United States of America v. Arizona, State of, et al
Additional Attachments to Main Document re 63 Lodged Proposed Document Index - Exhibit P by Defendants Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Q-Y, # 2 Exhibit Z, 1, 2, # 3 Exhibit 3-8, # 4 Exhibit 9-33, # 5 Exhibit 34-41)(Bouma, John)
United States of America v. Arizona, State of, et al
Doc. 64 Att. 1
OCT-09-2007 12:2eeasW"1i:r-ev-61ff-~i:EJæolWßn~~3 Filed 101ßt)'n?2~~ of 12
IN TH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRCT OF COLUMBIA
DEFENERS OF WILDLIFE and SIERRA cum;
) ) Case No. 1 :04CV00822 (ESH)
U.S. DEPARTMT OF TH INRIOR;
ENGINERS; AN U.S. DBP ARTMNT
OF HOMELAND SECURTY
) U.S. BURAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT; ) ) UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF
DECLARATION OF JAYSON P. AHRN
T. Jaysn P. Ahem. declare as follows:
1. I am the Deputy Cummtlsioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP").
the second-highest ranng position in the agency. I waq named the DCpl.lty
Commissioner in August 2007. Prior
to that, I served as the Assistant Commha~inner for.
CBP's Offce ofField Operations, a posi~iotl I held with the former U.S. Customs Service
since June 2002. I am currently in my 31st year of publi¡; ~~rvice, beginnng my carer
with the former u.s. Customs Scrvic~ in San Y:-idro, California. Throughout my carer,
I hl:vc: hc:lu numerous leadership pusitions, including Director ofField Operations in
Southern Californa. where I was in charge of all Customs activities at Southern
California ports olentry. I also served as the pnncipat field manl'ger of
operations in T ,os Angeles and Miam, two of
the nation's largest and busiest ports.
OCT-Ø9-2007 12:2tc~s~~~1-8V-6lafr-~~EÐ6~rfßf~~-3 Filed 1ol6~2~it of 12
2. 1 mae ths declaration based upun my personal knowledge and iitformatíon
obtaned from agency records.
3. CBP is the federal agcncy wltlun lhe Department of
Homeland Security that acLS
as the guardian of Our Nation's horder. The priority nussion of CBP is to prevlõnL
le.rrnTÌsti¡ and terrorist wea.pons from entering thç United States. Among other
responsibilties in its mission, CBP also is charged with preventing mega.l entry, luiinan
smuggling, and nacoii\;~ inle.dícLion.
4. Within CDP. the Offce of
Border Patrol hii primar responsibilty t(lT rnonitoriig
and responding to illcit border hitrsions across thousand!! ormiles of
U.S. port ofclltry. The CßP BonIer Palrol'!! expertise in CO\IDtcring these theal" iii
critical to ensuring the :lti¡;urily of the United States.
5. The Secure 'Border Initiative ("S8I") is a compr~hensive multi-year plan
estobJished by the Deparment of
Homeland Securty (DHS) to secure America's borùers
and rcduceilegal crOss burder activity. SJ3net is the component ofSBl charged with
ùeveloping and installng technology and tactical infrastrcture solutions to help U.S
CURtoms and Border Protection (CBP) agents and offcers gi1n effective control of O\ir
Nation's borders. The goal of SBIl'et is to t1eld ih~ most effective proven ttIhnology.
inf.lO'ucture. statlng. and rei;ponse platforms and iritegraie them into a single
comprehensive border security solution for the Deparent. SHTnet incorporates best
practices and lessons learned (rom previous programs to provide the most operoitionally
OCT -09-20Ø7 12: 2ECå§wn1 ~1-tw-6t6' -~æ6iWß~3 Filed 1 07~~~2~ia of 12
effective solution that wil enable the frontline agents nnd offcers to gain cffectiv~
the borders. CBP is the e.xecutive agent for Sl:Ul1el-lcadìng, managing and
workiiig with contractors to implement this importt prognim.
6. Tn lilical Yi:ar 2007, CLLP RurdeT Patrol apprehended 876,704 indjviduaii seeking
the United States. Of
to ilegally enter
those apprehenions) 858,638 were in the
Southwest Bordcr area. The Tiicson Sector. of which the SPRNC.J 15 a par, accounted
for 378,239 ofllæse appr~htmsiuns.
7. Ilegal crss border trafc has created thousands of new lroÚl:i imd roads on
FederaL Lands in southern Arizona. For example, according to a Defenders of
Report 180 miles ofiJegal toads have b~n t.-reaied in the Cabe7.. Prieta National
Wiidlîe Refuge alone since 2002.
8. One of
the most effcctivc forms of border inlrastrucLure in .areas of
or aæaS thai can easily be exploited by smuggli.ng organzations is fencing. Past
expenence hUR shown that border fencing lcads to morc effective border si:curity,
reduction in cross-boTder traffc, is a force niultiplier for the Border Patrol, iind has
positive environmcntal effects. Fol' cx.pl~. in Uie CBP ßorder Patrl~ San Dicgo
Sector) after the compktion uf certain segments offence, apprehensions decreased from
i 9,615 (in year 2000) to 4,545 (in 2003.) At the same time, the fence has !"llulled in Ùle
retu of proteted species that have not been reported in the area for many years.
OCT-09-2007 12:2E~s~i%?-ev-ólij-~Efæ~8n~~3 Filed 10le9tm2~ of 12
9. The proje-c at issue in Plaintiff'$' Motion for Temporaty RestraÍ1ung Order (the
"Project"), which involves the constniction of 1.54 n\Ues ofprimat fencing and bolJarù
fencing in the San Pedro Riparan National Conservation Ara, is bcinl! implemented as Ð
par oftbe S'Blnet l)oogcani.
THF. SAN PEDRO RJPARIAN NAll0NAL CONSERVATION ARA
10. Based on the effectivenei;c; of fencing in other locations on the Suulhem Border of
the 'United States, the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area and the aras that
suroWld it (the "San Pedro Region"), was identHied a.'1 an area of
the border that would
benetit from la¡;ijcal infri.stTucture~ tn include fenclt1g. The San Pedro Riparian National
Conservation Area ("SPRNCN') covers over 58,000 acres.
i 1. The SPltNCA has been an ara of
high ilegal entry and activity. In fiscal Yea
were over i 9,000 apprehensions ofi1egal ent.ants and over 21,000 ilegal
entres in the area, which figures repreent a significant increase compari:d ttl Fiscal Year 2006. Also in Fiscal Year 2007, there wcre 17 so-called "drive ihTOughg" In this area. (A
drive thugh is any conveyance Uiat lUega.ly L'm:ilit:s lhe intemational boundary at a
place noL de:iignaLcd iI'i a Port ufEntry without inspection or admission.) Unfortuntely,
14 ilegal enttant~ died in the SPRNCA in Fiscal Year 2007. including one decea.c;ed
individual located just yesterday. Furi:r. enlorcement in thii; area hac; proven difc\tlt,
as anen~ and narcotic smugglers utiize the San Pedro River area becaui;e it offers cover,
concenlnient, watert and a staging area in Mexico.
OCT-09-2Ø07 12:2Et~s~1~1-CW-6fij-~EÐ~EìMßft~~3 Filed 101199'R~f6 of 12
12. Operdiiunally. ¡;onstruciion of
taical infrastrcture wil greatly inereasc CBP
Rorder Patrol's abiHty t.o gain and maintnin operationa eoliti'ol of
this ara. Namely, it
wil impact ilegal entrants by preventing vehicles from driving direcLly Lhrough the area
flnd create a pedestran obstacle. It wil allow CHP 130rder Pa.lrol to more effectively
u.iiHi;~ its age-n~, as l1(; presence ota physical barier wil allow CBP Border latrolio
spread its patrols across a wider area. Furter, it wil give eBl' Border l'atrol agents
additional time to reaet to attempted ìlegal entries.
13. The ProjccL ericompallllt:i' approximately 11 acres in a 60'-wide area along 1.54
miles uf the hordeI'. In totnl~ this project covers approximately 0.019% or the SPRNCA.
Construction work will clear approximately 5 acrctl of Lhose acres Involved in the Pr~iccl.
This at consists offoi'mer farmland and wa:i covered by tumbleweed, non-native
plantings and Johnson grcliis; th was not an area of pristine natural vegetation.
Additionally, a 20' -wide Toad along the borde.. was already in plac~.
14. As of close of opC'ratioii on October H, 2007, all of the clear and grb work for the:
fencing has been completed, with lhc: exception of an urea oflustonc corrals and an
arcJieological site awalling ßLM ch:arnce to proceed. Additioni:ly, work has been
completed on the existing 20' -wide road wlueh consisted of repairs tor constrction
trnffc) grading a.nd fiJJng in wash-out ruts. also with the exception oftlie historlc COTrdlS
and archeological site. 49% of trenching i8 complete. No fencing has becii complvied)
although 9% of posts for primal)' fence arc set in con¡;rete) iud 26% of the low water
OCT-09-2007 12:2tK5~ll~dl~'r-~EB~S~ Filed 1oiõJf2~~~O of 12 P.ll1l"12
THE PROJECT is VIAL TO NATIONAL SECURlfY
19. Due to the increasing number of ilegal entrats in this niea, constrction of
fencing is also vital to protcctÎJig the Nation frm tlueats. As stted above. l~n(;ing aid.'l
apprehension, and apprehension is the only way to verifY the natre of
cargo. Tn tact, the potential exists for a single individual or smnll group to cross the
bordcr at the SPRNCA \Uldetected with biological or chcnucal weapons. weapons of
maiis i:Jlecl, or oiler implements of terrorism.
20. It is particularly relevant to note that t 03 criminal nliens who crossed thcborder
at th~ SPRNCA have becn apprehended and prosecuted since 2004.
ANY DF.l.A Y TN CONSTRUCTION WILL CAUSE IRREPARAL£ HA
21. Further, historical data indicate:¡ that gaps in the border infrastructure become
fuelÍng points, Because CBP plans 10 constrct tactical infastructue on eilht:r siùe of
thc San Pedro Riparian National Conscrvation Area, an injunction woulù three an
iriira..Lructure ga.p in the conserva.tion ara and thus increa.'il: iJl:gal enLries ii well as
patrol activity within that environment.
22. Should construction be halted at tlus poini. th~re is a potential for adverse
environmenlal impacls. Bt1cuui¡ U1e 60 foot "asement along the 1.54 miles ofbordcr has
already been scraped, W1 erosiO'n problem may result if Lhe Toad is not contoured and
somt: sort of aggregate bæ.e put down. FUTlht~mi(TeJ due 10 its depth, the opcn trench is a
OCT-09-2ØØ7 12:2éá5~m¡~a:oa~-~EB~S~ Filed 1oiõJm2~~eø1 of 12 P.11"12
saety had for both wtldJife and anyun~ who is walking in the area. Water can also
now into Ute inn¡;h and away lrom its iniend~d wa."hes since the water flows north iii that
23. The urgent need to gain and mainlain op~niliona control otthe border iii tJits area
is clearly evident. ßeci.u!)e. as set fort above. this is an area of
high ilegal entry arel
activity, any delay, no matter how briet~ is unwa.rranted, As T indicated above. durn~
Fiscal Year 2007, there were over i 9,000 apprehensions of iUegal cnltanL-; in the
SPRNCA, which translates to an average of gr(luier ¡hun 52 apprelrensil)J$ cvery day.
Furthermore. agency records indieatl; thw approximately 11% of
these ilegal entrants. on
average more than .5 individual:; each day in this area alone. have a crimnal background.
These individuals present an unacceptable risk of
harm to lhe Uiuted Staes and its
citizens. Aside from the obvious nationa security concerns, the environmental impacts
of ilcl'al enlI"àDlii anù aciiviiies in lhe area are pervasive and can he significl1ntly
mitigated by operational conttol ofthi: border in that area.
24. Should a TRO be entered, the resutIiig delay to th.: pmjcci will more than Ukely
extend fai' beyond tlie lellgtli of the ¡nj unction. i l thi: c()n~trction workers arc laid off,
there is a high likelihood that up to 100 new workers wil nccd to be rccrU:led, hired and
trained before constrction can continue. Welded wire mesh anù steel is being delivered
dnìly to the site; delay in constniction wil cause back up in the supply chain and likely
caui:e fiiture delays upon re.:sta.
OCT-09-2007 12:2èas~0l~-acf~-~Si:~5'! Filed 10iú.~ae~ of 12 P.12/12
25. Audilionally, delay wm cumpouml coiiiS to Lhe government The WOTksite and the
materials located therein wil need lo he ~uarded c(mtinu()ui~ly to prevent damage from'
vandals and theft.
26. For all of lht:st: reasons, any dt:lay in lhe consLrui;Uon ottatica infra~ructuTe in
the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Are presentq a risk otirreparable harm to
the Na.tion's security interest, its effort to red\Jce ilh:ga.l inU1grtioll. and the
I dechii:e under the penalty otpetjury and the laws ofthe United States tht the foregoing
is tnic and cOílct to the best of my information and belief. * _
~ UL--- III - '( -" f' ")
P. Ahem Oate 7
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
. OCT-09-2007 12:2E(âsW~I??-8~-fr~6'-~~Bo~~-3 Filed 10i¡e~êee~6r of 12
crossing bollard has been excavated but not installed pending apprval of
design at washes.
THE PROJECT WILL IMPROVE THE ENVTONMFNT TN THE SPRNCA
15. Although Plaintiffs claim that the Project will cau.~e irreparable ham to the
eiwironnient, the Bureou of
Lniid Management ("BLM"), the federal a.~t:ncy charged
WiUl adininlsteriiig and .protcc.ting the SPRNCA. has alreaùy ùetermined that the Project
will nul signifcantly impacl th~ environmenl. Further, despite Plai.ntiffs' claims
regarding the threats the Project poses to Threatened or Endangered species~ it is my
undcrsmnding tht the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serice ("USFWS") stated in a Biological
Opinion tht no Thrc-arcncd or Endangered Spei~~ would be adversely affected by the
constction of fencing encompassed within this Project. Moreover, CRP is takg
niea'fe~ de~cribed in the 2007 Environmental Assessment (EA) and FindiriJ! olNu
Significimt Inipnc:t (FONSJ)-measures that were develope by both BLM and
USfWS-to mitigate the ellviroruuental impacts associated wilh the Project. For
cxwnple, low water crossing Bollard Fence is en~int:ered to prevent erosion, scdimcnt
build-up, ur dowmlLream licdimenll1tion.
16. In fact. BLM and CBP beliove tht conslruclion of this fencing wil minimii".e the
environmental ímpact~ caused by ilegal entr. Some ofthese documented harmfl
effects of ilegal entrants include the following:
OCT-09-2007 12:2Ecä~~~5ET-e~-§~e'-~~~~-3 Filed 1di6!:~~elEß of 12
(a) mega' roads divert the normal flow ofwatcr and rob naiive plant
cover of the moiste it depends on to surive. Tht= pTOIHeration of
and roads damages and destroys cactus and uiher seni;itive vegetation,
disrupb or prohibiL'i re.vegi:iaiiun~ disturbs wildlife and their cover and
tnivc:l routes, causes soil compaction and erosion amI impact~ stream bank
(h) Furthermore, tons of trash and high concentrations of human was1. are
left behind by ilegal entrants. Tlùs impacts wildlife, vcgeiaLi(m and water
q'uality. This trash is ruso ingested by wiJdlilband Iivestu¡;k. someiimcs
re.sultillg in1Jness and death.
(c) VehicJei; u.qed hy ilegal entrants arc often damaged anu abandoned
resulting in the emission of pollutants anu l)'Pr~ding of
wlñch soak into the ground and can reach water sources. Reniovm of
Lhese whiclei; compounds the damage as tow trocks and othcr equipment
navigElte the lands to reach them.
(d) When il~g~l entrants fill water bottles in wetland locntions, they can
infest i:ese protected Federal wetlands with invasive parasite:: and
diseases which can doom natve fish and wildlife. In faci, une
Congressional report indicates that new tapeworm and fuguses have
already impacted populations of endagered fish and fro~~.
OCT-Ø9-20Ø7 12:2ee~'~~-OO-~iia§1-~6~ßf~-3 Filed 10le91'13~~ of 12
(c) Additionally, hundrcds ofwildfrcs causd by ¡;wnpllres ufilega\
immigrts have caused a signiJcani threa11u human safety and the lands
along the b()ller. Ii:; well a:; increa:ied impact., to soils, vegetation. ciiltural
sites, and other sensitive resources.
17. Although Pla.inliti~ claim Ùl"' the Pivj~cl may impai their use and enjo'ýt1'e1't of
the San Pedro River, the megal cross border trac is a real and well-documented
detracting factor that fencing will address. For exronple, the trash and dcbris leJì behind
by the thousands of
ilegal enti:EUts both detracts froID the scenic a,ui:i1ies otlhe urea, but
also ca afect hwnan and anmal health though the spriad ulbl1clena Wld disease.
Additionwly. Ii=ncing will aid in the prutec1ion ultli~ histuric coml.ls in the area frm
ñirther damage and destrction for firewood, as wen as the preseration 01' the oiher
arhaeological and cultural sites along the river.
18. Furthennnre~ given the current level of ilegal entry and the dangers ìt poses,
BLM has placed restrictions against public recreation in this portion of
the river. I have
been advised that BLM has closed this area at night an actively discourages day
due to smiigglig acll vity, vehicle thefts and alaults. lencing and bener enforcement
may enable BLM lo allow those who value recreational activities to u.c;e the area agai.
DECLARATION OF LARRY A. DEVER
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I, Larry A. Dever, declare and state as follows: 1. I am the Sheriff of Cochise County in Arizona and I make this
Declaration in my official capacity as Cochise County Sheriff. 2. I sit on the National Sheriff Association's (NSA) Board of Directors,
and serve as Chairman of the NSA Immigration and Border Security Committee. I am also a Past President of the Arizona Sheriff's Association. 3. Additionally, I am a member of the U.S. Attorney's Law
Enforcement Coordinating Committee, the Arizona Border Sheriff's Alliance, the Border States Sheriff's Association, the Western States Sheriff's Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Association of Search and Rescue. 4. I was elected to my first term as Cochise County Sheriff in 1996. I
am currently serving my fourth term as Cochise County Sheriff. 5. Prior to being elected as Cochise County Sheriff, I had a
distinguished 20-year career working in the trenches of Cochise County law enforcement. 6. Cochise County shares its entire southern border with Mexico.
Cochise County lies in the southeast corner of Arizona and shares 83.5 miles of international border with Mexico. Thirty of those statutory miles are private property. The remainder of the boundary is property owned by the State of Arizona (State Trust Land), and the U.S. Government (Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife.) 7. There are two Ports of Entry (Douglas and Naco.) The remainder is
defined by metal fence, vehicle barriers and barbed wire.
Cochise County is part of the Tucson Sector of the Border Patrol
which is the busiest sector in the country, accounting for almost half of all the marijuana seized and illegal aliens apprehended in the entire nation. While this area is one of the primary smuggling corridors, most of the contraband and aliens move through Cochise County on their way to the major transportation hub cities of Tucson and Phoenix. 9. The Cochise County Sheriff's Office hosts a multi-agency narcotics
task force which is supported in part by funding through the High Intensity Drug Smuggling (H.I.D.T.A.) initiative. The Cochise County Attorney's Office prosecutes the second highest number of drug cases under this initiative in the entire State of Arizona. 10. Border Patrol reports that 17% of the illegal immigrants captured
have previous serious criminal records in the United States where individuals have been charged, convicted, deported and have returned. I do not know how many illegal immigrants have serious criminal records in their countries of origin, but it stands to reason that it is substantial. 11. As Sheriff of Cochise County, I have a sworn duty to enforce the
United States Constitution and all Arizona State Statutes, including those dealing with homeland security. 12. In the spring of 2009, I attended a law enforcement meeting at the
Department of Homeland Security's ("DHS") headquarters in Washington, D.C. At the meeting, DHS presented ways to empower state and local law enforcement agencies to support homeland security measures. Specifically, DHS encouraged state and local law enforcement agencies to share resources and share intelligence
with the federal government and work together for the general benefit of national homeland security. S.B. 1070 is consistent with the goals outlined at the DHS presentation. 13. Sheriffs, because of their constitutional office, have authority of
commission, which effectively deputizes federal officers under the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Sheriff's office. Federal agencies authorize local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration and border security law after a process of training and vetting. Sheriffs have the ability to commission federal officers to enforce state laws. This authority furthers the partnership concept between state and local law enforcement, on the one hand, and federal law enforcement on the other hand. 14. I have read the Declaration of Tony Estrada dated June 28, 2010 and
respectfully disagree with Sheriff Estrada on several key points. 15. S.B. 1070, once in effect, will not require my deputies in each and
every encounter to detain individuals while immigration status is being determined. Rather, the law specifically acknowledges that my deputies and
officers will continue to be able to use their reasonable discretion as to detention while immigration status is being determined. 16. ICE is, and still will be, responsible for detention and deportation of
all illegal immigrants arrested for crimes in the State of Arizona. 17. S.B. 1070 will not undermine my ability to set law enforcement
priorities for my agency.
All law enforcement personnel use discretion on a daily basis as to
misdemeanor offenses. This will not change as a result of the implementation of S.B. 1070. 19. The implementation of S.B. 1070 will not divert my priorities from
arresting people, whether illegal or legal, for committing crimes. 20. All law enforcement officials set priorities and exercise discretion.
My priorities or exercise of discretion will not be adversely affected, in any manner, as a result of S.B. 1070's implementation. 21. S.B. 1070 will not interfere with my law enforcement team's
relationships with Border Patrol or ICE. 22. Once implemented, either ICE or Border Patrol will continue to
determine status of suspected illegal immigrants. S.B. 1070 will not require my deputies to independently determine immigration status of a suspected illegal immigrant. That function will continue to be carried out by the federal
government and its agencies. 23. S.B. 1070 will be beneficial to the Cochise County law enforcement
community because, among other things, it will assist in more quickly and efficiently moving illegal immigrants through the deportation process. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 20, 2010. By: /s/ Larry A. Dever Sheriff Larry A. Dever Cochise County Sheriff
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?