr) 0.6 The fenceline and patrol road would require mowing approximately two times per year to maintain vegetation height and allow enhanced visibility and security. Maintenance Activities Emissions for CY 2008 Combustion Emissions of VOC, NO x, SO2, CO and PM10 Due to Maintenance Activities Maintenance 75 hp 0.5262 MMBtu/hr 4,799 MMBtu/yr 6 8 hrs/day 190 10.581 0.864 2.279 0.696 0.744 tpy tpy tpy tpy tpy lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu Alternative 3 K3-12 Generators Example: Total NOx Emissions = (Annual MMBtu/year*(EF)/2000 = (4,799*4.41)/2000 = 10.581 tpy Source: Emissions Factors: USEPA AP-42 Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources, Table 3.3-1 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s03.pdf) Emissions (Diesel) NOx VOC CO SOx PM10 4.41 0.36 0.95 0.29 0.31 Generators horsepower output capacity is only 0.363 percent efficient (AP-42 Chapter 3.3). USEPA AP-42 Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources, Table 3.3-1 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s03.pdf) Generator Emissions Factors (Diesel) NOx VOC CO SOx PM10 Note: Source: Example: 1hp=0.002546966 MMBtu/Hr Hourly Rate (MMBtu) = (75 Hp/0.363)*(0.002546699 MMBtu/hr) =0.5262 MMBtu/hr Annual Use (MMBtu) = (Number of Generator * Hours Operation/Day * Number of Construction Days) = (6*8*190*0.5262) = 4,799 MMBtu/yr Total Generator Capacity Hourly Rate Annual Use Number of Generators Maximum Hours of Operation Number of Construction Days Alternative 3 would require six diesel powered generators to power construction equipment. These generators would operate approximately 8 hours per day for 190 working days. Emissions from Diesel Powered Generators for Construction Equipment 6 hp 0.0421 MMBtu/hr 5,531 MMBtu/yr 30 12 hrs/day 365 12.196 0.996 2.627 0.802 0.857 tpy tpy tpy tpy tpy lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu K3-13 Generators Emissions Factors: USEPA AP-42 Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources, Table 3.3-1 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s03.pdf) Alternative 3 Source: Example: Total NOx Emissions = (Annual MMBtu/year*(EF)/2000 = (5,531*4.41)/2000 = 12.196 tpy Emissions (Diesel) NOx VOC CO SOx PM10 4.41 0.36 0.95 0.29 0.31 Generators horsepower output capacity is only 0.363 percent efficient (AP-42 Chapter 3.3). USEPA AP-42 Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources, Table 3.3-1 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s03.pdf) Generator Emissions Factors (Diesel) NOx VOC CO SOx PM10 Note: Source: Example: 1hp=0.002546966 MMBtu/Hr Hourly Rate (MMBtu) = (75 Hp/0.363)*(0.002546699 MMBtu/hr) =0.5262 MMBtu/hr Annual Use (MMBtu) = (Number of Generator * Hours Operation/Day * Number of Construction Days) = (6*8*190*0.5262) = 4,799 MMBtu/yr Total Generator Capacity Hourly Rate Annual Use Number of Generators Maximum Hours of Operation Number of Construction Days To be conservative, it was assumed that up to 30 portable light units would be needed for construction. These portable lights are powered by 6-kilowatt self-contained diesel generators. Portable lights would generally operate continuously every night (approximately 12 hours) 365 days per year. Emissions from Diesel Powered Generators for Portable Lights 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TX TX TX TX TX TX TX State Cameron Co Hidalgo Co Jim Hogg Co Starr Co Webb Co Willacy Co Zapata Co County 311,138 84,539 145,505 1,621 17,040 47,946 9,021 5,466 CO 36,950 25,148 6,679 11,285 291 2,259 2,380 1,777 477 2,707 849 1,161 18.5 141 376 121 40.1 SO2 71,745 15,988 27,056 763 4,287 13,764 2,753 7,134 VOC 6,284 386 4,064 77.3 433 755 144 425 CO 7,187 1,169 2,697 293 1,144 1,128 253 503 NOx Alternative 3 K3-14 510 149 319 3.32 0.47 36.7 1.61 0.18 465 111 313 3.32 0.42 35.6 1.61 0.17 Point Source Emissions PM10 PM2.5 Brownsville-Laredo Intrastate AQCR (40 CFR 81.135): In the State of Texas: Cameron County, Hidalgo County, Jim Hogg County, Starr County, Webb County, Willacy County, Zapata County 132,278 36,197 61,198 1,229 12,645 9,943 9,238 1,828 Area Source Emissions PM10 PM2.5 10,659 17,041 110 2,251 5,122 1,371 396 NOx SOURCE: http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html USEPA - AirData NET Tier Report *Net Air pollution sources (area and point) in tons per year (2001) Site visited on 15 October 2007. Grand Total Row # SORT Brownsville-Laredo Intrastate Air Quality Control Region 1,832 516 773 50 215 124 49.6 104 VOC AQCR Tier Report 233 136 41 0.08 30.4 25.2 0.02 0.21 SO2