State of California et al v. Trump et al

Filing 182

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Department of Defense, David Bernhardt, Mark T. Esper, Steven T. Mnuchin, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Patrick M. Shanahan, Richard V. Spencer, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of the Treasury, United States of America, Heather Wilson. Responses due by 6/24/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Proposed Order)(Warden, Andrew) (Filed on 6/19/2019) Modified on 6/20/2019 (cpS, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

No. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG

v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

SIERRA CLUB, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

No. 4:19-cv-00892-HSG

v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

DECLARATION OF PAUL ENRIQUEZ
I, Paul Enriquez, declare as follows:
1. I am the Acquisitions, Real Estate and Environmental Director for the Border Wall
Program Management Office (“Wall PMO”), U.S. Border Patrol Program Management

Office Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), an agency of the
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). I have held this position since August 6,
2018. From 2013 to August 2018, I was the Real Estate and Environmental Branch Chief
for the Border Patrol and Air and Marine Program Management Office (“BPAM”),
Facilities Management and Engineering, Office of Facilities and Asset Management
(“OFAM”). From 2011 to 2013, I was employed as an Environmental Protection
Specialist in the BPAM office. In that role, I performed environmental analyses for
various border infrastructure projects. From 2008 to 2011, I was a contractor assigned to
the BPAM office and provided environmental support on various border infrastructure
projects. Based upon my current and past job duties, I am familiar with past and planned
border infrastructure projects that have been executed in support of border security.
2. In my position I am personally aware of the border barrier projects that have been
identified as “Yuma Projects 1 and 2 and El Paso Project 1,” (collectively the “Yuma and
El Paso Projects”) which will be executed with the assistance of the Department of
Defense (“DoD”). This declaration is based on my own personal knowledge and
information made available to me in the course of my official duties.
BACKGROUND
3. The Secretary of DHS has determined that United States Border Patrol El Paso Sector
(the “El Paso Sector”) and the United States Border Patrol Yuma Sector (the “Yuma
Sector”) are areas of high illegal entry. Consequently Section 102 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as amended (“IIRIRA”),
requires DHS to construct physical barriers and roads to deter and prevent illegal entry of
people and drugs into the United States.

2

4. To support DHS’s action under Section 102 of IIRIRA, the Secretary of DHS requested
that the Secretary of Defense, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284(b)(7), assist by constructing
fences, roads, and lighting within the El Paso and Yuma Sectors. The Acting Secretary
of Defense has concluded that the support requested satisfies the statutory requirements
of 10 U.S.C. § 284(b)(7) and that DoD will provide such support for the Yuma and El
Paso Projects.
5. CBP is the DHS component with primary responsibility for border security. Therefore,
CBP constructs, operates, and maintains border infrastructure necessary to deter and
prevent illegal entry on the southern border.
6. Within CBP, the Wall PMO has expertise in managing and executing border
infrastructure projects. The Wall PMO is directly tasked with managing the schedule,
finances, real estate acquisition, environmental planning—including compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and the Endangered Species Act
(“ESA”)—and construction of the border infrastructure system along the U.S. border.
Given its expertise in managing border infrastructure projects, the Wall PMO, on behalf
of CBP, is working in close coordination with DoD on the Yuma and El Paso Projects.
7. For the Yuma and El Paso Projects, the Wall PMO, on behalf of CBP will, among other
things, review and approve technical specifications, review and approve barrier
alignments and locations, and provide feedback and input on other aspects of project
planning and execution. In addition, the Wall PMO, on behalf of CBP, is responsible for
all environmental planning, including stakeholder outreach and consultation for the
Yuma and El Paso Projects.

3

8. In my capacity as the Acquisitions, Real Estate and Environmental Director, I am
responsible for overseeing all environmental planning and compliance activities as well
as the real estate acquisition process for projects executed or overseen by the Border Wall
PMO, including the Yuma and El Paso Projects.
9. DoD made contract awards for the Yuma and El Paso Projects on April 9, 2019.
Environmental planning and consultation for the Yuma and El Paso Projects was initiated
on April 8, 2019. The environmental planning and consultation that CBP has and will
engage in for the Yuma and El Paso Projects are described in more detail in Paragraphs
19 through 33 below. On April 19, 2019, a protest was filed concerning the contracts for
the Yuma and El Paso Projects. Construction on the Yuma and El Paso Projects was
scheduled to begin in late-May; however, construction may be delayed due to the pending
protests.
A. Yuma Project 1
10. Yuma Project 1 will be carried out under a waiver issued by the Secretary of DHS
pursuant to Section 102(c) of IIRIRA that was published in the Federal Register on April
24, 2019, 84 Fed. Reg. 17187 (April 24, 2019) (the “Yuma Waiver”).
11. The project area for Yuma Project 1 is in Yuma County, Arizona and is situated southeast
of the Andrade Port of Entry along the United States border with Mexico. The project
area is described in the Yuma Waiver as starting at the Morelos Dam and extending south
and generally following the Colorado River for approximately five and one-half (5.5)
miles (the “Yuma 1 Project Area”). Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a map depicting the
Yuma 1 Project Area.

4

12. Within the Yuma 1 Project Area approximately five (5) miles of existing vehicle barrier
will be replaced with new bollard wall that includes a linear ground detection system.
The existing vehicle barrier no longer meets the United States Border Patrol’s operational
needs. The new bollard wall will be 30-feet tall. The bollards are steel-filled concrete
that are approximately six inches in diameter and spaced approximately four inches apart.
Yuma Project 1 will also include road improvement or construction and the installation of
lighting that will be supported by grid power and includes imbedded cameras. All of the
construction activity will occur on land that is owned and controlled by the United States.
B. Yuma Project 2
13. Yuma Project 2 will also be carried out under the Yuma Waiver.
14. The project area for Yuma Project 2 is in Yuma County, Arizona and is situated on the
Barry M. Goldwater Range (“BMGR”) along the United States and Mexico border. The
project area is described in the Yuma Waiver as starting two and one-half (2.5) miles east
of Border Monument 198 and extending east to Border Monument 197 (the “Yuma 2
Project Area”). Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a map depicting the Yuma 2 Project
Area.
15. Within the Yuma 2 Project Area approximately one and one-half (1.5) miles of existing
pedestrian barrier will be replaced with new bollard wall that includes a linear ground
detection system. The existing pedestrian barrier is a steel mesh design that no longer
meets Border Patrol’s operational needs. The new bollard wall will be 18-feet tall. The
bollards are steel-filled concrete that are approximately six inches in diameter and spaced
approximately four inches apart. Yuma Project 2 will also include road improvement or
construction and the installation of lighting that will be supported by grid power and

5

includes imbedded cameras. All of the construction activity will occur on land that is
owned and controlled by the United States.
C. El Paso Project 1
16. El Paso Project 1 will be carried out under a waiver issued by the Secretary of DHS
pursuant to Section 102(c) of IIRIRA that was published in the Federal Register on April
24, 2019, 84 Fed. Reg. 17185 (April 24, 2019) (the “El Paso Waiver”).
17. The project area for El Paso Project 1 includes two segments along the United States
border with Mexico in Luna County and Doña Ana County, New Mexico. The first
segment is west of the Columbus Port of Entry and is described in the El Paso Waiver as
starting at Border Monument 31 and extending east to Border Monument 23. The second
segment is east of the Columbus Port of Entry and is described in the El Paso Waiver as
starting approximately one (1) mile west of Border Monument 20 and extending east to
Border Monument 9. Together these two segments represent the “El Paso 1 Project
Area.” Attached hereto as Exhibit B are maps depicting the El Paso 1 Project Area.
18. Within the El Paso 1 Project Area up to 46 miles of existing vehicle barrier will be
replaced with new bollard wall that includes a linear ground detection system. The
existing vehicle barrier no longer meets Border Patrol’s operational needs. The new
bollard wall will be 30-feet tall. The bollards are steel-filled concrete that are
approximately six inches in diameter and spaced approximately four inches apart. El
Paso Project 1 will also include road improvement or construction and the installation of
lighting that will be supported by grid power and includes imbedded cameras. All of the
construction activity will occur on land that is owned and controlled by the United States.

6

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND CONSULTATION FOR THE YUMA AND
EL PASO PROJECTS
19. CBP has long had a border security presence in the Yuma 1 and 2 and El Paso 1 Project
Areas (collectively, the “Project Areas”) and their surrounding areas. Through the
planning and development of past projects and activities, CBP has developed a deep
understanding and awareness of the natural, biological, historic, and cultural resources in
the Projects Areas.
20. To cite just a few examples of CBP’s prior environmental analyses covering actions in
and near the Project Areas, in 2008 CBP completed an Environmental Stewardship Plan
(“ESP”) covering the construction of approximately eight miles of border infrastructure
within the Yuma 1 Project Area and its surrounding area. In 2013, CBP completed an
Environmental Assessment (“EA”) for the maintenance and repair of border
infrastructure throughout the State of Arizona. The 2013 EA, the validity and sufficiency
of which was never challenged in court, was the culmination of years of analysis and
consultation with stakeholders concerning the potential environmental impacts from
CBP’s repair and maintenance of existing and proposed border infrastructure in Arizona,
including infrastructure in the Yuma 1 and Yuma 2 Project Areas.
21. Similarly, in 2006 CBP completed a Programmatic Environmental Assessment of the
construction, operation, and maintenance of border infrastructure within the El Paso
Sector along the entire United States border in New Mexico, including the El Paso 1
Project Area. In 2008, CBP completed two separate ESPs covering the construction,
operation, and maintenance of border infrastructure within the El Paso 1 Project Area and
its surrounding area. In 2015, CBP completed an EA regarding the maintenance and
repair of border infrastructure throughout the State of New Mexico, including the El Paso
7

1 Project Area. Like the 2013 EA regarding the maintenance and repair of border
infrastructure throughout Arizona, the 2015 EA, the validity and sufficiency of which
was never challenged in court, was the culmination of years of analysis and consultation
with stakeholders concerning the potential impacts of CBP’s repair and maintenance of
existing and proposed border infrastructure in New Mexico, including infrastructure in
the El Paso 1 Project Area.
22. More recently, in 2018, CBP undertook a project to replace approximately 20 miles of
existing vehicle barrier with new bollard wall in a project area that is west of the Santa
Teresa Port of Entry in Doña Ana County, New Mexico (the “Santa Teresa Project”).
The project area for Santa Teresa Project abuts the segment of the El Paso 1 Project Area
that is east of the Columbus Port of Entry. As part of the Santa Teresa Project, CBP
prepared an ESP that examined the potential impacts of the Santa Teresa Project (the
“Santa Teresa ESP”). A copy of the Santa Teresa ESP is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
23. As a part of its environmental planning process, including environmental planning for
projects and activities in the Yuma and El Paso Sectors, CBP conducts biological,
cultural, and other natural resource surveys, coordinates with stakeholders, and uses that
information to assess environmental impacts.
24. CBP is drawing on its prior experience in the Project Areas as it assesses the potential
environmental impacts for the Yuma and El Paso Projects.
25. In addition, CBP is presently engaged in new environmental planning and consultation
that is specifically targeted to the Yuma and El Paso Projects.
26. On April 8, 2019, before the Yuma and El Paso Waivers were issued, to better understand
the potential impacts of the Yuma and El Paso Projects, CBP sent consultation letters to a

8

number of stakeholders and potentially interested parties. The consultation letters include
information about the Yuma and El Paso Projects and invite input from stakeholders
regarding potential impacts. They also inform stakeholders that CBP will be accepting
comments and input through May 8, 2019.
27. For the Yuma 1 and 2 Projects, CBP sent 108 separate consultation letters to a range of
stakeholders and potentially interested parties, including, among others, the Department
of Interior (“DOI”), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”), the Bureau
of Land Management (“BLM”), the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(“USEPA”), the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water
Commission (“USIBWC”), the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer (“AZSHPO”),
the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality, State and local officials, Native American Tribes, and numerous nongovernmental organizations.
28. For El Paso Project 1, CBP sent 130 separate consultation letters to a range of
stakeholders and potentially interested parties, including, among others, DOI, USFWS,
BLM, USEPA, the New Mexico Historic Preservation Officer (“NMSHPO”), the New
Mexico Environment Department, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish
(“NMDGF”), State and local officials, Native American Tribes, and numerous nongovernmental organizations.
29. Also on April 8, 2019, CBP posted notices on its website, CBP.gov, notifying the public
of the Yuma and El Paso Projects and soliciting the public’s input regarding potential
impacts. The notices posted on CBP’s website can be found at
https://www.cbp.gov/document/environmental-assessments/yuma-county-border-

9

infrastructure-projects-april-2019 and https://www.cbp.gov/document/environmentalassessments/luna-and-do-ana-counties-border-infrastructure-projects-april. The notices
included a link to the same consultation letters, including information about the Yuma
and El Paso Projects, that was sent to every individual stakeholder or potentially
interested party.
30. On April 16, 2019, and April 17, 2019, CBP conducted on-site meetings with
representatives from DOI, USFWS, USEPA, Bureau of Reclamation, the Cocopah Tribe,
and BLM. At the on-site meetings, the parties toured the Project Areas and discussed the
Yuma and El Paso Projects and their potential impacts.
31. Within the next 20 days CBP will survey the Project Areas for biological, historical, and
cultural resources, and jurisdictional “Waters of the United States.” CBP will use the
data and information obtained through those surveys, along with data and information
drawn from past environmental surveys and planning that CBP has done in the Project
Areas, to prepare biological and cultural resources reports.
32. All of the information and input CBP obtains through stakeholder consultations, the
biological and cultural resources reports, and prior environmental planning will inform
the project planning and execution of the Yuma and El Paso Projects.
33. Using the information it has compiled and feedback it has received, CBP will prepare an
analysis of potential environmental impacts of the Yuma and El Paso Projects. CBP will
use that analysis to identify construction Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) or design
modifications that will be presented to DoD for incorporation into project planning and
execution in order to minimize or avoid potential impacts to the extent practicable. In
addition, input from stakeholders and CBP’s own analysis will be used to develop

10

mitigation measures, which may be implemented after construction to offset or minimize
unavoidable impacts.
ALLEGED HARMS FROM THE YUMA AND EL PASO PROJECTS
34. As detailed in the Paragraphs 19 through 33, CBP has not yet completed the
environmental planning and consultation process for the Yuma and El Paso Projects.
Those processes are on-going. Nevertheless, based on these ongoing consultations,
CBP’s prior experience in the Project Areas, meetings with various resource experts, and
my understanding of the Yuma and El Paso Projects, I find many of plaintiffs’ claims
concerning the alleged harms that will result from the Yuma and El Paso Projects to be
overstated or misplaced.
A. Alleged Procedural Injuries
35. Plaintiffs have put forth concerns about possible procedural injuries, alleging that
construction of the Yuma and El Paso Projects may occur without a review of impacts
(Walsh Decl. ¶ 15) or that requiring a NEPA or ESA process for the Yuma and El Paso
Projects will “surely redress” the alleged irreparable harms to federally-listed species and
other resources that will purportedly result from the Yuma and El Paso Projects (Nagano
Decl. ¶ 26).
36. As set forth above, however, CBP is engaging in environmental reviews of the Yuma and
El Paso Projects that consider CBP’s own data and information, new resource survey
data, as well as the input provided by federal and state resource agencies, including
USFWS, interest groups, and the public.
37. Through its consultation letters, CBP specifically sought input from numerous parties,
including the Sierra Club, the Southern Border Communities Coalition, the Southwest

11

Environmental Center, and the ACLU. Therefore, a wide range of stakeholders or
interested parties, including plaintiffs, will have the opportunity to raise concerns and
provide input about the potential environmental impacts of the Yuma and El Paso
Projects. CBP will consider that input as it plans for implementation of the Yuma and El
Paso Projects.
38. In fact, CBP has a proven track record of responding to concerns or input provided to
CBP as a part of its consultation processes. For example, in preparing the Santa Teresa
ESP, CBP’s Biological Resources Management Plan (“BRMP”), which informed the
analysis in the Santa Teresa ESP, was revised to incorporate feedback CBP received from
BLM, USFWS, and NMDGF, including incorporation of a discussion regarding
proximity of the Santa Teresa project to a population of the Mexican wolf in the United
States designated as a non-essential experimental population pursuant to Section 10(j) of
ESA. CBP also held a teleconference with BLM to discuss the potential impacts of the
Santa Teresa project on the cross-border migration of large mammals, and the BRMP was
updated to reflect information received from BLM as a result of this discussion.
39. Similarly, as part of its planning process for border barrier construction in the Rio Grande
Valley, Texas (“RGV”), CBP conferred with USFWS. Among other things, USFWS
provided CBP with data related to wildlife migration corridors. CBP used that
information to modify barrier design and alignment to minimize impacts to wildlife. For
barrier construction in RGV, CBP is planning to include gates or gaps in the barrier in
known migration corridors. CBP will also use a modified design for levee access ramps
that will form a safe island for wildlife in the event of flooding.

12

40. To the extent that specific recommendations are made for barrier design, alignment
modifications, or other measures that will minimize impacts to wildlife, wildlife
migration, or other resources for the Yuma and El Paso Projects, CBP will similarly
consider and, if feasible, recommend to DoD that those measures be incorporated into
project planning and execution.
B. Alleged Environmental Harms
41. In addition to alleged procedural injuries, plaintiffs make a number of allegations
regarding purported environmental harms that they assert will result from the Yuma and
El Paso Projects, including impacts to federally-listed species, other wildlife, and
plaintiffs’ recreational or aesthetic interests. As detailed below, I find plaintiffs’ claims
to be exaggerated or misplaced.
1. Federally-Listed Species
42. Plaintiffs allege that the Yuma and El Paso Projects will have dire consequences for the
endangered Northern jaguar. (Bixby Decl. ¶ 9.) For example, plaintiffs claim that a
fixed border barrier has the potential to cause “irreparable harm for a jaguar isolated from
a mate prior to insemination or a cub separated from its mother” (Hadley Decl. ¶ 13) and
that construction of the Yuma and El Paso Projects “would stop jaguar movement
through the region, potentially limiting recolonization” (Lasky Decl. ¶ 7).
43. USFWS defines critical habitat as those areas that contain the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of a species. 50 C.F.R. § 424.12(b). Critical habitat
is generally limited to those areas that are either occupied by the species or those areas
outside the geographic area occupied by the species that are essential to the conservation
of the species. Id. The only designated critical habitat for jaguar within New Mexico is

13

found in Hidalgo County. Final Rule, Designation of Critical Habitat for Jaguar, 79
Fed. Reg. 12572 (March 5, 2014), available at
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/03/05/2014-03485/endangered-andthreatened-wildlife-and-plants-designation-of-critical-habitat-for-jaguar. The El Paso 1
Project Area is well to the east of Hidalgo County in Luna and Doña Ana Counties.
According to USFWS’ critical habitat designation, there have only been seven individual
jaguars detected in the United States since 1982, with all of them occurring in areas
where critical habitat has been designated. Id. at 125851. Further, the most recent
known breeding event in the United States, according to USFWS, was in 1910. Id. at
12586. Thus, plaintiffs’ assertion that the Yuma and El Paso Projects will cause
“irreparable harm for a jaguar isolated from a mate prior to insemination or a cub
separated from its mother” is exaggerated. Similarly, the only designated critical habitat
for jaguar within Arizona is found in Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz Counties. Id. at
12572. The Yuma 1 and 2 Project Areas are in Yuma County, well to the west of any
designated critical habitat for jaguar in Arizona. In light of the above, the evidence does
not support plaintiffs’ suggestion or assertion that the Yuma and El Paso Projects will
significantly harm the jaguar population or jaguar recovery in the United States.
44. Likewise, plaintiffs cite potential threats to the endangered Chiricahua leopard frog.
(Hadley Decl. ¶ 24.) However, there is no designated habitat for Chiricahua leopard frog
in Luna County or Doña Ana County, New Mexico where El Paso Project 1 will occur.
Final Rule, Listing and Designation of Critical Habitat for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog,
77 Fed. Reg. 16324 (March 20, 2012), available at
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2012-03-20/pdf/2012-5953.pdf. Nor is there

14

any critical habitat designated for Chiricahua leopard frog in Yuma County, Arizona
where Yuma Projects 1 and 2 will occur. Id. Therefore, like their allegations concerning
jaguar, plaintiffs’ alleged harms concerning this species are misplaced. The evidence
does not support plaintiffs’ suggestion or assertion that the Yuma and El Paso Projects
will significantly harm the Chiricahua leopard frog population or its recovery.
45. Plaintiffs express concern about the potential consequences for the white-sided jack
rabbit. (Hadley Decl. ¶ 17.) Here again, however, this species only occurs in Hidalgo
County, New Mexico. (Traphagen Decl. ¶ 26); 12-Month Finding on the Petition to List
the White-Sided Jackrabbit as Threatened or Endangered, 75 Fed. Reg. 53615, 53618
(September 1, 2010), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010-0901/pdf/2010-21774.pdf#page=1. As noted above, there will be no construction or other
activities in Hidalgo County as a part of the Yuma and El Paso Projects. Therefore, the
evidence does not support plaintiffs’ suggestion or assertion that the Yuma and El Paso
Projects will significantly harm the white-sided jack rabbit population or its recovery.
46. Similarly, plaintiffs raises concerns about impacts to ocelot (Bixby ¶ 9; Munro ¶ 7;
Vasquez ¶ 12) and pronghorn, (Hadley Decl. ¶ 15; Traphagen Decl. ¶¶ 28, 30-31; Munro
Decl. ¶ 7.) Within the United States, ocelot are only known to occur in south Texas and
eastern Arizona, areas that will be unaffected by the Yuma and El Paso Projects. See
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Species Profile for Ocelot, available at
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=A084. As such, the evidence
does not support plaintiffs’ suggestion or assertion that the Yuma and El Paso Projects
will significantly harm ocelot, the ocelot population, or its recovery. In my discussions
with USFWS, I inquired about impacts to pronghorn and USFWS did not express

15

significant concerns about pronghorn being impacted by the Yuma or El Paso Projects.
Thus, the Yuma and El Paso Projects will not significantly harm the pronghorn
population or its recovery.
47. Plaintiffs further allege that El Paso Project 1 will adversely impact the endangered
Mexican wolf and Aplomado falcon. (Nagano Decl. ¶ 12; Lasky Decl. ¶ 7.) USFWS has
reintroduced both species in New Mexico as non-essential experimental populations
pursuant to Section 10(j) of ESA, which means that USFWS has determined that the loss
of these entire populations would not be “likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of
the survival of the species in the wild.” 50 C.F.R. § 17.80(b).
48. Plaintiffs assert that construction activities associated with El Paso Project 1 present dire
risks to both species. (Nagano Decl. ¶13.) Plaintiffs allege that construction activities
will result in “injury, death, harm, and harassment” to the Mexican wolf and Aplomado
falcon. (Nagano Decl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiffs claim that these harms will result from “linear
vegetation clearing; road construction; grading and construction of equipment storage and
parking areas; off road movement of vehicle[s] and equipment involved in construction;
and poisoning from chemical applications (herbicides and pesticides).” (Id.) Plaintiffs
further allege that these two species may be forced to abandon the El Paso 1 Project Area
for essential behaviors such as feeding, resting, and mating and that there could be
detrimental impacts caused by exotic species introduced by construction, which will
eliminate food sources and habitat for rodents and other mammals utilized by the two
species. (Id.)
49. Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the potential impacts to the Mexican wolf and Aplomado
falcon resulting from construction activities are overstated.

16

50. Plaintiffs’ description of the actual construction activities is not accurate. The areas in
and around the barrier footprint and construction staging areas are disturbed and largely
devoid of vegetation. Therefore, there will be little to no vegetation clearing required for
project execution. Further, there is already an existing border road that parallels the
border within the El Paso 1 Project Area. Therefore, any new road construction or
improvement will likely be within or adjacent to that existing road footprint. CBP also
has construction BMPs, which it plans to present to DoD for consideration and
incorporation into project execution, that are designed to address some of the very issues
raised by plaintiffs. For example, as a part of the Santa Teresa Project, CBP implemented
construction BMPs that included, among other things: (a) measures designed to prevent
the entrapment of wildlife species; (b) anti-perch devices to discourage roosting by birds;
(c) construction speed limits to minimize the risk of animal collisions; (d) backshields on
lighting to minimize light pollution; (e) vehicle cleaning specifications to minimize the
spread and establishment of invasive species; and (f) stringent requirements concerning
the application of any herbicide or pesticide. Santa Teresa ESP at 4-5- 4-6. In addition,
the Santa Teresa Project included species-specific BMPs. For example, to minimize
impacts to Aplomado falcon, no construction was allowed to occur within two miles of
active falcon nests, noise and light abatement measures were developed, and limits were
placed on the removal of larger nests from other varieties of birds that could potentially
be utilized by Aplomado falcon. Id. at 4-8.
51. USFWS has informed me that the potential impacts described by plaintiffs are unlikely to
occur. USFWS informed me that the nearest known Aplomado falcon pair is located
roughly seven miles from the El Paso 1 Project Area, in an area known as Simpson Draw

17

(the “Simpson Draw Pair”). After the Simpson Draw Pair, the nearest known pair are
over 100 miles from the El Paso 1 Project Area. USFWS further stated that, while it
would be possible for the Simpson Draw Pair to fly to the El Paso 1 Project Area, their
risk of being killed, harmed, or harassed are at least as great on New Mexico Highway 9
and in the farm fields that are situated between Simpson Draw and the El Paso 1 Project
Area. Relative to the El Paso 1 Project Area, New Mexico Highway 9 is closer to the
area where the pair typically nest. Thus, USFWS stated, if the traffic and other activity
from New Mexico Highway 9 has not caused the Simpson Draw Pair to abandon the site,
it is unlikely that construction activities from El Paso Project 1 will. Further, USFWS
has not expressed any concerns about potential construction impacts to Mexican wolf,
and transient individual wolves are only rarely found in the El Paso Project Area.
52. This squares with CBP’s prior analysis of construction impacts. As a part of the Santa
Teresa Project, CBP concluded that construction activities did not pose a significant risk
to either Mexican wolf or Aplomado falcon. Santa Teresa ESP at 3-24-3-25. The
analysis in the Santa Teresa ESP was informed by input it received from USFWS and
other resource agencies.
53. Regarding Mexican wolf, CBP concluded that Mexican wolf would not be impacted by
construction activities because it is a mobile species and would leave the area if disturbed
by such activities. Id. As to Aplomado falcon, CBP concluded that any impacts to
Aplomado falcon from construction activities would be temporary and minor. Id. Given
the similarity of the two projects and the input CBP has received from USFWS, I would
expect that CBP will be able to reach similar conclusions concerning El Paso Project 1.

18

54. In addition to potential construction impacts, plaintiffs allege that the improved barrier
that will be constructed as a part of El Paso Project 1 will have dire consequences for
recovery of these species. (Bixby Decl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs allege that the project will
negatively impact the long-term recolonization or repopulation of the Mexican wolf
(Lasky Decl. ¶ 7; Nagano Decl. ¶ 15) because it will prevent connection between wolves
in the United States and Mexico (Traphaegen Decl. ¶ 18). Plaintiffs allege that the lack
of connectivity will either harm Mexican wolf recovery (Traphagen Decl. ¶ 25) or could
actually “eliminate the possibility of recovery” (Nagano Decl. ¶ 15).
55. Despite plaintiffs’ claims to the contrary, the evidence does not support plaintiffs’
suggestion or assertion that the Yuma and El Paso Projects will significantly harm the
population or recovery of either species. Regarding Mexican wolf, plaintiffs have
overstated the potential harms. The recovery criteria for Mexican wolf specifically
contemplates “two demographically and environmentally independent populations,” one
in the United States and one in Mexico, “such that negative events (e.g. diseases, severe
weather, natural disasters) are unlikely to affect both populations simultaneously.”
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan, First Revision
(November 2017) at 24, available at
https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/pdf/2017MexicanWolfRecoveryPlanRev
ision1Final.pdf. According to USFWS, having two resilient populations provides for
redundancy, which in turn provides security against extinction from catastrophic events
that could impact a population. Id. Recovery criteria also call for achieving a specific
genetic target to ensure genetic threats are adequately alleviated. Id. USFWS has
recognized the benefits of connectivity (wolves naturally dispersing between populations)

19

to improve genetic diversity but has also stated, “[USFWS] do[es] not expect the level of
dispersal predicted between any of the sites (particularly between the United States and
northern Sierra Madre Occidental) to provide for adequate gene flow between
populations to alleviate genetic threats or ensure representation of the captive
population’s gene diversity in both populations.” Id. (emphasis in original). Therefore,
USFWS crafted a recovery strategy for the Mexican wolf that relies on the initial release
of wolves from captivity to the wild and the translocation of wolves between populations
as a necessary form of management to alleviate genetic threats during the recovery
process. Id. USFWS specifically stated that “connectivity or successful migrants are not
required to achieve recovery” of the Mexican wolf. Id. at 15.
56. Similarly, regarding Aplomado Falcon, as noted above, USFWS has informed me that the
nearest known Aplomado falcon pair is the Simpson Draw Pair, which is located roughly
seven miles from the El Paso 1 Project Area. After the Simpson Draw Pair, the nearest
known pair is over 100 miles from the El Paso 1 Project Area. USFWS has further
informed me that, in the unlikely event that the Simpson Draw pair is killed or abandoned
its nesting area due to El Paso Project 1, the impact to the subspecies survival and
recovery would be negligible. According to USFWS, Aplomado falcon pairs likely
number into the hundreds and are distributed among three populations and four countries.
As such, the Simpson Draw pair likely account for less than 1% of Aplomado
falcons. Therefore, even if the proposed construction resulted in the loss of one pair, it is
not likely to significantly reduce the subspecies’ survival or recovery probabilities.
57. In addition, it is unlikely that construction activities from El Paso Project 1 will have an
appreciable impact on the availability of habitat for either species. USFWS has not

20

designated any critical habitat for the Aplomado falcon because there is “ample suitable
habitat” to support falcons in Arizona and New Mexico. Final Rule, Establishment of
Experimental Population of Northern Aplomado Falcons in New Mexico and Arizona, 71
Fed. Reg. 42298, 42305 (July 26, 2006), available at
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2006-07-26/06-6486. Similarly, USFWS has
not designated any critical habitat for Mexican wolf. USFWS has stated that there is a
“large expanse of contiguous high-quality habitat” in central Arizona into west central
New Mexico, as well as other patches of high-and-low quality habitat. Mexican Wolf
Recovery Plan, at 11. Given the large amount of habitat that is already available to these
species and in light of the fact that the El Paso 1 Project Area is already heavily
disturbed, it is unlikely that the project will have a significant impact on the available
habitat for either species.
2. Other Wildlife Species
58. In addition to federally-listed species, plaintiffs allege harms to state-listed species such
as the Gila monster. (Nagano Decl. ¶¶ 20-25.) While plaintiffs acknowledge “the low
number of observations and records of Gila monster west of El Paso and Las Cruces”
where the El Paso 1 Project Areas is situated (Nagano Decl. ¶ 23), plaintiffs assert that it
is “highly likely that this animal inhabits the area where the border wall is proposed.”
(Nagano Decl. ¶ 24.) Based on its purported presence in Luna and Doña Ana Counties,
plaintiffs claim that the threats from the border barrier “come in the form of direct effects
of wall construction such as their death and injury from construction operations, falling
into trenches or other holes then dying of exposure or being buried alive; getting run over
by vehicles associated with the project; collected by construction personnel; and indirect

21

effects in the form of the border wall blocking their movement patterns or reducing the
size of an individual’s home range and eliminating the available food or shelter
resources.” (Nagano Decl. ¶ 25.)
59. Here again, plaintiffs appear to have overstated the potential harms. First, plaintiffs’
claim that Gila monsters are present within the El Paso 1 Project Area is highly
speculative. The Recovery Plan for Gila monster states: “The Gila Monster reaches the
eastern extent of its range in southwestern New Mexico, but the limits of its range are
poorly understood. Its occurrence in Hidalgo and Grant Counties is well established,
whereas origins of the small number of specimens and sight records from Luna and Doña
Ana Counties have been questioned. The records from Kilborne Hole in Doña Ana
County near Deming and Las Cruces are suspected to be released or escaped pets.” New
Mexico Game and Fish, Gila Monster Recovery Plan (April 5, 2017) at 6, available at
http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/download/conservation/species/amphibians-reptiles/GilaMonster-Recovery-Plan.pdf. Second, even if it is accepted that Gila monsters occupy the
El Paso 1 Project Area, as detailed above, CBP has construction BMPs, which will be
presented to DoD for consideration and incorporation into project execution, that will
address some of the issues raised by plaintiffs. These include measures designed to
prevent the entrapment of wildlife species and construction speed limits to minimize the
risk of animal collisions. Plaintiffs’ assertion that the border barrier will block their
movement patterns or reduce the size of an individual’s home range and eliminating the
available food or shelter resources is also speculative. The standard design of the
planned bollard wall includes four-inch spacing between bollards thus allowing for the
passage of Gila monsters through the barrier. In light of the above, the evidence does not

22

support plaintiffs’ suggestion or assertion that the Yuma and El Paso Projects will
significantly harm the viability of the Gila monster population.
60. Plaintiffs also overstate or exaggerate the risks to other wildlife species. For example,
plaintiffs speculate that increased patrol activity will be detrimental to wildlife (Munro
Decl. ¶ 9) or will present a specific risk of harm to species such as the Western Narrowmounted toad (Traphagen Decl. ¶ 26). However, the Yuma and El Paso Projects are
construction projects. Neither contemplates the hiring of additional Border Patrol agents
and deploying those agents to patrol within the Project Areas.
61. Finally, plaintiffs put forth generalized fears that the Yuma and El Paso Projects will
harm wildlife because they will bisect the habitat of larger species such as bobcats,
mountain lions, mule deer, and badger (e.g., Munro Decl. ¶ 7; Bixby Decl. ¶ 8; Lasky
Decl. ¶ 6) and smaller species such as lizards (Walsh Decl. ¶ 11), bats, birds, and snakes
(Lasky Decl. ¶¶ 9-11). In at least one instance, plaintiffs go so far as to say that the
Yuma and El Paso projects will result in “ecological devastation and likely regional
extirpation of species.” (Walsh Decl. ¶ 15.) Plaintiffs do not provide much in the way of
support for these generalized fears. In addition, these assertions are directly at odds with
CBP’s prior analysis of similar projects, including the recent Santa Teresa Project. In the
Santa Teresa ESP, which, as noted, examined the potential impacts of a project that is
very similar to the Yuma and El Paso Projects, CBP concluded that the Santa Teresa
Project would result only in minor adverse effects to wildlife. Santa Teresa ESP at 3-23.
To this same end, in the Yuma 2 Project Area, the conversion from wire mesh fencing to
bollard wall will have beneficial impacts for some smaller species, including the Flattailed horned lizard. For prior projects where CBP constructed mesh-style fencing, CBP

23

incorporated into the design small holes in the bottom of the fence that would allow for
migration of smaller species such as Flat-tailed horned lizard. CBP incorporated these
holes into the design upon the recommendation of USFWS and other resource
agencies. The bollard wall will not require such holes because smaller species such as
Flat-tailed horned lizard will be able to travel through the four-inch gaps between the
bollards.
3. Recreational and Aesthetic Injuries
62. Plaintiffs also put forth a number of claims concerning purported recreational or
aesthetic injuries. Plaintiffs allege that they enjoy recreational and aesthetic interests in
the areas in and around the Project Areas. (E.g., Bixby Decl. ¶ 6; Walsh Decl. ¶ 12.)
These include hiking and camping in the desert scrubland and surrounding peaks or “sky
islands” (Bixby Decl. ¶ 6), hunting and other hobbies (Trejo Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8; Vasquez Decl.
¶ 14), and fishing (Del Val Decl. ¶¶ 8-9). Plaintiffs assert not only that Yuma and El
Paso Projects puts those interests at risk (Walsh Decl. ¶ 15) but that the consequences
could be “devastating” (Bixby Decl. 12).
63. The evidence does not support plaintiffs’ suggestions or assertions the Yuma and El Paso
Projects will have significantly harm plaintiffs’ recreational activities or aesthetic
interests. The Yuma and El Paso Projects will not affect any change to the existing land
use within the Project Areas. The Yuma and El Paso Projects will occur on federallyowned land that is directly adjacent to the border—the vast majority of the construction
activity and the project footprints themselves will occur within a 60-foot strip of land that
parallels the international border. These areas are heavily disturbed, include existing
barriers and roads, and function primarily as a law enforcement zone. The Yuma 2

24

Project Area is on the BMGR, a military installation and active bombing range where
unauthorized entry is prohibited. Given their current condition and use, I would be
surprised to learn that any person has or would use the Project Areas for camping, hiking,
hunting, or other recreational or aesthetic activities.
64. Further, the Yuma and El Paso Projects will not affect any change to the existing land
uses in the areas that surround the Project Areas. Plaintiffs may continue to recreate in
and enjoy the natural and undeveloped areas that surround the Project Areas. For
example, because the barriers and roads that will be replaced or improved as a part of
Yuma Project 1 are directly adjacent to the international border, plaintiffs will continue to
be able to access and fish in the canals in and around Yuma, Arizona, including the West
Main Canal. (Del Val Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.) Yuma Project 1 is located west of the canal and will
not have any impact on the public’s access to the canals. Similarly, El Paso Project 1 will
not impact plaintiffs’ ability to access, use, and enjoy the vast desert and mountains that
surround the El Paso 1 Project Area. In fact, there are historical examples where CBP’s
construction of border barriers has resulted in increased public access and use in areas
surrounding the border because barrier construction has reduced illegal traffic and, in
turn, made such areas safer for access and use by the public.

25

Exhibit A
Yuma 1 and 2 Project Areas

Yuma 1
Project
Area

Yuma 2
Project Area

Exhibit B
El Paso 1 Project Area

two segments of the border shown on the enclosed maps total approximately 46 miles.

Exhibit C
Santa Teresa Environmental Stewardship Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PLAN
FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE
OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SEGMENTS JV-1 THROUGH JV-3
U.S. Border Patrol El Paso Sector
Santa Teresa Station, New Mexico
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Border Patrol

December 2008

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AO
APE
BMP
BLM
BRP
CAA
CBP
CERCLA
CM&R
CRS
CWA
dBA
DHS
EComm
EO
EPA
ESA
ESP
FEMA
FY
IA
IIRIRA
LASER
LWC
NAAQS
NEPA
NHPA
NMDGF
NMDOT
NRCS
NRHP
OBP
PCPI
PEA
PM-10
POE
POL
ROI
ROW
SBI
SHPO

Areas of Operation
Area of Potential Effect
Best Management Practices
Bureau of Land Management
Biological Resources Plan
Clean Air Act
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act
Construction Mitigation and Restoration
Congressional Research Service
Clean Water Act
decibel – A weighted scale
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Ecological Communications Corporation
Executive Order
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Endangered Species Act
Environmental Stewardship Plan
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fiscal Year
illegal alien
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
Labor Analysis Statistics and Economic Research
low water crossing
National Air Quality Standards
National Environmental Policy Act
National Historic Preservation Act
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish
New Mexico Department of Transportation
Natural Resources Conservation Service
National Register of Historic Places
Office of Border Patrol
per capita personal income
Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Particulate <10 micrometers
Port of Entry
petroleum, oil, and lubricants
region of influence
right of way
Secure Border Initiative
State Historic Preservation Officer
Continued on back cover →

COVER SHEET
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PLAN
FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE
OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SEGMENTS JV-1 THROUGH JV-3
U.S. BORDER PATROL EL PASO SECTOR, SANTA TERESA STATION,
NEW MEXICO
Responsible Agencies: United States (U.S.) Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP).
Coordinating Agencies: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Las Cruces Field Office; U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)-Albuquerque District; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS); and the U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC).
Affected Location: U.S./Mexico border, west of the Santa Teresa Port of Entry (POE), Luna
and Doña Ana counties, New Mexico.
Project Description: The Project consists of constructing, operating, and maintaining
tactical infrastructure (TI) to include 40 miles of vehicle fence and construction road and 8
miles of access roads along the U.S./Mexico border within the USBP El Paso Sector, Santa
Teresa Station, New Mexico. The vehicle fence and construction road will be built entirely
within the 60-foot wide Roosevelt Reservation, which was established for law enforcement
purposes. In addition to the planned TI, five staging areas outside the Roosevelt Reservation
will be utilized to facilitate operation of equipment, staging of materials, and construction
access to the Project corridor.
Report Designation: Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP).
Abstract: CBP plans to construct, operate, and maintain approximately 48 miles of TI within
three discrete segments (JV-1, JV-2, and JV-3) along the U.S./Mexico border in the USBP El
Paso Sector, Santa Teresa Station, New Mexico. Table CS-1 shows the individual segments
and the associated TI and staging areas within each segment of the Project.
Table CS-1. TI and Staging Areas Planned in each Segment of the Project Corridor
TI Segment
JV-1
JV-2
JV-3
Total

Construction Road / Vehicle
Fence (Miles)

Access Roads
(Total Miles)

Staging Areas
(Acres)

18
12
10
40

1.5
4
2.5
8

3.7
0
5.5
9.2

The Normandy-style vehicle fence will be installed 3 to 6 feet north of the U.S./Mexico border.
The vehicle fence will be comprised of welded steel; construction and access roads will be 28
feet wide. This ESP analyzes and documents environmental consequences associated with
the Project.

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
In Section 102(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
(IIRIRA), Congress mandated the United States (U.S.) Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to install fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors on not
less than 700 miles of the southwestern border. This total includes 370 miles of primary
pedestrian fencing to be completed in 2008, in areas most practical and effective in
deterring smugglers and aliens attempting to gain illegal entry into the U.S. In addition,
DHS has committed to completing a total of 300 miles of vehicle fence along the
southwestern border by the end of 2008. As of October 1, 2008, 205 miles of primary
pedestrian fence and 154 miles of vehicle fence remained to be constructed to meet the
December 2008 deadline.
On April 1, 2008, the Secretary of the DHS, pursuant to his authority under Section
102(c) of IIRIRA, exercised his authority to waive certain environmental and other laws
in order to ensure the expeditious construction of tactical infrastructure (TI) along the
U.S./Mexico border. The TI described in this Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) is
covered by the Secretary’s April 1, 2008, waiver (73 Federal Register [FR] 65, pp.
18293-24, Appendix A). Although the Secretary’s waiver means that U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) no longer has any specific legal obligations under the laws that
are included in the waiver, the Secretary committed DHS to responsible environmental
stewardship of our valuable natural and cultural resources. CBP strongly supports this
objective and remains committed to being a good steward of the environment. CBP will
continue to work in a collaborative manner with local government, state and Federal
land managers, and the interested public to identify environmentally sensitive resources
and develop appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid or minimize
adverse impacts resulting from the installation of TI.
To that end, CBP has prepared the following ESP, which analyzes the potential
environmental impacts associated with construction of TI in the U.S. Border Patrol’s
(USBP), Santa Teresa Station area of operation, El Paso Sector. The ESP also
discusses CBP plans to mitigate potential environmental impacts. The ESP further
details the BMPs associated with the TI that CBP will implement during, and after
construction.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT
The goal of the Project is to increase border security within the USBP El Paso Sector
with the ultimate objective of achieving effective control of our Nation’s borders. The
project further meets the objectives of the Congressional direction in the Fiscal Year
(FY) 2007 DHS Appropriations Act (Public Law [P.L.] 109-295), Border Security
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology appropriation to install fencing, infrastructure,
and technology along the border.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
ES - 1

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
In Section 102(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
(IIRIRA), Congress mandated the United States (U.S.) Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to install fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors on not
less than 700 miles of the southwestern border. This total includes 370 miles of primary
pedestrian fencing to be completed in 2008, in areas most practical and effective in
deterring smugglers and aliens attempting to gain illegal entry into the U.S. In addition,
DHS has committed to completing a total of 300 miles of vehicle fence along the
southwestern border by the end of 2008. As of March 21, 2008, 201 miles of primary
pedestrian fence and 140 miles of vehicle fence remained to be constructed by
December 2008.
On April 1, 2008, the Secretary of the DHS, pursuant to his authority under Section
102(c) of IIRIRA, exercised his authority to waive certain environmental and other laws
in order to ensure the expeditious construction of tactical infrastructure (TI) along the
U.S./Mexico border. The TI described in this Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) is
covered by the Secretary’s April 1, 2008, waiver (73 Federal Register [FR] 65, pp.
18293-24, Appendix A). Although the Secretary’s waiver means that U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) no longer has any specific legal obligations under the laws that
are included in the waiver, the Secretary committed DHS to responsible environmental
stewardship of our valuable natural and cultural resources. CBP strongly supports this
objective and remains committed to being a good steward of the environment. CBP will
continue to work in a collaborative manner with local government, state and Federal
land managers, and the interested public to identify environmentally sensitive resources
and develop appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid or minimize
adverse impacts resulting from the installation of TI.
To that end, CBP has prepared the following ESP, which analyzes the potential
environmental impacts associated with construction of TI in the U.S. Border Patrol’s
(USBP), Santa Teresa Station area of operation, El Paso Sector. The ESP also
discusses CBP plans to mitigate potential environmental impacts. The ESP further
details the BMPs associated with the TI that CBP will implement during, and after
construction.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT
The goal of the Project is to increase border security within the USBP El Paso Sector
with the ultimate objective of achieving effective control of our Nation’s borders. The
project further meets the objectives of the Congressional direction in the Fiscal Year
(FY) 2007 DHS Appropriations Act (Public Law [P.L.] 109-295), Border Security
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology appropriation to install fencing, infrastructure,
and technology along the border.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
ES - 1

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

areas outside the Roosevelt Reservation will be utilized to facilitate operation of
equipment, staging of materials, and construction access to the Project corridor. The
total area of the five staging areas will be approximately 9.2 acres (see Figure 1-1 and
1-2).
Upon completion of the TI, CBP will be responsible for repair and maintenance of the
fence and construction and access roads. Such activities will include replacement or
repair of fence segments that are vandalized, removal of debris that becomes
entrapped along the fence or within any drainage structures, and grading of the road
surface. These activities will occur on an as-needed basis; however, routine road
maintenance will be expected to occur at least annually.
In order to facilitate operation of equipment, staging of materials, and construction
access to the project corridor, five temporary staging areas, totaling 9.2 acres will be
used. Vegetation will be cleared and grading may occur where needed in the staging
areas. Upon completion of construction activities, the temporary staging areas will be
rehabilitated.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATIONS, AND BMPs
Table ES-1 provides an overview of potential environmental impacts by specific
resource areas. Chapters 3 through 5 of this ESP address these impacts in more detail.
CBP followed specially developed design criteria to reduce adverse environmental
impacts and will implement BMPs and mitigation measures to further reduce or offset
adverse environmental impacts. Design criteria to reduce adverse environmental
impacts include selecting a route that will minimize impacts, consulting with Federal and
state agencies and other stakeholders to avoid or minimize adverse environmental
impacts, and developing appropriate BMPs to protect natural and cultural resources.
Potential effects, including physical disturbance and construction of solid barriers on
wetlands, riparian areas, streambeds, and floodplains, will be avoided or mitigated as
appropriate. BMPs will include implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP), Construction Mitigation and Restoration (CM&R) Plan, Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP), Dust Control Plan, Fire Prevention and
Suppression Plan, and Unanticipated Discovery Plan to protect natural and cultural
resources.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
ES - 3

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

Table ES-1. Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts
Resource Area

Effects of the Project

Air Quality

Minor and temporary impact on air quality will occur
during construction; air emissions will remain below
de minimis levels.

Land Use and
Aesthetics

Approximately 1.5 acres of private land will be
impacted temporarily through the use of one staging
area in JV3. There are no land use impacts within the
60-foot Roosevelt Reservation because TI
implementation there is consistent with the intention of
the Roosevelt Reservation. There will be a minor
permanent impact on visual resources. Beneficial
effect, such as reduced habitat degradation north of
the border is expected.
Minor impacts on soils from a loss of biological
production are expected as a result of fence and new
road construction.
A temporary and one-time water usage will require 24
acre-feet of water, creating a negligible to minor
impact on the availability of water in the region.
Grading and contouring will result in short-term minor
adverse impacts to hydrology.
Minor and temporary impacts on surface water
resources from sedimentation and erosion caused by
construction are expected. Impacts will be minimized
through mitigation measures, as appropriate. Direct
impacts on approximately 19 potentially jurisdictional
Waters of the U.S. (WUS) (0.5 acre total) are also
expected. Surface runoff potential will result in shortterm minor adverse impacts on WUS.
Permanent loss of 319 acres of vegetation
communities, due to construction of TI. Approximately
9.2 acres of vegetation will be temporarily impacted
via staging areas but will be rehabilitated upon
completion of the construction activities.

Soils

Hydrology and
Groundwater

Surface Waters
and Waters of the
United States

Vegetation
Resources

Wildlife and
Aquatic
Resources

Negligible impact on wildlife expected. Some
permanent loss of habitat. Potential loss of small
mammals and reptiles during construction. There are
no permanent aquatic resources in the project
corridor.

Threatened and
Endangered
Species

No adverse effects on Federally listed species are
expected.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

Best Management
Practices/Mitigation
Dust Control Plan. Fire
Prevention and
Suppression Plan.
Maintain equipment
according to specifications.

No mitigation necessary.

Dust Control Plan.

SPCCP and CM&R plans.

SWPPP.

Fire Suppression and
Prevention Plan. Biological
monitor on site during
construction to ensure all
BMPs and mitigation plans
are followed.

No mitigation necessary.

Unanticipated Discovery
Plan.

December 2008
ES - 4

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure
Table ES-1, continued

Resource Area
Cultural
Resources

Effects of the Project
Twelve National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible cultural resources sites and twenty-six of
unknown eligibility are located within the current
project footprint and could be affected by the
construction activities.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

Best Management
Practices/Mitigation
Unanticipated Discovery
Plan. Avoidance is possible
for nine sites. Testing, data
recovery and monitoring
will occur as needed to
mitigate effects.

December 2008
ES - 5

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
ES - 6

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ ES - 1
1.0

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 1-1
1.2
GENERAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.................................................. 1-2
1.3
INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PLAN
(ESP) ...................................................................................................... 1-7
1.4
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND AGENCY COORDINATION ........................ 1-8
1.5
SUMMARY OF BMPS AND MITIGATION .............................................. 1-8
1.5.1 General Construction Activities .................................................... 1-9
1.5.2 Air Quality .................................................................................. 1-10
1.5.3 Soils ........................................................................................... 1-10
1.5.4 Water Resources ....................................................................... 1-10
1.5.5 Biological Resources.................................................................. 1-11
1.5.6 Cultural Resources..................................................................... 1-11

2.0

GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................. 2-1

3.0

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND EVALUATION ....................................... 3-1
3.1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 3-1
3.2
AIR QUALITY ......................................................................................... 3-2
3.2.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3-2
3.2.2 Effects of the Project .................................................................... 3-2
3.3
LAND USE.............................................................................................. 3-4
3.3.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3-4
3.3.2 Effects of the Project .................................................................... 3-4
3.4
AESTHETICS ......................................................................................... 3-5
3.4.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3-5
3.4.2 Effects of the Project .................................................................... 3-5
3.5
SOILS ..................................................................................................... 3-5
3.5.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3-5
3.5.2 Effects of the Project .................................................................... 3-5
3.6
WATER USE AND QUALITY.................................................................. 3-6
3.6.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3-6
3.6.1.1 Hydrology and Groundwater ............................................ 3-6
3.6.1.2 Surface Waters and Waters of the U.S. .......................... 3-7
3.6.1.3 Floodplains...................................................................... 3-7
3.6.2 Effects of the Project .................................................................... 3-7
3.6.2.1 Hydrology and Groundwater ........................................... 3-7
3.6.2.2 Surface Waters and Waters of the U.S. .......................... 3-8
3.6.2.3 Floodplains...................................................................... 3-9
3.7
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................. 3-9
3.7.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3-9
3.7.1.1 Vegetation Resources ..................................................... 3-9
3.7.1.2 Wildlife........................................................................... 3-10

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
i

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

3.8

3.9

3.10

3.7.1.3 Special Status Species................................................... 3-10
3.7.2 Effects of the Project .................................................................. 3-12
3.7.2.1 Vegetation Resources ................................................... 3-12
3.7.2.2 Wildlife........................................................................... 3-13
3.7.2.3 Special Status Species.................................................. 3-14
CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................... 3-15
3.8.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................ 3-15
3.8.1.1 Cultural Overview.......................................................... 3-15
3.8.1.2 Studies Conducted within the Project Corridor.............. 3-15
3.8.2 Effects of the Project .................................................................. 3-24
SOCIOECONOMICS ............................................................................ 3-25
3.9.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................ 3-25
3.9.2 Effects of the Project .................................................................. 3-25
3.9.2.1 Socioeconomics ............................................................ 3-25
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE............................................ 3-26
3.10.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................ 3-26
3.10.2 Effects of the Project .................................................................. 3-26

4.0

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............ 4-1
4.1
General Construction Activities .................................................... 4-2
4.2
Air Quality .................................................................................... 4-3
4.3
Soils ............................................................................................. 4-3
4.4
Water Resources ......................................................................... 4-3
4.5
Biological Resources.................................................................... 4-4
4.6
Cultural Resources....................................................................... 4-4

5.0

RELATED PROJECTS AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ...................................... 5-1
5.1
PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIONS..... 5-1
5.2
AIR QUALITY ......................................................................................... 5-4
5.3
LAND USE.............................................................................................. 5-4
5.4
AESTHETICS ......................................................................................... 5-4
5.5
SOILS ..................................................................................................... 5-5
5.6
WATER USE AND QUALITY.................................................................. 5-5
5.7
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................. 5-5
5.8
CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................... 5-6
5.9
SOCIOECONOMICS .............................................................................. 5-6
5.10 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................................................... 5-6

6.0

REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 6-1

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
ii

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map............................................................................................... 1-3
Figure 1-2. JV-1, JV-2 & JV-3 Project Corridor ........................................................... 1-5
Figure 2-1. Schematics of Project Corridor ................................................................. 2-3
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. TI and Staging Area Impacts in each Segment of the Project .................... 3-2
Table 3-2. Total Air Emissions (tons/year) from Construction Activities
vs. de minimis Levels ................................................................................ 3-3
Table 3-3. Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Soil Types ..................................... 3-6
Table 3-4. Impacts on Waters of the U.S. ................................................................... 3-8
Table 3-5. Federally endangered or threatened species, Luna
and Doña Ana County ............................................................................. 3-11
Table 3-6. State listed species with potential to occur in the project corridor ............ 3-12
Table 3-7. Cultural Resources Overview of Project Area .......................................... 3-17
Table 4-1. Specific Resource Area BMPs and Mitigation ............................................ 4-1
Table 5-1. Recently Completed or Reasonably Foreseeable CBP Projects in and
near the Santa Teresa Station’s AO .......................................................... 5-3
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph 2-1. Example of Post on Rail Vehicle Fence............................................ 2-1
Photograph 2-2. Vehicle Fence (Normandy-style) ...................................................... 2-1
Photograph 2-3. Portable lights ................................................................................... 2-4
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D

DHS April 2008 Border Waiver
Air Emissions Calculations
Threatened and Endangered Species List
BLM Las Cruces Active Project Register

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
iii

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
iv

SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1

BACKGROUND

In Section 102(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
(IIRIRA), Congress mandated that the United States (U.S.) Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) install fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors on not
less than 700 miles of the southwestern border. This total includes certain priority miles
of fencing in areas most practical and effective in deterring illegal entry and smuggling
into the U.S. Congress has mandated that these priority miles be completed by
December 2008. To that end, DHS plans to complete 370 miles of pedestrian fencing
and 300 miles of vehicle fencing along the southwestern border by the end of 2008 As
of March 21, 2008, 201 miles of primary pedestrian fence and 140 miles of vehicle
fence remained to be constructed by December 2008. These efforts support the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) mission to prevent terrorists and terrorist
weapons from entering the U.S., while also facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and
travel.
On April 1, 2008, the Secretary of the DHS, pursuant to his authority under Section
102(c) of IIRIRA, exercised his authority to waive certain environmental and other laws
in order to ensure the expeditious construction of tactical infrastructure (TI) along the
U.S./Mexico border. The TI described in this Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) is
covered by the Secretary’s April 1, 2008, waiver (73 Federal Register [FR] 65, pp.
18293-24, Appendix A). Although the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP no longer has
any specific legal obligations under the laws that are included in the waiver, the
Secretary committed DHS to responsible environmental stewardship of our valuable
natural and cultural resources. CBP strongly supports this objective and remains
committed to being a good steward of the environment. CBP will continue to work in a
collaborative manner with local government, state and Federal land managers, Native
American Tribes, and the interested public to identify environmentally sensitive
resources and develop appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid or
minimize adverse impacts resulting from the installation of TI.
To that end, CBP has prepared the following ESP, which analyzes the potential
environmental impacts associated with construction of TI in the USBP’s El Paso Sector,
Santa Teresa Station’s area of operation (AO). The ESP also discusses CBP’s plans to
mitigate unavoidable environmental impacts. The ESP further details the BMPs
associated with the TI that CBP will implement during, and after construction.
The project area covered by this ESP has been determined to be an area of high illegal
entry into the U.S. As such, the project corridor is designated as an area where
completion of border TI must be accomplished in an expeditious manner, and the
Secretary of DHS has waived compliance with Federal laws and legal requirements
necessary for the completion of the TI (i.e., the Project). This ESP is prepared in order
to evaluate impacts of the Project on natural and cultural resources in the project
ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
1-1

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

corridor, and to assist CBP in protecting critical resources during construction and
operation of the TI being installed for the Project. This ESP is designed in a format that
identifies each affected resource and evaluates potential impacts to each resource, with
the intent to minimize resource impacts to the extent practicable. This ESP was not
prepared to comply with specific laws or regulations; rather it is a planning and guidance
tool to assist CBP to accomplish construction in a manner that will minimize adverse
impacts to the extent practicable.
CBP will construct, operate, and maintain approximately 48 miles of TI, which includes
40 miles of vehicle fence and associated construction roads, along the U.S./Mexico
border in Luna and Doña Ana counties. This action is in support of the USBP El Paso
Sector mission and will occur within the Santa Teresa Station’s AO. All construction of
the vehicle fence will occur within the Roosevelt Reservation. The vehicle fence will be
installed approximately 3 to 6 feet north of the U.S./Mexico border. Figure 1-1 is a
vicinity map, while Figure 1-2 illustrates the project location of the planned TI.
In April 2004, CBP and the Joint Task Force Six released the Final Environmental
Assessment (EA) for Proposed Vehicle Barriers near Santa Teresa, Doña Ana County,
New Mexico. This EA is herein referred to as the 2004 EA (CBP 2004). The 2004 EA
addresses site specific impacts of the proposed construction of approximately 29.9
miles of vehicle barrier along the U.S./Mexico border between Border Monument 3 and
Border Monument 11 in Doña Ana County. Data from this document have been
incorporated by reference, as appropriate, during the preparation of this ESP.
In July 2006, CBP and the Office of Border Patrol (OBP) released the Programmatic
Environmental Assessment (PEA) for Proposed Tactical Infrastructure, Office of Border
Patrol, El Paso Sectors, New Mexico Stations. This PEA and Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) are herein referred to as the 2006 PEA (CBP 2006). The purpose of
the 2006 PEA was to address the potential effects, beneficial and adverse, of the
proposed installation, operation, and maintenance of various existing and proposed TI
throughout the El Paso Sector, New Mexico stations’ AO on a programmatic level. Data
from this document have been incorporated by reference, as appropriate, during the
preparation of this ESP.
1.2

GENERAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The Project will provide U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) agents with the tools necessary to
strengthen their control of the U.S. Border between ports of entry (POE) in the USBP El
Paso Sector. The Project will help to deter illegal entries within the USBP El Paso
Sector by improving enforcement efficiency, thus preventing terrorists and terrorist
weapons, illegal aliens, drugs, and other cross border violators and contraband from
entering the U.S., while providing a safer work environment for USBP agents. The
USBP El Paso Sector has identified discrete areas along the border that experience
high levels of illegal entry. Illegal entry activity typically occurs in areas that are remote

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
1-2

60

NEW MEXICO

ALA

Luna & Dona
Ana County

25

Silver City

180

NEW MEXICO
Deming

70 Las Cruces

10

11
9

El Paso

Columbus

20

10

1:1,500,000

MEXICO

0

Project Corridor

0

10
20

20

30
40

40 10
Miles

60
Kilometers

Figure 1-1: Vicinity Map
July 2008

1-3

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
1-4

Access Road CR A001
1.3 mi
Access Road AR 6

9

Access Road CR004
2.85 mi

Access Road AR430
2.37 mi

Access Road AR423
1.12 mi

9

JV-2
11.8 mi

JV-3
10.04 mi

Pete Domenici Blvd.

JV-1
18.06 mi

Access Road AR411
0.36 mi

Santa
Teresa
POE

JV-1 Project Corridor
JV-2 Project Corridor

0

JV-3 Project Corridor

Existing Access Roads
Staging Areas

1:185,000

0

1

2
1

3
2

4

5
3

6

7
4

8
5

9
Kilometers
6
Miles

Figure 1-2: JV-1, JV-2 & JV-3 Project Corridor
August 2008

1-5

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
1-6

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

and not easily accessed by USBP agents, near POEs where concentrated populations
might live on either side of the border, or in locations that have quick access to U.S.
transportation routes.
The Project is being carried out pursuant to Section 102 of IIRIRA, 8 U.S.C. § 1103
note. In Section 102(b) of IIRIRA, Congress called for the installation of fencing,
barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors on not less than 700 miles of the
southwestern border. This total includes certain priority miles of fencing that are to be
completed by December of 2008. Section 102(b) further specifies that these priority
miles are to be constructed in areas where it would be practical and effective in
deterring smugglers and aliens attempting to gain illegal entry into the U.S. Congress
appropriated funds for this Project in CBP’s fiscal year (FY) 2007 and 2008 Border
Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Appropriations (Public Law [P.L.] 109295; P.L. 110-161).
1.3

INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PLAN (ESP)

This ESP is divided in to 7 chapters plus appendices. The first chapter presents a
detailed overview. Chapter 2 presents a detailed description of the Project. Subsequent
chapters present information on the resources present, and evaluate the direct, indirect,
and cumulative effects of the Project. The ESP also describes measures CBP has
identified—in consultation with Federal, state and local agencies—to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate impacts to the environment, as appropriate.
CBP will follow specially developed design criteria to reduce adverse environmental
impacts and will implement mitigation measures to further reduce or offset adverse
environmental impacts to the extent possible. Design criteria to reduce adverse
environmental impacts include avoiding physical disturbance and construction of solid
barriers in wetlands/riparian areas and streambeds. Consultation with Federal and
state agencies and other stakeholders will augment efforts to avoid or minimize adverse
environmental impacts. Appropriate BMPs to protect natural and cultural resources will
be utilized to the extent possible. BMPs will include implementation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Construction Mitigation and Restoration (CM&R)
Plan, Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP), Dust Control Plan,
Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan.
USBP has nine administrative sectors along the U.S./Mexico border. Each sector is
responsible for implementing an optimal combination of personnel, technology, and
infrastructure appropriate for its operational requirements. The El Paso Sector is
responsible for Luna, Hidalgo, and Doña Ana counties, New Mexico, and El Paso and
Hudspeth counties, Texas. The area affected by the Project includes the southernmost
portion of Luna and Doña Ana counties, New Mexico.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
1-7

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

1.4

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND AGENCY COORDINATION

CBP
held
agency
meetings
and
posted
project
descriptions
on
www.BorderFencePlanning.com to elicit information on sensitive resources that may be
present and/or potentially affected in the project area. Information obtained has been
factored into the analysis of effects and presented in this ESP.
In addition to the public outreach program, CBP has continued to coordinate with
various Federal and state agencies during the development of this ESP. These
agencies are described in the following paragraphs.
U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) - CBP has
coordinated with USIBWC to ensure that any construction along the U.S./Mexico border
does not adversely affect International Boundary Monuments or substantially impede
floodwater conveyance within international drainages.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Albuquerque District - CBP has coordinated
activities with USACE to identify potential jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. (WUS),
including wetlands, and to develop measures to avoid, minimize or compensate for
losses to these resources.
U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) - CBP has coordinated extensively with two
resource managing agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] and U.S. Bureau
of Land Management [BLM]) within DOI throughout the development of this ESP. The
USFWS has assisted in identifying listed species that have the potential to occur in the
project. CBP has also continued to coordinate with BLM, since portions of other fence
segments are planned for construction within or adjacent to BLM lands.
1.5

SUMMARY OF BMPS AND MITIGATION

It is CBP’s policy to reduce impacts through the sequence of avoidance, minimization,
mitigation, and finally, compensation. Mitigation efforts vary and include activities such
as restoration of habitat in other areas, and implementation of appropriate BMPs. CBP
coordinates its mitigation measures with the appropriate Federal and state resource
agencies, as appropriate.
This section describes those measures that will be implemented to reduce or eliminate
potential adverse impacts on the human and natural environment. Many of these
measures have been incorporated by CBP as standard operating procedures on past
projects. A summary of mitigation measures are presented for each resource category
that will be potentially affected. The mitigation measures will be coordinated through
the appropriate agencies and land managers or administrators, as appropriate.
It is CBP’s policy to reduce impacts through the sequence of avoidance, minimization,
mitigation, and finally, compensation. Mitigation efforts vary and include activities such
as restoration of habitat in other areas and implementation of appropriate BMPs. CBP
ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
1-8

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

coordinates its environmental design measures with the appropriate Federal and state
resource agencies, as appropriate. Both general BMPs and species-specific BMPs
have been developed during the preparation of this ESP.
This section describes those measures that may be implemented to reduce or eliminate
potential adverse impacts on the human and natural environment. Many of these
measures have been incorporated by CBP as standard operating procedures on past
projects. Below is a summary of BMPs for each resource category that will be
potentially affected. The mitigation measures will be coordinated with the appropriate
agencies and land managers or administrators, as appropriate.
1.5.1 General Construction Activities
BMPs will be implemented as standard operating procedures during all construction
activities, and will include proper handling, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous and/or
regulated materials. To minimize potential impacts from hazardous and regulated
materials, all fuels, waste oils, and solvents will be collected and stored in tanks or
drums within a secondary containment system that consists of an impervious floor and
bermed sidewalls capable of containing the volume of the largest container stored
therein. The refueling of machinery will be completed following accepted industry
guidelines, and all vehicles will have drip pans during storage to contain minor spills and
drips. Although a major spill is unlikely to occur, any spill of 5 gallons or more will be
contained immediately within an earthen dike, and an absorbent (e.g., granular, pillow,
sock, etc.) will be applied to contain the spill. Furthermore, a spill of any regulated
substance in a reportable quantity will be cleaned up and reported to the appropriate
Federal and state agencies. Reportable quantities of regulated substances will be
included as part of a project-specific SPCCP. A SPCCP will be in place prior to the start
of construction and all personnel will be briefed on the implementation and
responsibilities of this plan.
All equipment maintenance, laydown, and dispensing of fuel, oil, or any other such
activities, will occur in staging areas identified for use in this ESP. The designated
staging areas will be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering
WUS, including wetlands. All used oil and solvents will be recycled if possible. All nonrecyclable hazardous and regulated wastes will be collected, characterized, labeled,
stored, transported, and disposed in manners consistent with Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) standards.
Solid waste receptacles will be maintained at staging areas. Non-hazardous solid waste
(trash and waste construction materials) will be collected and deposited in on-site
receptacles. Waste materials and other discarded materials contained in these
receptacles will be removed from the site as quickly as possible. Solid waste will be
collected and disposed of properly.
Once activities in any given construction segment of the project corridor are completed,
active measures will be implemented to rehabilitate the staging areas. CBP will

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
1-9

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

coordinate with the appropriate land managers to determine the most suitable and costeffective measures for successful rehabilitation.
For successful rehabilitation, all or some of the following measures may be conducted
on the part of CBP:
•
•
•
•
•

Site preparation through ripping and disking to loosen compacted soils.
Hydromulch with native grasses and forbs in order to control soil erosion
and ensure adequate re-vegetation.
Planting of native shrubs as needed.
Temporary irrigation (i.e., truck watering) for seedlings.
Periodic monitoring to determine if additional actions are necessary to
successfully rehabilitate disturbed areas.

1.5.2 Air Quality
Mitigation measures will be incorporated to ensure that particulate matter less than 10
microns in size (PM-10) emission levels remain minimal. Measures will include dust
suppression methods to minimize airborne particulate matter created during
construction activities. Standard construction BMPs, such as routine watering of the
construction site and access roads, will be used to control fugitive dust during the
construction phases of the Project. Additionally, all construction equipment and
vehicles will need to be kept in good operating condition to minimize exhaust emissions.
1.5.3 Soils
Proper site-specific BMPs are designed and utilized to reduce the impact of non-point
source pollution during construction activities. BMPs include such things as buffers
around washes to reduce the risk of siltation, installation of waterbars to slow the flow of
water down hill, and placement of culverts, low-water crossings, or bridges where
washes need to be traversed. These BMPs will greatly reduce the amount of soil lost to
runoff during heavy rain events and ensure the integrity of the construction site. Soil
erosion BMPs can also beneficially impact air quality by reducing the amount of fugitive
dust.
Areas with highly erodible soils will be given special consideration to ensure
incorporation of various and effective compaction techniques, aggregate materials,
wetting compounds, and rehabilitation to reduce potential soil erosion. Erosion control
measures such as waterbars, gabions, straw bales, and re-vegetation will be
implemented during and after construction activities. Re-vegetation efforts will be
implemented to ensure long-term recovery of the area and to prevent significant soil
erosion problems.
1.5.4 Water Resources
CBP will require its contractor(s) to prepare and implement a SWPPP to avoid or reduce
erosion and sedimentation outside the construction footprint. Coordination with the
Regulatory Functions Branch of USACE, Albuquerque District will continue in order to

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
1-10

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

avoid or reduce construction-related impacts to washes and arroyos that are potentially
jurisdictional WUS. Compensatory mitigation will be implemented, as appropriate.
All engineering designs and subsequent hydrology reports will be provided to USIBWC
prior to start of construction activities for recommendation of measures to avoid an
increase, concentration, or relocation of overland surface flows into either the U.S. or
Mexico. Furthermore, CBP will routinely check and maintain drainage structures,
including low water crossings, and vehicle fence installed within drainages. Such
activities may include, but are not limited to, removal of debris that would impede proper
conveyance, repair/maintenance of erosional features, installation of energy dissipation
measures, and re-vegetation of temporarily disturbed areas.
1.5.5 Biological Resources
Construction equipment will be cleaned using a high-pressure water system prior to
entering and departing the project corridor to minimize the spread and establishment of
non-native invasive plant species. Soil disturbances in temporary impact areas will be
rehabilitated. Rehabilitation includes re-vegetation or the distribution of organic and
geological materials over the disturbed area to reduce erosion while allowing the area to
naturally revegetate. Rehabilitation methods will be outlined in a rehabilitation plan. At
a minimum, the rehabilitation plan will include: the plant species to be used, a planting
schedule, measures to control non-native species, specific success criteria, and the
party responsible for maintaining and meeting the success criteria. Seeds or plants
native to Luna and Doña Ana counties will be used to the extent practicable.
Disturbed and restored areas will be monitored for the spread and control of non-native
invasive plant species as part of periodic maintenance activities as appropriate.
A qualified biologist (i.e., professional biologist with education and training in wildlife
biology or ecology) will monitor construction operations to ensure adherence with the
BMPs and provide advice to the construction contractor as needed.
1.5.6 Cultural Resources
Prior to ground-disturbing activities near sites determined to be potentially eligible or
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the New Mexico
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the appropriate tribes will be informed.
Additionally, through continued coordination with the New Mexico SHPO, measures to
avoid or mitigate for adverse effects will be identified and implemented; including the
potential to: (1) avoid sites to the extent practicable; (2) monitor construction activities to
ensure potential effects are minimized; (3) data recovery. During construction, orange
fabric barrier fencing (or similar material) will be positioned on the edges of established
roads to prevent vehicle traffic from impacting undisturbed cultural sites. An on-site
archaeological monitor will also be used to monitor construction activities where site
avoidance will occur. Consequently, with the implementation of avoidance and
mitigation measures as appropriate, potential adverse affects will be avoided or
minimized.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
1-11

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
1-12

SECTION 2.0
GENERAL PROJECT DESCRITPION

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

2.0

GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Project consists of constructing, operating, and maintaining approximately 48 miles
of TI. The Project will be implemented in three discrete sections (JV1, JV2, and JV3).
Individual components of the three sections will range from approximately 0.5 miles to
more than 31 miles in length (see Figure 2-1). TI will consist of vehicle fence,
associated construction roads, and access roads. In order to facilitate construction of
the TI staging areas will be used to store materials and equipment. TI will follow the
US/Mexico border on the Roosevelt Reservation and will be constructed in areas of the
border that are not currently fenced to assist USBP agents in reducing illegal crossborder activities and provide a safer work environment for USBP agents.
As the name implies, vehicle fences are
structures designed to prevent illegal vehicle
traffic; however, they are not designed to
preclude pedestrian or wildlife movement.
The vehicle fence, post and rail and
Normandy-style, to be constructed and
installed as part of the Project (Photograph 21 and 2-2, respectively) will be placed along
the border to the greatest extent practicable.
The post and rail design for vehicle fence is
to place a steel pipe (approximately 6 to 8
inches in diameter) into the ground 4 to 6
feet, fill the pipe with concrete, and weld steel
along the tops of the support pipes in a
horizontal manner.
The vertical support
pipes are placed in the ground on 4 to 5 foot
centers. Additionally, the vehicle fence will
be outfitted with pipe, tubing, or similar
material that will parallel the horizontal rail no
lower than 18 inches from the ground and no
higher than 45 inches for the purposes of
preventing livestock from crossing.
The
Normandy-style vehicle fence is typically
constructed of welded metal similar to
railroad rail. This type of vehicle fence cannot
be rolled or moved manually, and must be
lifted using a forklift or front-end loader. The
barriers will be constructed within the staging
areas or Roosevelt Reservation, transported
throughout the project corridor, placed on the
ground, and then welded together. A typical
section of Normandy-style vehicle fence is 10
to 12 feet long and stands 4 to 6 feet high.
ESP, Santa Teresa Station

Photograph 2-1. Example of Post and Rail
Vehicle Fence

Photograph 2-2. Vehicle Fence (Normandystyle).

December 2008
2-1

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

Additionally, this style of vehicle fence will be outfitted with similar materials to the post
and rail vehicle fence for the purposes of preventing livestock from crossing.
A total of five access roads will be improved for construction and continued
maintenance purposes. These access roads are approximately 0.4, 1.3, 2.8, 1.1, and
2.4 miles in length for a total of 8 miles (see Figure 1-2). The access roads will be
widened to approximately 20 feet and will have aggregate added as part of the
construction activities. Figure 2-1 is a schematic depicting the various TI components
discussed as part of this Project. Other existing points of access will be used as
necessary, and include Pete Domenici Boulevard and Access Road 6 in the Deming
Station AO to the west.
Construction roads are needed to facilitate the construction of the vehicle fence. These
will generally run parallel to the vehicle fence sections and will typically be 20 feet wide
and will be constructed parallel to the vehicle fence within the Roosevelt Reservation.
Aggregate will be added to the surface of the road as part of the construction process to
reduce erosion and maintenance activities. Water bars will be installed at various
locations along the road to direct storm water into parallel ditches or down slope to
reduce erosion of the road surface. Upon completion of the construction activities the
construction roads will be used for patrolling, dragging, and maintenance of the vehicle
fence.
The construction roads will also include the construction of new drainage structures or
low water crossings (LWC). Drainage structures will consist of corrugated pipe or
concrete box culverts, while LWCs will consist of concrete slabs designed with suitable
approach angles. Culverts may also be incorporated into the design of LWCs, as
appropriate. The size and number of culverts required will depend upon the width of the
drainage and the expected flood flow volumes and velocities at each of the drainage
crossings. Each drainage structure will be designed to ensure that flows are not
impeded, thus avoiding creation of backwater areas. The designs will also ensure that
water velocity is not significantly changed at the outfall. Stilling basins, rip rap, gabion
baskets, and other designs will be used on both ends of the drainage structure to
dissipate the water flow energy. Head, tail, and cut-off walls will be constructed, as
appropriate, to reduce scouring and ensure the stability of the drainage structure.
In order to facilitate operation of equipment, staging of materials, and construction
access to the project corridor, five temporary staging areas, totaling 9.2 acres will be
utilized. Vegetation will be cleared and grading may occur where needed in the staging
areas. Upon completion of construction activities, the temporary staging areas will be
rehabilitated.
The possibility exists that work will have to occur on a 24-hour basis. A 24-hour
schedule will be implemented only when additional efforts are needed in order to
maintain the work task schedule as Federally mandated. In order to facilitate
construction activities during these work hours, portable lights will be used. It is

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
2-2

20'

Temporary Staging Area

2-3

A cc

e ss

Ro
ad

Varies in Size

60ft Project Corridor

United States
Mexico

Vehicle Fence
NOT TO SCALE

Figure 2-1: Schematics of Project Corridor

August 2008

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

estimated that no more than 12 lights will be in
operation at any one time at each project site.
A 6-kilowatt self-contained diesel generator powers
these lights (Photograph 2-3). Each unit typically
has four 400- to 1000-watt lamps. The portable light
systems can be towed to the desired construction
location as needed and removed upon completion of
construction activities. Lights will be oriented to
illuminate the work area, with the area affected by
illumination limited to 200 feet from the light source.
Photograph 2-3. Portable lights

The footprint of the vehicle fence and construction
road will be contained entirely within the 60-foot-wide Roosevelt Reservation, which was
set aside in 1907 by President Roosevelt as a border enforcement zone. Additionally,
all materials and equipment that will be stored onsite will be done so within the five
designated staging areas. The Project will be constructed by private contractors,
though some military units could be used to assist in road construction. The anticipated
completion date for the construction is December 2008.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
2-4

SECTION 3.0
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND EVALUATION

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

3.0

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND EVALUATION

3.1

INTRODUCTION

CBP has compiled extensive information about the environmental resources that will be
affected by the construction, operation and maintenance of TI along the U.S/Mexico
border. CBP used this information to establish the baseline against which it evaluated
the impacts of the construction, maintenance and operation of the vehicle fence and
supporting infrastructure. CBP obtained baseline regulatory information from many
sources, including the Clean Air Act (CAA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean
Water Act (CWA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Executive Order
(EO) 12898, and EO 13045.
Some resources within the Project’s region of influence (ROI) are not addressed in this
ESP because they are not relevant to the analyses. Resources that are not addressed,
and the reasons for eliminating them, are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Utilities: The Project will not affect any public utilities because none are
located in the project corridor.
Communications: The Project will not affect communications systems
because there are not any in the project corridor.
Geology: The Project will result in minor, localized effects on surficial
geological features. Topography will be slightly altered within the project
footprint; however, physiography of the project region will not be affected.
Climate: The Project will not affect nor be affected by the climate.
Wild and Scenic Rivers: The Project will not affect any designated Wild
and Scenic Rivers because no rivers designated as such are located
within or near the project corridor.
Aquatic Resources: There are no aquatic ecosystems that occur within or
near the project corridor.
Transportation: The project corridor is located in a remote region of New
Mexico and no activities will take place on public roadways, other than
normal transport of goods and personnel on an intermittent basis during
construction activities. Therefore, impacts on roadways and traffic will not
be discussed further.
Prime farmlands: No impact will occur on soils protected by the Farmland
Protection Policy Act since none are located within the project corridor.
Human Health and Safety:
The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration and EPA 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. Contractors will be required to establish
and maintain safety programs at the construction site, consistent with
these standards. All vehicle traffic will be on public and private roads with

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
3-1

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

very little traffic and in an area of New Mexico with an extremely low
population density. Therefore, the Project will not expose members of the
general public to increased safety risks.
Environmental Justice and Protection of Children: The project corridor is
located in a remote region of New Mexico. No residences or businesses
are located near or within the project corridor. No children will be impacted
as a result of the Project.
Noise: Due to the remote location of the project site, the type of
construction planned, and the lack of sensitive noise receptors in the area,
a noise impacts discussion is not warranted for this project. Noise impacts
on wildlife will be discussed in the biological resources section.

•

•

For those resources that will be impacted, Table 3-1 shows the individual segments and
associated TI and staging areas, and land area impacted (acres) within each segment
of the Project. Throughout Section 3 of this ESP, permanent impacts are associated
with the improvements to construction and access roads and post and rail vehicle fence,
while temporary impacts relate to the use of staging areas. These temporarily impacted
areas will be rehabilitated upon completion of the construction activities. The access
roads will be widened to 20 feet; therefore, the impacts of the access roads are based
on this footprint. Although the footprint of the construction road is only 20 feet, the
Project allows for use of the entire 60-foot wide Roosevelt Reservation. Thus, impacts
related to the construction road and vehicle fence are based on a 60-foot wide footprint.
Table 3-1. TI and Staging Area Impacts in each Segment of the Project
TI Segment
JV-1
JV-2
JV-3
Total

3.2

Construction Road /
Vehicle Fence (Acres)

Access Roads
(Acres)

Staging Areas
(Acres)

132
87
73
292

6
10
11
27

3.7
0
5.5
9.2

AIR QUALITY

3.2.1 Environmental Setting
Information on air quality within the Project corridor was described in the CBP 2004 EA
and 2006 PEA, and is incorporated herein by reference (CBP 2004 and 2006). Doña
Ana County borders El Paso, Texas and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. This region has
historically had air quality problems, including particulate less than 10 micrometers (PM10). In Anthony, New Mexico, which lies on the border of Texas and New Mexico, there
is a PM-10 non-attainment area. This area was designated by EPA in 1991. Luna
County is in attainment for all criteria pollutants (EPA 2008).
3.2.2 Effects of the Project
Although the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP no longer has any specific legal
obligations under the CAA for the TI segments addressed in this ESP, the Secretary
committed DHS to responsible environmental stewardship of our valuable natural and
ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
3-2

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

cultural resources. CBP supports this objective and has applied the appropriate
standards and guidelines associated with the CAA as the basis for evaluating potential
environmental impacts and appropriate mitigations.
A minimal increase in local air pollution will be expected from vehicle fence and road
construction. Temporary increases in air pollution will result from the use of
construction equipment, portable lights, and fugitive dust. Due to the short duration of
the Project, any impacts on ambient air quality during construction activities are
expected to be short-term, and can be reduced through the use of standard dust control
techniques, including roadway watering. During construction, proper and routine
maintenance of all vehicles and other construction equipment will ensure that emissions
are within the equipment’s design standards. Air emissions from the Project will be
temporary and will result in negligible impacts on air quality in the region.
EPA’s NONROAD 2005 Model was used (EPA 2005), as recommended by EPA’s
Procedures Document for National Emission Inventory, Criteria Air Pollutants, 19851999 (EPA 2001), to calculate emissions from construction equipment such as
bulldozers, and cranes. Assumptions were made regarding the type of equipment, total
number of days and number of hours per day each piece of equipment would be used.
Similarly, emissions from delivery trucks and commuters traveling to the job site, were
calculated using the EPA MOBILE6.2 Model (EPA 2001). Construction workers will
temporarily increase the combustible emissions in the air shed during their commute to
and from the project area. These emissions were calculated in the air emission analysis
and included in the total emission estimates.
Furthermore, large amounts of dust (i.e., fugitive dust) can arise from the mechanical
disturbance of surface soils, including grading, driving, and road and fence construction.
Fugitive dust emissions were calculated using the emission factor of 0.11 ton per acre
per month, which is a more current standard than EPA’s 1985 Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors, also known as AP-42 (EPA 2001). The total air quality
emissions were calculated for the construction activities occurring throughout the
Project corridor to compare to the General Conformity Rule. Results of these
calculations are presented in Table 3-2 and Appendix B.
Table 3-2. Total Air Emissions (tons/year) from Construction Activities
vs. de minimis Levels
Pollutant
Carbon Monoxide
Volatile Organic Compounds
Nitrogen Oxides
PM-10
PM-2.5
Sulfur Dioxide

Total
(tons/year)

de minimis Thresholds
(tons/year)

28.1
5.6
45.9
42.3
11.3
5.92

100
100
100
100
100
100

Source: 40 CFR 51.853 and Gulf South Research Corporation (GSRC) air emission model projections.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
3-3

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

As can be seen from Table 3-2, the construction activities will not exceed de minimis
thresholds. Thus, there will be negligible impacts on air quality from the implementation
of the Project. Impacts from combustible air emissions from USBP traffic are expected
to be the same before and after the construction activities. Construction workers will
temporarily increase the combustible emissions in the air shed during their commute to
and from the project area.
Diesel generators will be used to power the portable lights, and these generators will
cause low amounts of air emissions. Since emission levels will be below the de minimis
threshold (i.e., 100 tons per year), emissions will not violate National or state standards.
If a 24-hour work schedule is needed, then the portable lights will operate throughout
the night; however, this will be temporary, and as construction activities are completed
within a particular area the lights will be relocated to a new area. Furthermore, a 24hour schedule will only occur due to unforeseen circumstances or if Federally mandated
schedules dictate it to be necessary. Regardless, the impacts from the operation of the
light generators will be temporary; thus, they will have a negligible affect on air quality in
the region.
Construction and operation of TI will increase border security in the project corridor and
may result in a change to illegal traffic patterns. However, changes to illegal alien (IA)
traffic patterns result from a myriad of factors and, therefore, are considered
unpredictable and beyond the scope of this ESP.
3.3

LAND USE AND RECREATION

3.3.1 Environmental Setting
The Project will remain within the Roosevelt Reservation with the exception of the
access roads and five staging areas, which will use approximately 33 acres of BLM
lands, 1.7 acres of state lands, and 1.5 acres of private lands outside the Roosevelt
Reservation. CBP operations and TI construction within the 60-foot wide Roosevelt
Reservation is consistent with the purpose of the Roosevelt Reservation, and any CBP
activity within this area is outside the oversight or control of Federal land managers.
Therefore, the majority of the lands along the U.S./Mexico border in New Mexico
provide a border security function as well. The other Federal lands within and near the
Project corridor are ranch lands and probably will remain undeveloped.
3.3.2 Effects of the Project
With the implementation of the Project, land use within the Roosevelt Reservation will
remain a Federal law enforcement zone. Other BLM lands are currently open and
undeveloped. The land use in staging areas, which are located outside of the
Roosevelt Reservation, will temporarily change from open and undeveloped to
disturbed open space, which would impact recreational opportunities. However, open
space is common within this area and the Project will not pose a major long-term
change to the land use or recreational opportunities regionally. The staging areas,
which are needed to store and stockpile materials and equipment, will temporarily affect
land use on approximately 9.2 acres. These areas will be rehabilitated upon completion
ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
3-4

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

of construction activities and the current land use restored; therefore, impacts
associated with the staging areas are considered temporary and minimal.
3.4

AESTHETICS

3.4.1 Environmental Setting
Aesthetic and visual resources within the project corridor and region were discussed in
the 2004 EA and 2006 PEA (CBP 2004 and 2006); those discussions are incorporated
herein by reference. In summary, aesthetic and visual resources within the project
corridor include the characteristic features of the natural vegetation of the Chihuahuan
Desert landscapes.
The rural agricultural communities, historic missions, and
characteristic architecture contribute to the visual quality of the region.
3.4.2 Effects of the Project
The construction of vehicle fence and roads will have adverse impacts on the
appearance of the project corridor. However, the Project occurs near the Santa Teresa
POE, as well as adjacent to unimproved roads and a barbed-wire fence, all of which
have already degraded the aesthetic value of the project area. The presence of
construction equipment and use of portable lighting will have a minimal impact on
appearance during construction. The Project will not substantially degrade the existing
visual character of the region; thus, impacts are considered minimal.
Construction and operation of TI will increase border security in the project corridor and
may result in a change to illegal traffic patterns. However, changes to IA traffic patterns
result from a myriad of factors and, therefore, are considered unpredictable and beyond
the scope of this ESP. Beneficial indirect impacts will occur, as the vehicle fence will
substantially reduce or eliminate IA vehicle traffic and associated trash and illegal roads
north of the Project corridor.
3.5

SOILS

3.5.1 Environmental Setting
General soil associations within the project corridor are comprised of soils discussed in
the 2004 EA and 2006 PEA (CBP 2004 and 2006) and are incorporated herein by
reference. The study corridor encompasses three general soil associations, including
Glendale-Harkey, Hondale-Mimbres-Bluepoint, and Pintura-Wink associations (USDA
1973, CBP 2006). These soils have developed in a combination of topographic
situations: floodplains, basin floors, fans, terraces, valleys, mesas, ridges, and
mountains.
3.5.2 Effects of the Project
The Project will have a direct, permanent impact on approximately 319 acres and
temporary impacts on 9.2 acres of Hondale-Mimbres-Bluepoint and Pintura-Wink soils
(Table 3-3). These soils are common locally and regionally and have received some
previous disturbance from the existing border and access roads; therefore, negligible
impacts are expected.
ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
3-5

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

Table 3-3. Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Soil Types
Soil Association
Hondale-Mimbres-Bluepoint
Pintura-Wink
Total

Permanent Impact
(Acres)

Temporary Impact
(Acres)

91.5
227.5
319

2.4
6.8
9.2

Short-term impacts on soils, such as increased erosion, can be expected from the
construction of roads; however, these impacts will be alleviated once construction is
finished. Long-term effects on soils will result from the compaction of the soils from
road construction and improvement, erosion during storm events, and loss of biological
production. Pre- and post-construction BMPs will be developed and implemented to
reduce or eliminate erosion and potential downstream sedimentation. Compaction
techniques and erosion control measures, such as waterbars, gabions, straw bales, and
the use of rip-rap or sediment traps, will be some of the BMPs implemented.
The temporary operation of portable lights within the construction footprint will have no
effect on soils. The potential exists for petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POLs) to be
spilled during refueling of the portable lights’ generators, adversely impacting soils;
however, drip pans will be provided for the power generators to capture any POLs
accidentally spilled during maintenance activities or leaks from the equipment; thus, the
operation of the portable lights will have negligible impacts.
3.6

WATER USE AND QUALITY

3.6.1 Environmental Setting
3.6.1.1 Hydrology and Groundwater
The region’s groundwater conditions were discussed in detail in the 2004 EA and 2006
PEA; therefore, this information is incorporated herein by reference (CBP 2004 and
2006). The project corridor is located in the Mesilla Bolson, New Mexico Hydrologic
Basin, a subsurface portion of the Rio Grande Basin (New Mexico Department of
Environmental Quality 2008). The Mesilla Bolson underlies portions of New Mexico,
Texas, and Chihuahua, Mexico. Groundwater occurs in unconsolidated fluvial, alluvial,
and lacustrine sediments. The Rio Grande plays an important role in the recharge and
discharge of the Mesilla Bolson.
The Mesilla Bolson is an open basin, and groundwater withdrawals are offset by
induced recharge, captured discharge, and surface recharge. The withdrawal of
groundwater from deep within this basin’s aquifer has reversed the upward seepage of
groundwater. Return flow from over 54,000 acres of irrigated cropland, as well as
treated and untreated wastewater returns from Las Cruces, Santa Teresa, and other
population centers now seep downward and help to stabilize groundwater levels near
the Rio Grande (Robinson and Banta 1995). It is estimated that 10,000 acre-feet of
groundwater is recharged into the basin from mountain front recharge alone per year
(New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute 2007).
ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
3-6

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

3.6.1.2 Surface Waters and Waters of the U.S.
The region’s surface waters and WUS were discussed in detail in the 2004 EA and
2006 PEA, and that information is incorporated herein by reference (CBP 2004 and
2006). The Rio Grande flows through a small portion of Santa Teresa Station and is
listed as impaired. High levels of fecal coliform in the river are attributable to multiple
sources including municipal, on-site waste treatment, and agricultural runoff. This
impairs safe recreational contact and use of the water.
No surface waters or WUS were identified in the 2004 biological survey along the
U.S./Mexico border between Border Monument 3 and Border Monument 11 in Doña
Ana County, New Mexico (CBP 2004). However, recent biological surveys conducted by
GSRC within the western portion of the project corridor identified 19 drainages bisecting
the project corridor that would be defined as WUS under Section 404 of the CWA. Due
to the climate of the project area, these surface drainage channels are dry much of the
year and are considered ephemeral.
3.6.1.3 Floodplains
A floodplain is the area adjacent to a river, creek, lake, stream, or other open waterway
that is subject to flooding when there is a significant rain. Floodplains are further
defined by the likelihood of a flood event. If an area is in the 100-year floodplain, there
is a 1 in 100 chance in any given year that the area will flood. Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain maps were reviewed to identify whether or not
project locations were within mapped floodplains (FEMA 2008). At this time, no
mapped floodplains exist for project corridor.
3.6.2 Effects of the Project
Although the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP no longer has any specific legal
obligations under the CWA, for the TI segments addressed in this ESP, the Secretary
committed DHS to responsible environmental stewardship of our valuable natural and
cultural resources. CBP supports this objective and has applied the appropriate
standards and guidelines associated with the CWA as the basis for evaluating potential
environmental impacts and appropriate mitigations.
3.6.2.1 Hydrology and Groundwater
Water will be needed for road construction and improvement. Workable soil moisture
content must be obtained in order to properly compact soils for road construction and to
reduce fugitive dust emissions during construction. Water for construction and
maintenance will be hauled into the project corridor from existing wells located either
near the project corridor or from municipal supplies in Santa Teresa, New Mexico or El
Paso, Texas. It is assumed that for road construction approximately 0.5 acre-foot per
mile of water will be needed for dust suppression and compaction. Therefore, the total
amount of water that will be required to facilitate construction of the Project will be
approximately 24 acre-feet (48 mile x 0.5 acre-foot per mile = 24 acre-feet). This
quantity will be consumed during the construction activities, which will be completed by
December 2008. Groundwater could be used from near the project corridor since the
area is adequately recharged via rains and irrigation return flow each year. Thus, the
ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
3-7

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

amount of water needed for the Project (24 acre-feet) will be negligible when compared
to the excess recharge in the Mesilla Bolson. If water for the Project is purchased
commercially from sources outside the Mesilla Bolson it would still be a negligible
volume of water use compared to typical municipal uses. Therefore, water usage will
not cause a net deficit in aquifer volume or lower the groundwater table; thus, a minor,
short-term impact is expected.
3.6.2.2 Surface Waters and Waters of the U.S.
The Project will not have a permanent impact on any perennial or intermittent streams,
as none are present within the Project corridor. As mentioned previously, 19 ephemeral
WUS were identified during field surveys within the project corridor. The WUS will be
traversed using some type of drainage structure, which could include concrete low
water crossings, reinforced concrete pipes, or box culverts. The expected impacts on
each WUS are presented in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4. Impacts on Waters of the U.S.
WUS No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Total

Acres
(Square Feet)
Impacted
0.016 (697)
0.067 (2919)
0.197 (8581)
0.007 (305)
0.001 (44)
0.051 (2222)
0.003 (130)
0.005 (218)
0.066 (2875)
0.017 (741)
0.019 (828)
0.041 (1786)
0.007 (318)
0.005 (218)
0.007 (318)
0.007 (318)
0.01 (435)
0.002 (87)
0.007 (318)
0.53 (23038)

Existing drainage patterns of transboundary runoff will not be changed as a result of the
Project. In addition, rip-rap, rock, or other energy dissipating materials will be placed
downstream of the drainage structures to alleviate flow velocity, long-term erosion, and
downstream sedimentation.
During construction activities, water quality within the ephemeral drains will be protected
through the implementation of BMPs (e.g., silt fences). General BMPs routinely
ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
3-8

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

employed as part of CBP construction projects were previously described in Section
1.5. Additionally, the vehicle fence has been designed to ensure that proper
conveyance of floodwaters is achieved and that floodwaters are not backed up on either
side of the border; and that routine maintenance activities will remove debris that
collects on the vehicle fence during flood events.
No impacts are expected on surface waters or WUS from the placement of portable
lights. To reduce the potential of surface water contamination, lights will not be placed
in or adjacent to drainages. As a precaution, catch pans will be placed under the
portable light generators to contain any accidental POL spills that may occur during
refueling or operation.
During the construction period, erosion, downstream sedimentation, and accidental
spills or leaks could have temporary and minor effects on surface water quality.
However, with proper implementation of BMPs, as identified in the current SWPPP and
SPCCP for the ongoing construction, these effects will be substantially reduced or
eliminated.
The Project will not substantially alter existing drainage patterns, result in a permanent
loss of wetlands or wetland function, or substantially affect water quality. Thus, the
Project will have minimal impact on the region’s water resources, and the effects will be
mitigated, as appropriate.
3.6.2.3 Floodplains
No impacts on floodplains are anticipated as none are mapped near or within the project
corridor. Furthermore, the planned TI will not be damaged by flood events, nor will the
planned TI increase the risk of flooding.
3.7

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.7.1 Environmental Setting
3.7.1.1 Vegetation Resources
Existing vegetation communities adjacent to the project corridor were described in the
2006 PEA and 2004 EA; therefore, this information is incorporated herein by reference
(CBP 2006 and 2004). In summary, a Chihuahuan Desertscrub Community exists in
the project corridor. The majority of Chihuahuan Desertscrub is dominated by creosote
(Larrea tridentata), tarbush (Flourensia ternua), and whitethorn acacia (Acacia
neovernicosa). Western honey mesquite (Prosopsis glandulosa var. torreyana), and
saltbushes (Atriplex sp.) are also often present. Common succulents include lechuguilla
(Agave lechuguilla) and yuccas (Yucca elata, Y. rostrata, Y. thompsoniana, Y. filifera, Y.
carnerosana, Y. torreyi, Y. baccata, Y. macrocarpa, and others). Several cacti are also
found within Chihuahuan Desertscrub.
Most common are cane cholla (Opuntia
imbricata) and prickly pears (O. violacea var. macocentra, O. phaeacantha var. major,
and O. p. var. discata) (CBP 2006).

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
3-9

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

The most common plant species observed during a June 2008 biological survey
conducted by GSRC included rabbit bush (Chrysothamnus sp.), soaptree yucca (Yucca
elata), whitethorn acacia (Acacia neovernicosa), tree cholla (Opuntia imbricata), prickly
pear (Opuntia sp), creosote bush (Larrea tridentate), four-winged saltbush (Atriplex
canescens), Mormon tea (Ephedra sp.), sand sage (Artemisia filifolia), and honey
mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa).
3.7.1.2 Wildlife
Wildlife resources potentially found within the project corridor were discussed in the
2004 EA and 2006 PEA; this information is incorporated herein by reference (CBP 2004
and 2006). Mammals typically associated with the Chihuahuan Desertscrub plant
community range from large hoofed mammals to small ground-dwelling animals.
Mammal species observed during recent surveys conducted by GSRC include the
following species: black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) and desert cottontail
(Sylvilagus audubonii). Although the other wildlife was not present at the time of the
surveys, several unoccupied woodrat (Neotoma sp.) middens, badger (Taxidea taxus)
burrows, kangaroo rat (Dipodemys sp.) burrows, and coyote (Canis latrans) tracks were
observed. One dead Ord’s kangaroo rat (Dipodemys ordi) and one dead mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus) were also observed.
Many common species of amphibians and reptiles associated with western arid regions
can be found in southern Luna and Doña Ana County. Examples of reptiles and
amphibians observed during surveys include collared lizard (Crotaphytus collaris), sideblotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), western whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris), and long-nosed
leopard lizard (Gambelia wislizenii).
Thirteen species of birds were identified during biological surveys: mourning dove
(Zeneaida maroura), Phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens), red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), burrowing owl (Athena cunicularia), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus),
loggerhead strike (Lanius ludoviscianus), rufus crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps),
western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), black-tailed
gnatcatcher (Polioptila melanura), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), cactus wren
(Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), and ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus
cinerascens).
3.7.1.3 Special Status Species
Federally protected species and designated critical habitat were discussed in the 2004
EA and 2006 PEA, and those discussions are incorporated herein by reference (CBP
2004 and 2006). USFWS currently lists eight Federally endangered or threatened
species and one candidate species within Luna and Doña Ana counties (USFWS 2008).
Table 3-5 lists these species and describes their potential to occur within the project
corridor.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
3-10

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

Table 3-5. Federally endangered or threatened species, Luna
and Doña Ana County
Common/Scientific Name
Yellow-billed cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
Least tern (interior population)
Sterna antillarum
Northern aplomado falcon
Falco femoralis septentrionalis
Southwestern willow flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus
Rio Grande silvery minnow
Hybognathus amarus
Sneed pincushion cactus
Coryphantha sneedii var, sneedii
Mexican spotted owl
Strix occidentalis lucida
Beautiful shiner
Cyprinella formosa
Chiricahua leopard frog
Rana chiricahuensis

Federal Status

County

Candidate

Both

Endangered

Doña Ana

Endangered

Both

Endangered

Both

Endangered

Doña Ana

Endangered

Doña Ana

Threatened

Doña Ana

Threatened

Luna

Threatened

Luna

Potential to occur within Project Area
No – No suitable habitat occurs within or near
the project corridor.
No – No suitable habitat occurs within or near
the project corridor.
Yes – Potential tree and scrub habitat exist
within the project corridor.
No – No suitable habitat occurs within or near
the project corridor.
No – No suitable habitat occurs within or near
the project corridor.
No – No suitable habitat occurs within or near
the project corridor.
No – No suitable habitat occurs within or near
the project corridor.
No – No suitable habitat occurs within or near
the project corridor.
No – No suitable habitat occurs within or near
the project corridor.

Of these nine species, one currently (Mexican spotted owl) has designated critical
habitat within Doña Ana County; however, no critical habitat is located near the project
corridor. As can be seen from Table 3-5, CBP has made the determination that the
northern aplomado falcon is the only Federally listed species that has the potential to
occur within the project corridor. This determination is due to the project corridor
containing suitable nesting and foraging habitat.
In 2006, USFWS announced a final rule to reintroduce the northern aplomado falcon in
historical habitats in southern New Mexico and Arizona (Federal Register Volume 71,
No. 143). Under this ruling, the northern aplomado falcon is classified as a nonessential
experimental population.
This designation requires Federal land mangers to
incorporate the following actions in a release under 10(j) 70 FR 6819 6828: (1) a
geographic area is designated where all falcons within the area would be considered
“experimental”; (2) Federal agencies would treat the release of birds as “proposed
threatened” versus “endangered.” This requires the Federal agency to conference
instead of consult, as required by Section 7 of the ESA; and (3) Federal agencies would
conference with USFWS if the actions may adversely affect the aplomado falcon, but no
authorization for incidental take would be required as with consultation.
The potential for New Mexico state protected species to occur within the project corridor
was discussed in the 2004 EA and 2006 PEA and that discussion is incorporated herein
by reference (CBP 2004 and 2006). In summary, a total of 24 New Mexico threatened
and endangered species are considered to inhabit Luna and Doña Ana counties. A
total of six species other than those on the Federal list have the potential to occur within
the project corridor. Table 3-6 lists those species potentially occurring in the project

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
3-11

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

corridor. The complete list of state protected species found in Luna and Doña Ana
counties are provided in Appendix C of this ESP.
Table 3-6. State listed species with potential to occur in the project corridor
Common Name
Common black hawk
Bunting, varied species
Common ground dove
Costa’s hummingbird
Baird’s sparrow
Reticulated Gila monster

Scientific Name
Buteogallus anthracinus anthracinus
Passerina versicolor versicolor; dickeyae
Columbina passerina
Calypte costae
Ammodramus bairdii
Heloderma s. suspectum

Source: Biota Information System of New Mexico 2008.

3.7.2 Effects of the Project
3.7.2.1 Vegetation Resources
The Project will permanently alter approximately 319 acres of Chihuahuan Desertscrub
vegetation. This plant community is both locally and regionally common, and the
permanent loss of 319 acres of vegetation will not adversely affect the population
viability or fecundity of any floral species. Therefore, impacts are expected to be
negligible.
The disturbance of up to 319 acres of vegetation required for the completion of the
construction of TI could result in conditions suitable for the establishment of non-native
species. The Project will not actively promote the establishment of invasive species to
areas void of non-native species nor will it result in the long-term expansion of existing
populations. In order to ensure that the Project does not actively promote the
establishment of non-native and invasive species, BMPs will be implemented for
minimizing the spread of propagules, re-establishing native vegetation, and controlling
established populations as described in Section 1.5.5. These mitigation measures, as
well as measures protecting vegetation in general, will reduce potential impacts of nonnative invasive species to a negligible amount.
The Project will also have temporary indirect impacts on vegetation. Fugitive dust
emissions resulting from construction will affect photosynthesis and respiration of plants
adjacent to the project corridor. The magnitude of these effects will depend upon
several biotic and abiotic factors, including the speed and type of vehicles, climatic
conditions, success of wetting measures during construction, and the general health
and density of nearby vegetation.
The use of portable lighting could affect plant growth, but these effects will be
temporary. As construction activities are completed within a particular area, the lights
will be moved to the new construction area. A 24-hour schedule will be implemented
only when additional efforts are needed in order to maintain the work task schedule due
to weather or to meet Federally mandated timelines. Also, all lights will be removed from
the project corridor upon completion of construction activities, and the lights will be fitted
with backlighting shields to minimize any stray light from escaping to areas outside of
ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
3-12

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

the project area. Therefore, minor temporary impacts on vegetation from the use of
portable lights are expected.
Construction and operation of TI will increase border security in the project corridor and
may result in a change to illegal traffic patterns. However, changes to IA traffic patterns
result from a myriad of factors and, therefore, are considered unpredictable and beyond
the scope of this ESP. Beneficial indirect impacts will be expected from the protection
afforded to areas north of the project corridor.
3.7.2.2 Wildlife
The Project will permanently impact approximately 319 acres of wildlife habitat. These
impacts are considered negligible, as some of the project components occur near and
within previously disturbed areas (e.g., existing border road), TI will be constructed near
existing infrastructure (Santa Teresa POE), and the wildlife habitat is locally and
regionally common.
The Project will not have direct impacts on fish or other aquatic species, because the
construction activities will not take place in naturally flowing or standing water.
Mitigation measures will be implemented for construction in or near washes, as stated in
Section 1.5, to reduce potential impacts on riparian areas from erosion or
sedimentation.
Mobile animals (e.g., birds) will escape to areas of similar habitat, while other slow or
sedentary species of reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals could potentially be lost.
As a result, direct minor adverse impacts on wildlife species in the vicinity of the project
corridor are expected. Although some animals may be lost, this Project will not result in
any substantial reduction of the breeding opportunities for birds and other animals on a
regional scale due to the suitable, similar habitat adjacent to the project corridor.
Increased noise during construction activities could have short-term impacts on wildlife
species (e.g., mule deer, red-tailed hawk, and desert cottontail). Physiological
responses from noise range from minor responses, such as an increase in heart rate, to
more damaging effects on metabolism and hormone balance. Long-term exposure to
noise can cause excessive stimulation to the nervous system and chronic stress that is
harmful to the health of wildlife species and their reproductive fitness (Fletcher 1990).
Behavioral responses vary among species of animals and even among individuals of a
particular species. Variations in response may be due to temperament, sex, age, or
prior experience. Minor responses include head-raising and body-shifting, and usually,
more disturbed mammals will travel short distances. Panic and escape behavior results
from more severe disturbances, causing the animal to leave the area (Busnel and
Fletcher 1978). Since the highest period of movement for most wildlife species occurs
during nighttime or low daylight hours, and construction activities will be conducted
during daylight hours to the maximum extent practicable, short-term impacts of noise on
wildlife species are expected to be minimal to moderate.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
3-13

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

The operation of portable lights could potentially affect wildlife. Some species, such as
insectivorous bats, may benefit from the concentration of insects that will be attracted to
the lights. However, the portable lights will only illuminate a minimal amount of area
(200 feet per light), will be fitted with backlighting shields, will not shine into riparian
areas (because none are present in the Project corridor), and will be temporary. The
adverse and beneficial effects of lighting on reptiles and amphibians are currently
unknown (Rich and Longcore 2006). However, the temporary exposure to light as a
result of the Project will not significantly alter circadian rhythms in mammals and birds.
This artificial lighting may cause activity levels of diurnal animals to increase; however,
any increase will not create major impacts (Rich and Longcore 2006). It is anticipated
that the temporary lights will not operate any longer that 4 weeks in one location and no
more than 12 lights will be used at once at each Project location. The generators used
for these lights produce noise levels as high as 75 decibel – A weighted scale (dBA)
within 20 feet of the generators, but attenuate to acceptable levels of 65 dBA at 75 feet
(California Transportation Department 1998). Noise emissions from the generators will
create minimal temporary impacts. Wildlife will not be exposed to a nighttime lighting
source post construction because all construction lighting will be removed upon
completion of the Project. Therefore, impacts on wildlife are expected to be negligible
and temporary a result of the operation of portable lights.
Construction and operation of TI will increase border security in the project corridor and
may result in a change to illegal traffic patterns. However, changes to IA traffic patterns
result from a myriad of factors and, therefore, are considered unpredictable and beyond
the scope of this ESP. Beneficial indirect impacts will be expected from the protection
afforded to areas north of the project corridor.
3.7.2.3 Special Status Species
Although the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP no longer has any specific legal
obligations under the ESA, for the TI segments addressed in this ESP, the Secretary
committed DHS to responsible environmental stewardship of our valuable natural and
cultural resources. CBP supports this objective and has applied the appropriate
standards and guidelines associated with the ESA as the basis for evaluating potential
environmental impacts and appropriate mitigations.
No Federally protected species were observed within the project corridor during 2004 or
2008 biological surveys, although suitable foraging and nesting habitat for the Northern
aplomado falcon does exist. Impacts on potential habitat of the falcon will occur as a
result of the Project. However, this habitat is regionally and locally common; therefore,
impacts due to a loss of 319 acres of this habitat is considered moderate. No
designated critical habitat exists within the project corridor; therefore, the Project will
have no impact on critical habitat.
As seen in Table 3-6, state listed species could be impacted. Individuals could be
harmed or lost during construction activities; however, the likelihood of the loss of any
individuals are minimal because most of the species with the potential to occur are
highly mobile species. The greatest impact will be the removal of habitat through the
ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
3-14

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

construction of the TI. However, an abundance of similar habitat both locally and
regionally exists and the removal of 319 acres will be considered minimal. Additionally,
existing disturbance is present within the Project corridor (border road) and is in close
proximity to development at the Santa Teresa POE. Therefore, any potential impacts
on individuals or habitat as a result of the construction of the TI is expected to be minor.
As discussed in Section 1.5 of this ESP, construction BMPs will be implemented to
further reduce any effects, which could the use of biologists to monitor construction
progress.
Construction and operation of TI will increase border security in the project corridor and
may result in a change to illegal traffic patterns. However, changes to IA traffic patterns
result from a myriad of factors and, therefore, are considered unpredictable and beyond
the scope of this ESP. Beneficial indirect impacts will be expected from the protection
afforded to areas north of the project corridor.
3.8

CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.8.1 Environmental Setting
3.8.1.1 Cultural Overview
A cultural resources overview of the project region was given in the 2004 EA and 2006
PEA; the descriptions are incorporated herein by reference (CBP 2004 and 2006). In
summary, the cultural setting of the region is generally divided into four different
periods: Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Formative, and Historic. These periods are commonly
subdivided into smaller temporal phases based on particular manifestations of the artifact
assemblages encountered in various sub-regions of the project region.
3.8.1.2 Studies Conducted within the Project Corridor
Numerous cultural resources investigations have been conducted in the vicinity of the
project corridor. In 1993, Human Systems Research, Inc. (HSR) (Sechrist 1994)
investigated 198 miles of right of way from Anapra to Antelope Wells, New Mexico
associated with the international border fence and access roads. This survey found 92
sites, 523 isolated occurrences, and revisited seven previously recorded sites. Twentysix of the sites recorded were discovered within the current project corridor. Seven of
these sites were recommended for further testing, as they possessed research potential
to improve our understanding of past cultural activity in the area. One site is the
International Border and includes all monuments and fence erected during the
International Border Survey (1854 -1855) and resurvey (1883-1889). This site with its
multiple loci is considered eligible for NRHP.
A smaller survey in 1999 by TRC Mariah Associates, Inc., (TRC) (Sechrist 2000)
overlapped the project corridor along the border near stockyards east of the Santa
Teresa POE and along the border and access roads near Noria. This survey recorded
nine sites, with four falling within the project corridor. One of the four sites (LA85744)
within the project corridor was recommended for further testing to determine its NRHP
eligibility.
ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
3-15

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

In 2000, Ogden Environmental and Energy Services (OEES) conducted a series of
investigations in the project corridor, including surveys of 1.84 miles between Border
Monuments 6 and 7 and 1.36 miles east of Santa Teresa POE (Della-Russo et al.
2000). Of the six previously recorded sites for the survey area, OEES relocated only
two and found no additional potentially eligible sites. In separate investigations, OEES
conducted testing and data recovery at two sites (LA128837 and LA85752) (DellaRusso 2000). Monitoring during construction at LA85752 revealed one intact hearth
feature dating back to the Late Archaic period (Della-Russo 2000).
In 2003, Ecological Communications Corporation (EComm) conducted a cultural
resources survey of 31.9 miles of the U.S./Mexico border near the Santa Teresa Port of
Entry in Doña Ana County, New Mexico, revisiting 22 of the sites previously recorded by
the HSR survey and one site recorded in a previous investigation by the Office of
Contract Archaeology (OCA) of the University of New Mexico (Treirweiler and Bonnie
2003). EComm was only able to relocate and verify 12 of the previously recorded sites.
EComm additionally recorded 18 new sites. Of the 40 sites reported for the 31.9 miles
survey by EComm, six were recommended for further testing to evaluate NRHP
eligibility.
EComm followed up their 2003 survey with testing of six sites. The sites tested
included: LA85741, LA85744, LA85755, LA85756, LA85757, and LA85759. Testing
was also requested by SHPO for an additional four sites (LA86788, LA133193,
LA139006, and LA139019) bringing the total tested to 10 (Trierweiler and Sechrist
2004). Of the 10 sites tested eight were considered as having no potential for further
significant research and recommended as not eligible for NRHP listing. The other two
sites (LA133193 and LA86788) were recommended for NRHP eligibility.
Most recently investigations were conducted by the OCA and GSRC in June 2008 to
complete the survey for the remaining sections of the project corridor not covered in
earlier surveys (Kurota and Turnbow 2008).
All of the sites documented during the recent investigation surveys were found within
the 60-foot wide Roosevelt Reservation and access roads including a 60-foot buffer
from the access roads’ centerline. In land parcels managed by BLM, an additional 50foot buffer was also surveyed. Table 3-7 depicts the cultural sites found within the
project corridor from past and current surveys and provides their recommended NRHP
eligibility.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
3-16

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

Table 3-7. Cultural Resources Overview of Project Area
LA #

Site Type

Components

Agency

Recorder(s)

NRHP Eligibility

Latest Recorder
Recommendation Comments

LA67694

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric Archaic

OCA

OCA 1988
Sechrist 1994;
Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003;
Treirweiler and
Sechrist 2004
Sechrist
1994;Trierweiler
and Bonnie 2003

No

No further work

Sechrist 1994;
Sechrist 2000
Sechrist 1994;
Sechrist 2000;
Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003;
Treirweiler and
Sechrist 2004
Sechrist
1994;Trierweiler
and Bonnie 2003
Sechrist
1994;Trierweiler
and Bonnie 2003
Sechrist
1994;Trierweiler
and Bonnie 2003
Sechrist
1994;Trierweiler
and Bonnie 2003
Sechrist
1994;Trierweiler
and Bonnie 2003

LA85741
Artifact
scatter
LA85742

LA85743

Prehistoric Mesilla
Phase

HSR

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric
Formative

HSR, EComm

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric Mesilla
Phase

HSR, TRC

3-17

LA85744

LA85746

LA85747

LA85748
December 2008

LA85749
LA85750

Prehistoric Mesilla
Phase

HSR, TRC

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric AD
800-1450

HSR

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric
Formative

HSR

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric
unknown

HSR

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric
Formative

HSR

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric
Formative

HSR

No further work

Unknown, Poor
Potential

Monitor

Unknown, Poor
Potential

Monitor

No

No further work

Unknown, Poor
Potential

Monitor

No

No further work

Unknown, Poor
Potential

Monitor

No

No further work

Unknown, Poor
Potential

Monitor

Ecomm tested
2004 research
potential
exhausted
JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

Artifact
scatter

No

Ecomm tested
2004 research
potential
exhausted

Table 3-7, continued

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

LA #

Site Type

Components

LA85751

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric
unknown

HSR, OEES

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric AD
200-1450

HSR

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric
unknown

HSR

LA85753

LA85754

Agency

LA85755
Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric AD
800-1450

HSR

3-18

LA85756
Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric AD
800-1450

HSR

Artifact
scatter
LA85758

LA85759
December 2008

LA85768

Prehistoric AD
800-1450

HSR

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric AD
800-1450

HSR

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric AD
800-1450

HSR

Border
monuments
and fence

Historic

HSR, TRC,
OEES

Sechrist 1994;
Della-Russo et al.
2000
Sechrist
1994;Trierweiler
and Bonnie 2003
Sechrist
1994;Trierweiler
and Bonnie 2003
Sechrist 1994;
Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003;
Treirweiler and
Sechrist 2004
Sechrist 1994;
Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003;
Treirweiler and
Sechrist 2004
Sechrist 1994;
Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003;
Treirweiler and
Sechrist 2004
Sechrist
1994;Trierweiler
and Bonnie 2003
Sechrist
1994;Trierweiler
and Bonnie 2003
Sechrist 1994;
Sechrist 2000;
Della-Russo et al.
2000

NRHP Eligibility

Latest Recorder
Recommendation Comments

No

No further work

Unknown, Poor
Potential

Monitor

Unknown, Poor
Potential

Monitor

No further work

Ecomm tested
2004, research
potential
exhausted

No further work

Ecomm tested
2004, research
potential
exhausted

No

No further work

Ecomm tested
2004, research
potential
exhausted

No

No further work

No

No

No

No further work

Ecomm tested
2004 research
potential
exhausted

Eligible

Avoid

International
Border Site

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

LA85757

Recorder(s)

Table 3-7, continued

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

LA #

Site Type

Components

Latest Recorder
Recommendation Comments

Agency

Recorder(s)

NRHP Eligibility

HSR

Stuart 1990;
Moore 1992;
Oakes and Moore
1994; Trierweiler
and Bonnie 2003

No
(PreviouslyTested)

No further work

Eligible

Monitor

No

No further work

LA86780
Artifact
scatter

Archaic - Late
Formative

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric AD
200-1450

HSR

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric
Formative

HSR

Artifact
scatter

Pithouse - Early
Pueblo

HSR

Artifact
scatter

Barlow Expedition
Camp AD 1892 1894

Artifact
scatter
Artifact
scatter

LA86788

LA86789

Eligible

Avoid and protect

Prehistoric Mesilla
Phase

EComm

Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003

Unknown, Poor
Potential

Monitor

Prehistoric AD
200-1450

EComm

Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003
Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003;
Trierweiler and
Sechrist 2004
Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003

Unknown, Good
Potential

Avoid

LA128837

LA133193

LA133194
LA139005
December 2008

LA139006

LA139007

Artifact
scatter
Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric AD
200-1450
Prehistoric AD
200-1450

EComm
EComm

No
Unknown, Poor
Potential

No further work
Monitor

Ecomm tested
2004

Ecomm tested
2004, research
potential
exhausted

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

No further work

3-19

No

EComm

Sechrist
1994;Trierweiler
and Bonnie 2003
Sechrist
1994;Trierweiler
and Bonnie 2003
Sechrist 1994;
Sechrist 2000;
Della-Russo
2000; Trierweiler
and Bonnie 2003
Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003;
Trierweiler and
Sechrist 2004

Research
potential
exhausted
Ecomm tested
2004 and found
action will not
adversely affect
site if restricted to
fenceline and
existing road
footprint.

Table 3-7, continued

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

Site Type

Components

Agency

Recorder(s)

NRHP Eligibility

Latest Recorder
Recommendation Comments

LA139008

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric
unknown

EComm

Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003

Unknown, Poor
Potential

Monitor

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric AD
200-1450

EComm

Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003

Unknown, Poor
Potential

Monitor

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric
unknown

EComm

Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003

Unknown, Poor
Potential

Monitor

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric
unknown

EComm

Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003

Unknown, Poor
Potential

Monitor

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric
unknown

EComm

Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003

Unknown, Poor
Potential

Monitor

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric
unknown

EComm

Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003

Unknown, Poor
Potential

Avoid

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric AD
800-1450

EComm

Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003

Unknown, Poor
Potential

Monitor

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric
unknown

EComm

Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003

Unknown, Poor
Potential

Monitor

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric AD
200-1450

EComm

Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003

Unknown, Poor
Potential

Monitor

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric
unknown

EComm

Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003

Unknown, Poor
Potential

Monitor

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric AD
200-1450

EComm

Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003
Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003;
Trierweiler and
Sechrist 2004

Unknown, Poor
Potential

Monitor

LA139009
LA139010
LA139011
LA139012

3-20

LA139013
LA139014

LA139015
LA139016
LA139017
December 2008

LA139018

LA139019

Artifact
scatter

Prehistoric AD
200-1450

EComm

No

No further work

Ecomm tested
2004, research
potential
exhausted

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

LA #

Table 3-7, continued

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

LA #
85079

85760

85761

159817

159818

3-21

159819

159825

Artifact
scatter with
feature
Artifact
scatter with
feature
Artifact
scatter with
features
International
Boundary
Marker
International
Boundary
Marker
International
Boundary
Marker

Components

Agency

Recorder(s)

NRHP Eligibility

Latest Recorder
Recommendation Comments

Unknown

Monitor

Eligible

Test

Unknown

Monitor

Mesilla Phase AD
900 - Historic

HSR, OCA

Sechrist 1994;
Kurota and
Turnbow 2008
Sechrist 1994;
Kurota and
Turnbow 2008
Sechrist 1994;
Kurota and
Turnbow 2008

Historic

OCA

Kurota and
Turnbow 2008

Eligible

Avoid

Border
Monument 13

Historic

OCA

Kurota and
Turnbow 2008

Eligible

Avoid

Border
Monument 12

OCA

Kurota and
Turnbow 2008

Eligible

Avoid

Border
Monument 11

Artifact
scatter with
features

Historic
Late Achaic ???
BC- Mesilla - Doña
Ana Phase AD
1200

Eligible

Monitor

Largely outside
APE, but partially
in BLM buffer.

Artifact
scatter

Formative Period
AD 200-1450

Unknown

Monitor

159824
December 2008

Artifact
scatter

Protohistoric?
Late El Paso
Phase AD 12751450

Early Doña Ana
Phase AD 10001200

HSR, OCA

HSR, OCA

OCA

Ecomm, OCA

OCA

Kurota and
Turnbow 2008
Trierweiler and
Bonnie 2003;
Kurota and
Turnbow 2008

Kurota and
Turnbow 2008

Unknown

Avoid

Will not be
impacted if only
western half of
staging area is
used.

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

139004

Site Type

Table 3-7, continued

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

LA #

Site Type

Components

54876

Artifact
scatter with
features

Noria Railroad
Station

Agency

Office of
Archaeological
Studies,
Museum of
New Mexico,
OCA

Recorder(s)

Office of
Archaeological
Studies 1986;
Kurota and
Turnbow 2008

NRHP Eligibility

Latest Recorder
Recommendation Comments

Test and monitor

Portion within
planned staging
area is heavily
disturbed.
Recommendation
to use metal
detector and
collect artifacts
prior to
construction and
monitor.

Eligible

Monitor

Outside Area of
Potential Effect
(APE)

Eligible

Monitor

Outside APE

Eligible

Test

No

No further work

No

No further work

No

No further work

Eligible

159827
3-22

Artifact
scatter with
feature

159820

159826
December 2008

159821
159822

Artifact
scatter with
features
Artifact
scatter with
features
Artifact
scatter with
features
Artifact
scatter
Artifact
scatter

Early-Mid Archaic
Late Achaic ???
BC- Mesilla - Doña
Ana Phase AD
1200
Unknown
Prehistoric Historic

HSR, EComm,
OCA

OCA

Kurota and
Turnbow 2008

OCA

OCA

Historic

OCA

Historic

OCA

Kurota and
Turnbow 2008
Kurota and
Turnbow 2008
Kurota and
Turnbow 2008

Heavily disturbed

Outside APE

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

85748

Historic

Kurota and
Turnbow 2008
Sechrist 1994;
Trieweiler and
Bonnie 2003;
Kurota and
Turnbow 2008

Table 3-7, continued

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

LA #

Site Type

Components

Agency

Recorder(s)

NRHP Eligibility

Latest Recorder
Recommendation Comments

159823
Artifact
scatter

Formative Period
AD 200-1450

OCA

Kurota and
Turnbow 2008

Unknown

No further work

Will not be
impacted if only
western half of
staging area is
used.

3-23
JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

December 2008

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

In the current investigation, 11 previously recorded sites were re-visited and six new
sites were discovered for a total of 17 sites. Nine of the sites documented are
recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP. Five sites are of unknown eligibility,
and three sites are not recommended eligible. Three sites are not recommended for
NRHP eligibility and require no further work. Among the nine sites recommended
eligible for NRHP, three are International Border Monuments. Additionally, three sites
are outside the Project corridor and will not be affected by the Project. However, due to
their immediate proximity to the Project corridor, monitoring during construction will be
conducted. The remaining three sites are unavoidable and will be tested. Of the five
sites with unknown eligibility, three will be monitored during construction. The remaining
two sites of unknown eligibility will not fall within the Project corridor; thus, no testing is
planned.
3.8.2 Effects of the Project
Although the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP no longer has any specific legal
obligations under the NHPA, for the TI segments addressed in this ESP, the Secretary
committed DHS to responsible environmental stewardship of our valuable natural and
cultural resources. CBP supports this objective and has applied the appropriate
standards and guidelines associated with the NHPA as the basis for evaluating potential
cultural effects and appropriate mitigations.
Additionally, through continued coordination with the New Mexico SHPO, measures to
avoid or mitigate for adverse effects will be identified and implemented; including the
potential to: (1) avoid sites to the extent practicable; (2) monitor construction activities to
ensure potential effects are minimized; (3) data recovery. Other possible measures to
be considered where practical and also in coordination with New Mexico SHPO may
include capping sites with a geo-textile covered with clean engineered aggregate to
protect sites; and to implement a data exchange program where for each site destroyed
during construction, research will be conducted elsewhere to contribute to the
understanding of cultural resources issues within the area. During construction, orange
fabric barrier fencing (or similar material) will be positioned on the edges of established
roads to prevent vehicle traffic from impacting undisturbed cultural sites. Use of an onsite archaeological monitor will also be considered to monitor construction activities
where site avoidance will occur.
Among the multiple cultural resources investigations conducted within the project
corridor, a total of 57 cultural resources sites were documented (see Table 3-7). Ten
sites were evaluated as not eligible for NRHP recommendation, and no further work is
necessary. Nine sites were initially recommended eligible; however, follow up testing
exhausted the research potential for these sites and no further work is necessary. Of
the remaining 38 archaeological sites, 12 sites are considered eligible for inclusion in
the NRHP and are considered significant cultural resources and 26 sites are of
unknown significance and are therefore potentially eligible. All 38 archaeological sites
are within the area of potential effect. Of these 38 sites, 9 are recommended to be
avoided, leaving 29 sites to be considered for mitigation measures. Best management
and mitigation measures to minimize adverse effects to these eligible and potentially
ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
3-24

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

eligible cultural resources are outlined in Section 4.6 below and summarized in Table
3.7. Consequently, with the implementation of avoidance and mitigation measures as
appropriate, the Project will either not have an adverse effect or will mitigate for any
adverse effect on historic properties.
3.9

SOCIOECONOMICS

3.9.1 Environmental Setting
Section 3.13 of the 2006 PEA provided an in-depth description of socioeconomics of the
ROI, which is considered Luna and Doña Ana counties, New Mexico. The discussion
from this document is incorporated herein by reference (CBP 2006). This section
summarizes socioeconomic factors affecting the ROI.
According to the New Mexico Economic Development Department (2005), the 2005
population of Doña Ana County was estimated to be 197,410. It is projected to increase
to 218,523 by 2010 and to 270,761 by 2025. According to New Mexico Department of
Labor’s Labor Analysis Statistics and Economic Research (LASER), there are 5,335
potential registered employers in Doña Ana County (LASER 2007). The unemployment
rate of Doña Ana County in June of 2008 was 4.8 percent (LASER 2008), which was
below the state (5.2 percent) and National (5.1 percent) averages (Bureau of Labor
Statistics 2005a and b). Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI) is the personal income of
the residents of a given area divided by the resident population of that same area. Doña
Ana County’s 2005 PCPI was $24,293. The PCPI is well below the 2005 National and
state averages, which were $34,471 and $27,889 respectively (Bureau of Economic
Analysis 2005).
The 2004 population of Luna County was estimated to be 26,129 and is projected to
grow to 32,206 by 2010. As of March 2007, the latest unemployment rate is 12 percent,
which is down 4 percent from May 2005; however, this rate is the highest of any county
in the state (LASER 2007). Per capita personal income is well below the national and
state averages, which are $31,472 and $24,995, respectively.
3.9.2 Effects of the Project
Although the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP no longer has any specific legal
obligations under EO 12898 and EO 13045 for the TI segments addressed in this ESP,
the Secretary committed DHS to responsible environmental stewardship of our valuable
natural and cultural resources. CBP supports this objective and has applied the
appropriate standards and guidelines associated with the EOs as the basis for
evaluating potential environmental impacts and appropriate mitigations.
3.9.2.1 Socioeconomics
The Project will have a negligible impact on local or regional socioeconomics. The
Project will not cause a permanent population increase or reduction in local income, or
cause the vacancy rate for temporary housing to change. The Project will not displace
residences or businesses; nor will it substantially affect the local employment or income
status of the region. Any potential benefits to the region from purchase of materials,
ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
3-25

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

sales taxes, and additional employment will be temporary and will last only until
December 2008, when the vehicle fence and roads are scheduled to be completed.
3.10

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE

3.10.1 Environmental Setting
EPA maintains a list of hazardous waste sites, particularly waste storage/treatment
facilities or former industrial manufacturing sites in the U.S. EPA databases,
Environmental and Compliance History Online and Envirofacts Data Warehouse, were
reviewed for the locations of hazardous waste sites within or near the project corridor
(EPA 2007a, 2007b). According to both of these databases, no hazardous waste sites
are located near or within the project corridor. In addition, during biological surveys, no
visual evidence of hazardous materials was discovered within the project corridor.
3.10.2 Effects of the Project
Although the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP no longer has any specific legal
obligations under CERCLA for the TI segments addressed in this ESP, the Secretary
committed DHS to responsible environmental stewardship of our valuable natural and
cultural resources. CBP supports this objective and has applied the appropriate
standards and guidelines associated with CERCLA as the basis for evaluating potential
environmental impacts and appropriate mitigations.
No recognized environmental conditions have been observed or are expected to occur
within the project corridor. Petroleum, oils, and lubricants will be stored properly and
within designated containers, which will include primary and secondary containment
measures. Clean-up materials (e.g., oil mops), in accordance with the project’s
SPCCP, will also be maintained at the site to allow immediate action in case an
accidental spill occurs. Drip pans will be provided for the power generators and other
stationary equipment to capture any POL that is accidentally spilled during maintenance
activities or leaks from the equipment.
Sanitary facilities will be provided during construction activities, and waste products will
be collected and disposed of by licensed contractors. No gray water will be discharged
to the ground. Disposal contractors will use only established roads to transport
equipment and supplies; all waste will be disposed of in strict compliance in accordance
with the contractor’s permits. Because the proper permits will be obtained by the
licensed contractor tasked to handle any unregulated solid waste, and because all of
the unregulated solid waste will be handled in the proper manner, no hazards for the
public are expected through the transport, use, or disposal of unregulated solid waste.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
3-26

SECTION 4.0
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND MITIGATION MEASURES

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

4.0

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND MITIGATION MEASURES

It is CBP’s policy to reduce impacts through the sequence of avoidance, minimization,
mitigation, and finally, compensation. Mitigation efforts vary and include activities such
as restoration of habitat in other areas and implementation of appropriate BMPs. CBP
coordinates its environmental design measures with the appropriate Federal and state
resource agencies, as appropriate. Both general BMPs and species-specific BMPs
have been developed during the preparation of this ESP.
This section describes those measures that may be implemented to reduce or eliminate
potential adverse impacts on the human and natural environment. Many of these
measures have been incorporated by CBP as standard operating procedures on past
projects. Below is a summary of BMPs for each resource category that will be
potentially affected. The mitigation measures will be coordinated with the appropriate
agencies and land managers or administrators, as appropriate. Table 4-1 provides an
overview of BMPs and mitigation measures by specific resource areas.
Table 4-1. Specific Resource Area BMPs and Mitigation
Resource Area

Best Management Practices/Mitigation

Air Quality

Dust Control Plan. Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan. Maintain equipment
according to specifications.

Land Use and
Aesthetics

No mitigation necessary.

Soils

Dust Control Plan.

Hydrology and
Groundwater

SPCCP and CM&R plans.

Surface Waters and
Waters of the United
States

SWPPP.

Vegetation Resources

Fire Suppression and Prevention Plan. Biological monitor on site during
construction to ensure all BMPs and mitigation plans are followed.

Wildlife and Aquatic
Resources

No mitigation necessary.

Threatened and
Endangered Species

No mitigation necessary.

Cultural Resources

Avoidance, testing, and data recovery.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
4-1

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

4.1

General Construction Activities

BMPs will be implemented as standard operating procedures during all construction
activities, and will include proper handling, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous and/or
regulated materials. To minimize potential impacts from hazardous and regulated
materials, all fuels, waste oils, and solvents will be collected and stored in tanks or
drums within a secondary containment system that consists of an impervious floor and
bermed sidewalls capable of containing the volume of the largest container stored
therein. The refueling of machinery will be completed following accepted industry
guidelines, and all vehicles will have drip pans during storage to contain minor spills and
drips. Although a major spill is unlikely to occur, any spill of 5 gallons or more will be
contained immediately within an earthen dike, and an absorbent (e.g., granular, pillow,
sock, etc.) will be applied to contain the spill. Furthermore, a spill of any regulated
substance in a reportable quantity will be cleaned up and reported to the appropriate
Federal and state agencies. Reportable quantities regulated substances will be
included as part of a project-specific SPCCP. An SPCCP will be in place prior to the
start of construction and all personnel will be briefed on the implementation and
responsibilities of this plan.
All equipment maintenance, laydown, and dispensing of fuel, oil, or any other such
activities, will occur in staging areas identified for use in this ESP. The designated
staging areas will be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering
WUS, including wetlands. All used oil and solvents will be recycled if possible. All nonrecyclable hazardous and regulated wastes will be collected, characterized, labeled,
stored, transported, and disposed in manners consistent with EPA standards.
Solid waste receptacles will be maintained at staging areas. Non-hazardous solid waste
(trash and waste construction materials) will be collected and deposited in on-site
receptacles. Waste materials and other discarded materials contained in these
receptacles will be removed from the site as quickly as possible. Solid waste will be
collected and disposed of properly.
Once activities in any given construction segment of the project corridor are completed,
active measures will be implemented to rehabilitate the staging areas. CBP will
coordinate with the appropriate land managers to determine the most suitable and costeffective measures for successful rehabilitation.
For successful rehabilitation, all or some of the following measures may be conducted
on the part of CBP:
•
•
•
•

Site preparation through ripping and disking to loosen compacted soils.
Hydromulch with native grasses and forbs in order to control soil erosion
and ensure adequate re-vegetation.
Planting of native shrubs as needed.
Temporary irrigation (i.e., truck watering) for seedlings.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
4-2

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

•
4.2

Periodic monitoring to determine if additional actions are necessary to
successfully rehabilitate disturbed areas.

Air Quality

Mitigation measures will be incorporated to ensure that PM-10 emission levels remain
minimal. Measures will include dust suppression methods to minimize airborne
particulate matter created during construction activities. Standard construction BMPs,
such as routine watering of the construction site and access roads, will be used to
control fugitive dust during the construction phases of the Project. Additionally, all
construction equipment and vehicles will need to be kept in good operating condition to
minimize exhaust emissions.
4.3

Soils

Proper site-specific BMPs are designed and utilized to reduce the impact of non-point
source pollution during construction activities. BMPs include such things as buffers
around washes to reduce the risk of siltation, installation of waterbars to slow the flow of
water down hill, and placement of culverts, low-water crossings, or bridges where
washes need to be traversed. These BMPs will greatly reduce the amount of soil lost to
runoff during heavy rain events and ensure the integrity of the construction site. Soil
erosion BMPs can also beneficially impact air quality by reducing the amount of fugitive
dust.
Areas with highly erodible soils will be given special consideration to ensure
incorporation of various and effective compaction techniques, aggregate materials,
wetting compounds, and rehabilitation to reduce potential soil erosion. Erosion control
measures such as waterbars, gabions, straw bales, and re-vegetation will be
implemented during and after construction activities. Re-vegetation efforts will be
implemented to ensure long-term recovery of the area and to prevent significant soil
erosion problems.
4.4

Water Resources

Although the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP no longer has any specific legal
obligations under the CWA, for the TI segments addressed in this ESP, the Secretary
committed DHS to responsible environmental stewardship of our valuable natural and
cultural resources. CBP supports this objective and has applied the appropriate
standards and guidelines associated with the CWA as the basis for evaluating potential
environmental impacts and appropriate mitigations.
CBP will require its contractor(s) to prepare and implement a SWPPP to avoid or reduce
erosion and sedimentation outside the construction footprint. Coordination with the
Regulatory Functions Branch of USACE, Albuquerque District will continue in order to
avoid or reduce construction-related impacts to washes and arroyos that are potentially
jurisdictional WUS. Compensatory mitigation will be implemented, as appropriate.
ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
4-3

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

All engineering designs and subsequent hydrology reports will be provided to USIBWC
prior to start of construction activities for recommendation of measures to avoid an
increase, concentration, or relocation of overland surface flows into either the U.S. or
Mexico. Furthermore, CBP will routinely check and maintain drainage structures,
including low water crossings, and vehicle fence installed within drainages. Such
activities may include, but are not limited to, removal of debris that would impede proper
conveyance, repair/maintenance of erosional features, installation of energy dissipation
measures, and re-vegetation of temporarily disturbed areas.
4.5

Biological Resources

Construction equipment will be cleaned using a high-pressure water system prior to
entering and departing the project corridor to minimize the spread and establishment of
non-native invasive plant species. Soil disturbances in temporary impact areas will be
rehabilitated. Rehabilitation includes re-vegetation or the distribution of organic and
geological materials over the disturbed area to reduce erosion while allowing the area to
naturally revegetate. Rehabilitation methods will be outlined in a rehabilitation plan. At
a minimum, the rehabilitation plan will include: the plant species to be used, a planting
schedule, measures to control non-native species, specific success criteria, and the
party responsible for maintaining and meeting the success criteria. Seeds or plants
native to Luna and Doña Ana counties will be used to the extent practicable.
Disturbed and restored areas will be monitored for the spread and eventual eradication
of non-native invasive plant species as part of periodic maintenance activities as
appropriate.
A qualified biologist (i.e., professional biologist with education and training in wildlife
biology or ecology) will monitor construction operations to ensure adherence with the
BMPs and provide advice to the construction contractor as needed.
4.6

Cultural Resources

Prior to ground-disturbing activities near sites determined to be eligible or potentially
eligible for listing on the NRHP, the New Mexico SHPO and the appropriate tribes will
be informed. Additionally, through continued coordination with the New Mexico SHPO,
measures to avoid or mitigate for adverse effects will be identified and implemented as
possible including the potential to: (1) avoid sites to the extent practicable; (2) monitor
construction activities to ensure potential effects are minimized; (3) data recovery. Other
possible measures to be considered where practical and also in coordination with New
Mexico SHPO may include capping sites with a geo-textile covered with clean
engineered aggregate to protect sites; and to implement a data exchange program
where for each site destroyed during construction, research will be conducted
elsewhere to contribute to the understanding of cultural resources issues within the
area. During construction, orange fabric barrier fencing (or similar material) will be
positioned on the edges of established roads to prevent vehicle traffic from impacting

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
4-4

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

undisturbed cultural sites. Use of an on-site archaeological monitor will also be
considered to monitor construction activities where site avoidance will occur.
As discussed above in Section 3.8.2, 57 cultural resources sites were documented in
the project area. Nineteen sites are not recommended eligible for NRHP and require no
further consideration. A total of 38 sites are recommended eligible for NRHP or are of
unknown eligibility and further testing may be conducted. The BMPs and/or mitigation
measures for these 38 sites are summarized in Table 3.7. Consequently, with the
implementation of avoidance and mitigation measures as appropriate, potential adverse
effects will be minimized.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
4-5

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
4-6

SECTION 5.0
RELATED PROJECTS AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

5.0

RELATED PROJECTS AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS

This section of the ESP addresses the potential cumulative impacts associated with the
implementation of the Project and other projects/programs that are planned for the
region.
USBP has been conducting law enforcement actions along the border since its
inception in 1924, and has continually transformed its methods as new missions, IA
modes of operation, agent needs, and National enforcement strategies have evolved.
Development and maintenance of training ranges, station and sector facilities, detention
facilities, and roads and fences have affected thousands of acres, with synergistic and
cumulative impacts to soil, wildlife habitats, water quality, and noise. Beneficial effects
have resulted from the construction and use of these roads and fences, including, but
not limited to: increased employment and income for border regions and surrounding
communities; protection and enhancement of sensitive resources north of the border;
reduction in crime within urban areas near the border; increased land value in areas
where border security has increased; and increased knowledge of the biological
communities and pre-history of the region through numerous biological and cultural
resources surveys and studies.
With continued funding and implementation of CBP’s environmental conservation
measures, use of biological and archaeological monitors, and restoration activities,
adverse impacts of future and ongoing projects would be prevented or minimized.
However, recent, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable proposed projects would result
in cumulative impacts. General descriptions of these types of activities are discussed in
the following paragraphs.
5.1

PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIONS

Cumulative Fencing along Southwestern Border. There are currently 62 miles of
landing mat pedestrian fence at various locations along the U.S./Mexico border
(Congressional Research Service [CRS] 2006); approximately 30 miles of single,
double, and triple pedestrian fence in San Diego, California and Yuma, Arizona; 70
miles of new primary pedestrian fence at various locations along the U.S./Mexico
border; vehicle fence along much of the Deming Station’s AO, vehicle fence in Arizona
along the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument; and pedestrian fences at POE
facilities throughout the southern border. In addition, 225 miles of fence are currently
being planned for Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.
Past Actions. Past actions are those within the cumulative effects analysis areas that
have occurred prior to the development of this ESP. The effects of these past actions
are generally described throughout Section 3 of this ESP. For example, extensive cattle
grazing and farming use throughout the project corridor have contributed to the existing
environmental conditions of the area.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
5-1

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

Present Actions. Present actions include current or funded construction projects; CBP
or other agency actions in close proximity to the vehicle fence locations; and current
resource management programs and land use activities within the cumulative effects
analysis areas. Ongoing actions considered in the cumulative effects analysis include
the following:
Construction of Primary Fence. The FY 2007 DHS Appropriations Act provided $1.2
billion for the installation of fencing, infrastructure, and technology along the border
(CRS 2006). By the December 31, 2008 CBP will have constructed up to 225 miles of
primary fence and up to 300 miles of vehicle fence in all southwest border Sectors
except Laredo.
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions
consist of activities that have been approved and can be evaluated with respect to their
effects. The following activities are reasonably foreseeable future actions:
CBP’s Secure Border Initiative (SBInet) The Secure Border Initiative (SBI) is a
comprehensive multi-year plan established by the DHS to secure America’s borders
and reduce illegal migration. SBInet is responsible for the development, installation and
integration of technology solutions, and SBI TI develops and installs physical
components designed to secure the border consisting of the following major
components: pedestrian fence, vehicle fence, roads, lights and vegetation control.
SBInet will improve deterrence, detection, and apprehension of illegal aliens into the
U.S. When fully implemented, SBInet and SBI TI will improve ability of CBP personnel
to rapidly and effectively respond to illegal cross border activity and help DHS and CBP
to manage, control, and secure the Nation’s borders.
SBInet program is currently in the very early planning stages of identifying potential
locations for surveillance and communication towers within New Mexico. These towers
typically require a 100-foot x 100-foot area and are usually located near an established,
but sometimes unimproved road. The towers are generally less than 200 feet tall and
can be powered by batteries, solar panels, natural gas generators, or from existing
electrical grids. The towers would be used as a force multiplier to assist USBP in the
detection of illegal cross-border activity. Currently, there are 35 radar/camera towers
and 20 communication tower sites being investigated within 25 miles of the U.S./Mexico
border in New Mexico. For a project of this size, it would be expected that no more than
50 acres, including construction/improvement of access roads would be impacted.
Typical of all CBP projects, sites are surveyed for the presence of sensitive resources
and, where practicable, such resources are avoided.
CBP intends to construct approximately 59 miles of vehicle fence and associated
construction roads along the U.S./Mexico border from Border Monuments 69 to 62 and
from 59 to 40. The construction of these TI components would encompass the entire 60
foot wide Roosevelt Reservation and account for 429 acres of disturbance. In order to
construct the TI along the border, access roads would also have to be improved.
Approximately 104 miles of access roads would be improved. These roads currently
ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
5-2

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

range from two-track trails to 30-foot wide all-weather roads. Therefore, the amount of
work to be completed to improve these roads is not known at this time but will be
established via engineering and analyzed in a future ESP or NEPA-compliance
document.
A list of other recently completed or reasonable foreseeable CBP projects within the
region surrounding the Santa Teresa Station’s AO is presented in Table 11-1. In
addition, CBP might be required to implement other activities and operations that are
currently not foreseen or mentioned in this document. These actions could be in
response to National emergencies or security events like the terrorist attacks on
September 11, 2001, or to changes in the mode of operations of the potential IAs.
Table 5-1. Recently Completed or Reasonably Foreseeable CBP Projects in and
near the Santa Teresa Station’s AO
Approximate
Distance from
Project Corridor
(miles)

Project
I-10/25 Checkpoints in Las Cruces, NM
Portable Lights in Sunland Park, NM
Repair of Anapra Fence from storm damage
USBP, Forward Operating Base, Deming Station, New Mexico
TI within the Deming Station’s AO (patrol roads, access roads,
vehicle fence, primary fences, and lighting)

Approximate
Acres
Permanently
Impacted

40
5
7
75

5
0
1
10

0

382
Total

398 acres

Plans by other agencies that would also affect the region’s natural and human
environment, including various road improvements by the New Mexico Department of
Transportation (NMDOT) and/or Luna and Doña Ana counties. The majority of these
projects would be expected to occur along existing corridors and/or within previously
disturbed sites. The magnitude of the impacts would depend upon the length and width
of the road right of way (ROW) and the extant conditions within and adjacent to the
ROW. According to NMDOT, no projects are currently scheduled near the project
corridor (Apodaca 2008).
In addition, projects are currently being planned by other Federal entities which could
affect areas in use by USBP. CBP/USBP maintain close coordination with these
agencies so that CBP/USBP activities do not conflict with other agencies’ policies or
management plans to the extent practicable. CBP typically coordinates with applicable
state and Federal agencies prior to performing any construction activities so that USBP
operations do not substantially impact the mission of other agencies. The following
paragraphs list projects that other Federal and state agencies are conducting or have
completed within the region.
BLM Las Cruces District Office projects were described and listed in the 2006 PEA and
are incorporated herein by reference. In addition, the updated list of projects occurring
ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
5-3

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

in the Las Cruces District Office is included in Appendix D. In summary, BLM proposes
the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

grazing permit issuances, transfers, and renewals;
free use mineral material permits;
transportation and utility ROW easements;
oil and gas ROW easements;
mineral exploration permits;
resource management plans;
scenic trails; and
competitive land sales.

A summary of the anticipated cumulative impacts of the Project (i.e., construction of 48
miles of vehicle fence and associated roads in Luna and Doña Ana counties) in
conjunction with other projects in the area are presented in the following sections.
Discussions are presented for each of the resources described previously.
5.2

AIR QUALITY

The emissions generated during and after the construction of the vehicle fence will be
short-term and minor. Although maintenance of the fence and construction road will
result in cumulative impacts on the region’s air shed, these impacts will be considered
negligible, even when combined with the other proposed developments in the border
region. BMPs designed to reduce fugitive dust have been and will continue to be
standard operating procedure for CBP construction projects. Deterrence of and
improved response time to cross border violators due to the construction of the fence
and road has reduced the need for off-road enforcement actions by USBP agents.
5.3

LAND USE

The Project described herein and other TI projects in New Mexico will occur primarily
within the Roosevelt Reservation, which was set aside specifically for border control
actions. This action, therefore, is consistent with the authorized land use and, when
considered with other potential alterations of land use, will have negligible cumulative
impacts. Recent activities that have most affected land use near the TI are the farming
and grazing operations on BLM and private lands.
5.4

AESTHETICS

The construction of TI from Border Monument 40 east to Santa Teresa, New Mexico will
contribute to a degradation of visual resources; however, these areas currently have an
existing border road and cattle fence located within or near most of the proposed
corridor. Additionally, areas north and west of the border within the construction
corridors will be expected to experience beneficial, indirect cumulative impacts through
the reduction of trash, soil erosion, and creation of roads by illegal vehicle traffic.
Therefore, moderate cumulative impacts on visual resources will be expected from
ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
5-4

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

implementing the Project, when considered with existing and proposed developments in
the surrounding areas.
5.5

SOILS

The Project and other CBP actions will not reduce prime farmland soils or agricultural
production substantially nor will there will there be a substantial cumulative increase in
soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Pre- and post-construction SWPPP measures for this and
other Planned and Proposed Actions will be implemented to control erosion. The loss
of biological production of regionally abundant soils as a result of the Project, when
combined with past and proposed projects in the region, will result in moderate
cumulative impacts on soils, primarily through the loss of biological production.
5.6

WATER USE AND QUALITY

As a result of the Project, when combined with other CBP projects, increased temporary
erosion during construction will occur; however, increased sediment and turbidity will
have minimal cumulative impacts on water quality. Limited and short-term withdrawal
from the regional groundwater basins will not affect long-term water supplies or
groundwater quality. The volume of water withdrawn will not affect the public drinking
water supplies, but could indirectly contribute to aquifer contamination from surface
runoff. The indirect effects of altered surface drainage and potential consequent
erosion will have minimal beneficial and adverse cumulative impacts on surface water
quality.
5.7

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Equipment used during the improvement of roads and construction of fences in the
region could cause the degradation or loss of up to 717 acres of natural vegetation
(CBP 2006). The TI currently planned as well as future TI will permanently impact
vegetation consisting of Chihuahuan Desertscrub, Desert Grasslands and Prairies, and
Woodland communities (CBP 2004 and 2006). These impacts could be considered
moderate to major cumulative impacts; however, BMPs will be developed, which include
the restoration of temporarily impacted areas to offset these potential impacts.
Additionally, the reduction of illegal traffic north of the planned and proposed TI will have
beneficial cumulative impacts on vegetation communities in the region.
The planned and proposed TI will have negligible cumulative impacts on fish or other
aquatic species because the construction activities will not take place in flowing or
standing water. Construction in or near drainage crossings will use BMPs and follow
the SWPPP to reduce potential impacts downstream. Adverse cumulative impacts will
occur to wildlife species through the permanent reduction of 717 acres of habitat.
However, due to the presence of similar habitat adjacent to the study corridor (over 1.5
million acres), these impacts will be considered minor to moderate (CBP 2004 and
2006). Additionally, because vehicle fence is planned for 96 percent of the ROI rather

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
5-5

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

than vehicle fence, negligible cumulative impacts will occur regarding opportunities for
transboundary migration.
CBP has maintained close coordination with USFWS and NMDGF regarding
transboundary migration of wildlife and special status species, and both agencies have
provided valuable guidance to CBP regarding these species. Through the use of BMPs
developed in coordination with USFWS, the potential impacts as a result of the Project,
as well as other past, present, and future actions, will ensure that major cumulative
impacts on protected species do not occur.
5.8

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The Project will have adverse effects on known cultural resources sites; however,
through data recovery the adverse effects of some sites will be mitigated. Beneficial
cumulative effects will occur from the protection afforded to previously discovered and
any undiscovered cultural resources within the border lands in the vicinity of the planned
and proposed TI components.
5.9

SOCIOECONOMICS

The planned and proposed TI in the ROI will have negligible cumulative impacts on the
local employment or income, will not induce a permanent in-migration of people nor will
there be additional permanent employees. Therefore, there will be no cumulative
increase in demand for housing. However, TI will benefit socioeconomics of the ROI by
reducing the costs associated with illegal activity through the USBP’s increased
deterrence and apprehension capabilities.
5.10

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Only minor increases in the use of hazardous substances (e.g., POL) will occur as a
result of the construction and maintenance of the vehicle fence. No health or safety
risks will be created by the Project. When combined with other ongoing and proposed
projects in the region, the Project will have a negligible cumulative impact.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
5-6

SECTION 6.0
REFERENCES

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

6.0

REFERENCES

Apodaca, Gabriela. 2008. Personal communication between Ms. Gabriela Apodaca of
NMDOT and Mr. Josh McEnany of GSRC, August 11, 2008. Phone number, 550544-6450.
Biota Information System of New Mexico. Internet website: http://www.bison-m.org/.
Last Accessed: June 26, 2008.
Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2005. BEARFACTS for Doña Ana County, New Mexico.
URL:
http://www.bea.gov/regional/BEARFACTS/lapipdf.cfm?yearin=2005&fips=35023
&areatype=35023 Last Accessed 27 March 2008.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2005a. Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population
Survey.
Available
online
at:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&
series_id=LASST35000003. Last accessed 21 May 2008.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2005b. Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population
Survey.
Available
online
at:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&
series_id=LNS14000000. Last accessed 21 May 2008.
Busnel, R. G., and J. Fletcher. 1978. Effect of noise on wildlife. New York: Academic
Press.
California Department of Transportation. 1998. Technical Noise Supplement by the
California Department of Transportation Environmental Program Environmental
Engineering-Noise, Air Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management Office.
October 1998 Page 24-28.
Congressional Research Service (CRS). 2006. Border Security: Barriers Along the
U.S. International Border. Report for Congress prepared by Blas Nunez-Neto
and Stephen Vina. Updated 12 December 2006.
Della-Russo, R. 2000
Results of Archaeological Test Excavations at Sites
LA85752 and LA128837 for Proposed Improvements, Joint Task Force Six, Doña
Ana County, New Mexico. Letter Report, Ogden Environmental and Energy
Services.
Della-Russo, R., A.J. Schilz, and R. Sullivan. 2000 Class III Cultural Resources
Inventory, Proposed International Border Improvements, Doña Ana County, New
Mexico. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
6-1

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
2008.
http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs. Last Accessed 23, 2008.

Internet

website:

Fletcher, J.L. 1990. Review of noise and terrestrial species: 1983-1988. pp. 181-188 in:
B. Berglund and T. Lindvall, eds. Noise as a Public Health Problem Vol. 5: New
Advances in Noise Research Part II. Swedish Council for Building Research,
Stockholm.
Kurota, A. and C. A. Turnbow. 2008
A Cultural Resources Survey of 261 Acres in
Doña Ana County, New Mexico. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of
New Mexico, Albuquerque.
New Mexico Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. 2006 – 2008 State of New
Mexico Integrated Clean Water Act §303(d)/§305(b) Report – Appendix A: The
List.
http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/303d-305b/2006-2008/20062008_303d-305bLIST.pdf
New Mexico Department of Labor, Labor Analysis Statistics and Economic Research
(LASER). 2007. List of employers in Luna and Doña Ana counties. URL:
http://laser.state.nm.us/ Last Accessed 27 March 2008.
LASER. 2008. Unemployment and Employment Monthly Release, June, 2008. URL:
http://laser.state.nm.us/gsipub/index.asp?docid=294. Last Accessed 21 August
2008.
New Mexico Economic Development Department. 2005. County Comparison Results
for Doña Ana County – 2005 Population and Population Projections. Available at
www.edd.state.nm.us. Last accessed 27 March 2008.
New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. 2007. Groundwater of Las Crueces,
Dona
Ana
County
Region.
Internet
website:
http://www.lascruces.org/utilities/docs/MesillaJornada.pdf. Last Accessed August 10, 2007.
Rich, C. and T. Longcore. 2006. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting.
Island Press. Washington, D.C.
Robinson, S.G. and E.R. Banta. 1995. Ground Water Atlas of the United States.
Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah. USGS HA 730-C.
Sechrist, M. 1994. The Joint Task Force-Six Border Survey: Archaeological Survey
Along the U.S./Mexico border Road from Anapra to Antelope Wells, New Mexico.
Report No. HSR 9114A, Human Systems Research, Inc., Tularosa, NM.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
6-2

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

Sechrist, M. 2000 Archeological Survey of Three Linear Segments Along the New
Mexico-Chihuahua International Border near the Santa Teresa Port of Entry,
Doña Ana County, New Mexico. Prepared for Gulf South Research Corporation
by TRC Mariah Associates, Inc, El Paso
Treirweiler, W. N., and M. Bonnie. 2003 Cultural Resources Survey Along the United
States/Mexico International Border, Doña Ana County, new Mexico. Prepared
for Joint Task Force Six, Fort Bliss, Texas by Ecological Communications
Corporation, Austin, Texas.
Treirweiler, W. N., and M. Sechrist. 2004.
Cultural Resource Survey Near the
Santa Teresa International Port of Entry, Doña Ana County, New Mexico.
Ecological Communications Corporation, Austin.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates for Doña Ana
County, the State of New Mexico, and the United States.
URL:
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/saipe.cgi Last Accessed 28 March 2008.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 2004. Final Environmental Assessment
for Proposed Vehicle Barriers near Santa Teresa Doña Ana County, New Mexico
April 2004.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 2006. Programmatic Environmental
Assessment for Proposed Tactical Infrastructure, Office of Border Patrol, El Paso
Sectors, New Mexico Stations July 2006.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1973. Soil Survey for Doña Ana County New
Mexico. USDA and National Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the
New Mexico Agricultural Experiment Station. December 1973.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. Procedures Document for National
Emission Inventory, Criteria Air Pollutants 1985-1999. EPA-454/R-01-006. Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park NC 27711.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. User’s Guide for the Final
NONROAD2005 Model. EPA420-R-05-013 December 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007a. Enforcement & Compliance
History Online (ECHO). Internet URL: http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/ideaotis.cgi.
Last accessed: May 22, 2007.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007b. Envirofacts Data Warehouse
website. Internet URL: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index_java.html. Last
accessed: May 22, 2007.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
6-3

JV-1, JV-2, JV-3 Tactical Infrastructure

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008 Welcome to the Green Book
Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, New
Mexico
Listed
and
Sensitive
Species
List.
Internet
website:
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/SBC_intro.cfm. Last Accessed:
August 11, 2008.

ESP, Santa Teresa Station

December 2008
6-4

APPENDIX A
DHS April 2008 Border Waiver

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 8, 2008 / Notices
Ken
Hunt, Executive Director, 245 Murray
Lane, Mail Stop 0550, Washington, DC
20528, 703–235–0780 and 703–235–
0442, [e-mail].
Purpose and Objective: Under the
authority of 6 U.S.C. section 451, this
charter establishes the Data Privacy and
Integrity Advisory Committee, which
shall operate in accordance with the
provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App).
The Committee will provide advice at
the request of the Secretary of DHS and
the Chief Privacy Officer of DHS on
programmatic, policy, operational,
administrative, and technological issues
within the DHS that relate to personally
identifiable information (PII), as well as
data integrity and other privacy-related
matters.
Duration: The committee’s charter is
effective March 25, 2008, and expires
March 25, 2010.
Responsible DHS Officials: Hugo
Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer and Ken
Hunt, Executive Director, 245 Murray
Drive, Mail Stop 0550, Washington, DC
20528, [e-mail], 703–
235–0780.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dated: April 1, 2008.
Hugo Teufel III,
Chief Privacy Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–7277 Filed 4–7–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–10–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Office of the Secretary
Determination Pursuant to Section 102
of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
as Amended
Office of the Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security.
ACTION: Notice of determination;
correction.

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES

AGENCY:

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Homeland
Security has determined, pursuant to
law, that it is necessary to waive certain
laws, regulations and other legal
requirements in order to ensure the
expeditious construction of barriers and
roads in the vicinity of the international
land border of the United States. The
notice of determination was published
in the Federal Register on April 3, 2008.
Due to a publication error, the Project
Area description was inadvertently
omitted from the April 3 publication.
For clarification purposes, this
document is a republication of the April
3 document including the omitted
Project Area description.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:09 Apr 07, 2008

Jkt 214001

This Notice is effective on April
8, 2008.

DATES:

Determination and Waiver
The Department of Homeland
Security has a mandate to achieve and
maintain operational control of the
borders of the United States. Public Law
109–367, 2, 120 Stat. 2638, 8 U.S.C.
1701 note. Congress has provided the
Secretary of Homeland Security with a
number of authorities necessary to
accomplish this mandate. One of these
authorities is found at section 102(c) of
the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(‘‘IIRIRA’’). Public Law 104–208, Div. C,
110 Stat. 3009–546, 3009–554 (Sept. 30,
1996) (8 U.S.C 1103 note), as amended
by the REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law
109–13, Div. B, 119 Stat. 231, 302, 306
(May 11, 2005) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as
amended by the Secure Fence Act of
2006, Public Law 109–367, 3, 120 Stat.
2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. 1103
note), as amended by the Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
2008, Public Law 110–161, Div. E, Title
V, 564, 121 Stat. 2090 (Dec. 26, 2007).
In Section 102(a) of the IIRIRA,
Congress provided that the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall take such
actions as may be necessary to install
additional physical barriers and roads
(including the removal of obstacles to
detection of illegal entrants) in the
vicinity of the United States border to
deter illegal crossings in areas of high
illegal entry into the United States. In
Section 102(b) of the IIRIRA, Congress
has called for the installation of fencing,
barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and
sensors on not less than 700 miles of the
southwest border, including priority
miles of fencing that must be completed
by December of 2008. Finally, in section
102(c) of the IIRIRA, Congress granted to
me the authority to waive all legal
requirements that I, in my sole
discretion, determine necessary to
ensure the expeditious construction of
barriers and roads authorized by section
102 of the IIRIRA.
I determine that the following area of
Hidalgo County, Texas, in the vicinity of
the United States border, hereinafter the
Project Area, is an area of high illegal
entry:
• Starting approximately at the
intersection of Military Road and an unnamed road (i.e. beginning at the
western end of the International
Boundary Waters Commission (IBWC)
levee in Hidalgo County) and runs east
in proximity to the IBWC levee for
approximately 4.5 miles.
• Starting approximately at the
intersection of Levee Road and 5494
Wing Road and runs east in proximity

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

19077

to the IBWC levee for approximately 1.8
miles.
• Starting approximately 0.2 mile
north from the intersection of S. Depot
Road and 23rd Street and runs south in
proximity to the IBWC levee to the
Hidalgo POE and then east in proximity
to the new proposed IBWC levee and
the existing IBWC levee to
approximately South 15th Street for a
total length of approximately 4.0 miles.
• Starting adjacent to Levee Road and
approximately 0.1 miles east of the
intersection of Levee Road and Valley
View Road and runs east in proximity
to the IBWC levee for approximately 1.0
mile then crosses the Irrigation District
Hidalgo County #1 Canal and will tie
into the future New Donna POE fence.
• Starting approximately 0.1 mile east
of the intersection of County Road 556
and County Road 1554 and runs east in
proximity to the IBWC levee for
approximately 3.4 miles.
• Starting approximately 0.1 mile east
of the Bensten Groves road and runs
east in proximity to the IBWC levee to
the Progresso POE for approximately 3.4
miles.
• Starting approximately at the
Progresso POE and runs east in
proximity to the IBWC levee for
approximately 2.5 miles.
In order to deter illegal crossings in
the Project Area, there is presently a
need to construct fixed and mobile
barriers and roads in conjunction with
improvements to an existing levee
system in the vicinity of the border of
the United States as a joint effort with
Hidalgo County, Texas. In order to
ensure the expeditious construction of
the barriers and roads that Congress
prescribed in the IIRIRA in the Project
Area, which is an area of high illegal
entry into the United States, I have
determined that it is necessary that I
exercise the authority that is vested in
me by section 102(c) of the IIRIRA as
amended. Accordingly, I hereby waive
in their entirety, with respect to the
construction of roads and fixed and
mobile barriers (including, but not
limited to, accessing the project area,
creating and using staging areas, the
conduct of earthwork, excavation, fill,
and site preparation, and installation
and upkeep of fences, roads, supporting
elements, drainage, erosion controls,
safety features, surveillance,
communication, and detection
equipment of all types, radar and radio
towers, and lighting) in the Project Area,
all federal, state, or other laws,
regulations and legal requirements of,
deriving from, or related to the subject
of, the following laws, as amended: The
National Environmental Policy Act
(Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 852 (Jan. 1,

E:\FR\FM\08APN1.SGM

08APN1

19078

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 8, 2008 / Notices

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES

1970) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)), the
Endangered Species Act (Pub. L. 93–
205, 87 Stat. 884) (Dec. 28, 1973) (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)), the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (commonly
referred to as the Clean Water Act) (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the National
Historic Preservation Act (Pub. L. 89–
665, 80 Stat. 915 (Oct. 15, 1966) (16
U.S.C. 470 et seq.)), the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.),
the Archeological Resources Protection
Act (Pub. L. 96–95, 16 U.S.C. 470aa et
seq.), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42
U.S.C. 300f et seq.), the Noise Control
Act (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the
Archaeological and Historic
Preservation Act (Pub. L. 86–523, 16
U.S.C. 469 et seq.), the Antiquities Act
(16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), the Historic
Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act (16
U.S.C. 461 et seq.), the Farmland
Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et
seq.), the Coastal Zone Management Act
(Pub. L. 92–583, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.),
the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (Pub L. 94–579, 43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act (Pub. L. 89–669, 16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee), the Fish and Wildlife Act of
1956 (Pub. L. 84–1024, 16 U.S.C. 742a,
et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (Pub. L. 73–121, 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33
U.S.C. 403), the Eagle Protection Act (16
U.S.C. 668 et seq.), the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), the American
Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C.
1996), the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (42 U.S.C. 2000bb), and
the Federal Grant and Cooperative
Agreement Act of 1977 (31 U.S.C. 6303–
05).
I reserve the authority to make further
waivers from time to time as I may
determine to be necessary to accomplish
the provisions of section 102 of the
IIRIRA, as amended.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–7450 Filed 4–7–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–10–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:09 Apr 07, 2008

Jkt 214001

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Office of the Secretary
Determination Pursuant to Section 102
of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
as Amended
Office of the Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security.
ACTION: Notice of determination;
correction.
AGENCY:

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Homeland
Security has determined, pursuant to
law, that it is necessary to waive certain
laws, regulations and other legal
requirements in order to ensure the
expeditious construction of barriers and
roads in the vicinity of the international
land border of the United States. The
notice of determination was published
in the Federal Register on April 3, 2008.
Due to a publication error, the
description of the Project Areas was
inadvertently omitted from the April 3
publication. For clarification purposes,
this document is a republication of the
April 3 document including the omitted
description of the Project Areas.
DATES: This Notice is effective on April
8, 2008.

Determination and Waiver
I have a mandate to achieve and
maintain operational control of the
borders of the United States. Public Law
109–367, 2, 120 Stat. 2638, 8 U.S.C.
1701 note. Congress has provided me
with a number of authorities necessary
to accomplish this mandate. One of
these authorities is found at section
102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996 (‘‘IIRIRA’’). Public Law 104–208,
Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009–546, 3009–554
(Sept. 30, 1996) (8 U.S.C 1103 note), as
amended by the REAL ID Act of 2005,
Public Law 109–13, Div. B, 119 Stat.
231, 302, 306 (May 11, 2005) (8 U.S.C.
1103 note), as amended by the Secure
Fence Act of 2006, Public Law 109–367,
3, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8
U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the
Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law
110–161, Div. E, Title V, 564, 121 Stat.
2090 (Dec. 26, 2007). In Section 102(a)
of IIRIRA, Congress provided that the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall
take such actions as may be necessary
to install additional physical barriers
and roads (including the removal of
obstacles to detection of illegal entrants)
in the vicinity of the United States
border to deter illegal crossings in areas
of high illegal entry into the United

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

States. In Section 102(b) of IIRIRA,
Congress has called for the installation
of fencing, barriers, roads, lighting,
cameras, and sensors on not less than
700 miles of the southwest border,
including priority miles of fencing that
must be completed by December 2008.
Finally, in section 102(c) of the IIRIRA,
Congress granted to me the authority to
waive all legal requirements that I, in
my sole discretion, determine necessary
to ensure the expeditious construction
of barriers and roads authorized by
section 102 of IIRIRA.
I determine that the following areas in
the vicinity of the United States border,
located in the States of California,
Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas are
areas of high illegal entry (collectively
‘‘Project Areas’’):
California
• Starting approximately 1.5 mile east
of Border Monument (BM) 251 and ends
approximately at BM 250.
• Starting approximately 1.1 miles
west of BM 245 and runs east for
approximately 0.8 mile.
• Starting approximately 0.2 mile
west of BM 243 and runs east along the
border for approximately 0.5 mile.
• Starting approximately 0.7 mile east
of BM 243 and runs east along the
border for approximately 0.9 mile.
• Starting approximately 1.0 mile east
of BM 243 and runs east along the
border for approximately 0.9 mile.
• Starting approximately 0.7 mile
west of BM 242 and stops
approximately 0.4 mile west of BM 242.
• Starting approximately 0.8 mile east
of BM 242 and runs east along the
border for approximately 1.1 miles.
• Starting approximately 0.4 mile east
of BM 239 and runs east for
approximately 0.4 mile along the
border.
• Starting approximately 1.2 miles
east of BM 239 and runs east for
approximately 0.2 mile along the
border.
• Starting approximately 0.5 mile
west of BM 235 and runs east along the
border for approximately 1.1 miles.
• Starting approximately 0.8 mile east
of BM 235 and runs east along the
border for approximately 0.1 mile.
• Starting approximately 0.6 mile east
of BM 234 and runs east for
approximately 1.7 miles along the
border.
• Starting approximately 0.4 mile east
of BM 233 and runs east for
approximately 2.1 miles along the
border.
• Starting approximately 0.05 mile
west of BM 232 and runs east for
approximately 0.1 mile along the
border.

E:\FR\FM\08APN1.SGM

08APN1

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 8, 2008 / Notices
• Starting approximately 0.2 mile east
of BM 232 and runs east for
approximately 1.5 miles along the
border.
• Starting 0.6 mile east of Border
Monument 229 heading east along the
border for approximately 11.3 miles to
BM 225.
• Starting approximately 0.1 mile east
of BM 224 and runs east along the
border for approximately 2.5 miles.
• Starting approximately 2.3 miles
east of BM 220 and runs east along the
border to BM 207.
Arizona

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES

• Starting approximately 1.0 mile
south of BM 206 and runs south along
the Colorado River for approximately
13.3 miles.
• Starting approximately 0.1 mile
north of County 18th Street running
south along the border for
approximately 3.8 miles.
• Starting at the Eastern edge of
BMGR and runs east along the border to
approximately 1.3 miles west of BM
174.
• Starting approximately 0.5 mile
west of BM 168 and runs east along the
border for approximately 5.3 miles.
• Starting approximately 1 mile east
of BM 160 and runs east for
approximately 1.6 miles.
• Starting approximately 1.3 miles
east of BM 159 and runs east along the
border to approximately 0.3 mile east of
BM 140.
• Starting approximately 2.2 miles
west of BM 138 and runs east along the
border for approximately 2.5 miles.
• Starting approximately 0.2 miles
east of BM 136 and runs east along the
border to approximately 0.2 mile west of
BM 102.
• Starting approximately 3 miles west
of BM 99 and runs east along the border
approximately 6.5 miles.
• Starting approximately at BM 97
and runs east along the border
approximately 6.9 miles.
• Starting approximately at BM 91
and runs east along the border to
approximately 0.7 miles east of BM 89.
• Starting approximately 1.7 miles
west of BM 86 and runs east along the
border to approximately 0.7 mile west of
BM 86.
• Starting approximately 0.2 mile
west of BM 83 and runs east along the
border to approximately 0.2 mile east of
BM 73.
New Mexico
• Starting approximately 0.8 mile
west of BM 69 and runs east along the
border to approximately 1.5 miles west
of BM 65.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:09 Apr 07, 2008

Jkt 214001

• Starting approximately 2.3 miles
east of BM 65 and runs east along the
border for approximately 6.0 miles.
• Starting approximately 0.5 mile east
of BM 61 and runs east along the border
until approximately 1.0 mile west of BM
59.
• Starting approximately 0.1 miles
east of BM 39 and runs east along the
border to approximately 0.3 mile east of
BM 33.
• Starting approximately 0.25 mile
east of BM 31 and runs east along the
border for approximately 14.2 miles.
• Starting approximately at BM 22
and runs east along the border to
approximately 1.0 mile west BM 16.
• Starting at approximately 1.0 mile
west of BM 16 and runs east along the
border to approximately BM 3.
Texas
• Starting approximately 0.4 miles
southeast of BM 1 and runs southeast
along the border for approximately 3.0
miles.
• Starting approximately 1 Mi E of
the intersection of Interstate 54 and
Border Highway and runs southeast
approximately 57 miles in proximity to
the IBWC levee to 3.7 miles east of the
Ft Hancock POE.
• Starting approximately 1.6 miles
west of the intersection of Esperanza
and Quitman Pass Roads and runs along
the IBWC levee east for approximately
4.6 miles.
• Starting at the Presidio POE and
runs west along the border to
approximately 3.2 miles west of the
POE.
• Starting at the Presidio POE and
runs east along the border to
approximately 3.4 miles east of the POE.
• Starting approximately 1.8 miles
west of Del Rio POE and runs east along
the border for approximately 2.5 miles.
• Starting approximately 1.3 Mi north
of the Eagle Pass POE and runs south
approximately 0.8 miles south of the
POE.
• Starting approximately 2.1 miles
west of Roma POE and runs east
approximately 1.8 miles east of the
Roma POE.
• Starting approximately 3.5 miles
west of Rio Grande City POE and runs
east in proximity to the Rio Grande river
for approximately 9 miles.
• Starting approximately 0.9 miles
west of County Road 41 and runs east
approximately 1.2 miles and then north
for approximately 0.8 miles.
• Starting approximately 0.5 mile
west of the end of River Dr and runs east
in proximity to the IBWC levee for
approximately 2.5 miles.
• Starting approximately 0.6 miles
east of the intersection of Benson Rd

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

19079

and Cannon Rd and runs east in
proximity to the IBWC levee for
approximately 1 mile.
• Starting at the Los Indios POE and
runs west in proximity to the IBWC
levee for approximately 1.7 miles.
• Starting at the Los Indios POE and
runs east in proximity to the IBWC levee
for approximately 3.6 miles.
• Starting approximately 0.5 mile
west of Main St and J Padilla St
intersection and runs east in proximity
to the IBWC levee for approximately 2.0
miles.
• Starting approximately 1.2 miles
west of the Intersection of U.S. HWY
281 and Los Ranchitos Rd and runs east
in proximity to the IBWC levee for
approximately 2.4 miles.
• Starting approx 0.5 miles southwest
of the intersection of U.S. 281 and San
Pedro Rd and runs east in proximity to
the IBWC levee for approximately 1.8
miles.
• Starting approximately 0.1 miles
southwest of the Intersection of
Villanueva St and Torres Rd and runs
east in proximity to the IBWC levee for
approximately 3.6 miles.
• Starting approximately south of
Palm Blvd and runs east in proximity to
the City of Brownsville’s levee to
approximately the Gateway-Brownsville
POE where it continues south and then
east in proximity to the IBWC levee for
a total length of approximately 3.5
miles.
• Starting at the North Eastern Edge
of Ft Brown Golf Course and runs east
in proximity to the IBWC levee for
approximately 1 mile.
• Starting approximately 0.3 miles
east of Los Tomates-Brownsville POE
and runs east and then north in
proximity to the IBWC levee for
approximately 13 miles.
In order to deter illegal crossings in
the Project Areas, there is presently a
need to construct fixed and mobile
barriers (such as fencing, vehicle
barriers, towers, sensors, cameras, and
other surveillance, communication, and
detection equipment) and roads in the
vicinity of the border of the United
States. In order to ensure the
expeditious construction of the barriers
and roads that Congress prescribed in
the IIRIRA in the Project Areas, which
are areas of high illegal entry into the
United States, I have determined that it
is necessary that I exercise the authority
that is vested in me by section 102(c) of
the IIRIRA as amended.
Accordingly, I hereby waive in their
entirety, with respect to the
construction of roads and fixed and
mobile barriers (including, but not
limited to, accessing the project area,
creating and using staging areas, the

E:\FR\FM\08APN1.SGM

08APN1

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES

19080

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 8, 2008 / Notices

conduct of earthwork, excavation, fill,
and site preparation, and installation
and upkeep of fences, roads, supporting
elements, drainage, erosion controls,
safety features, surveillance,
communication, and detection
equipment of all types, radar and radio
towers, and lighting) in the Project
Areas, all federal, state, or other laws,
regulations and legal requirements of,
deriving from, or related to the subject
of, the following laws, as amended: The
National Environmental Policy Act
(Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 852 (Jan. 1,
1970) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)), the
Endangered Species Act (Pub. L. 93–
205, 87 Stat. 884 (Dec. 28, 1973) (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)), the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (commonly
referred to as the Clean Water Act) (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)), the National
Historic Preservation Act (Pub. L. 89–
665, 80 Stat. 915 (Oct. 15, 1966) (16
U.S.C. 470 et seq.)), the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.),
the Archeological Resources Protection
Act (Pub. L. 96–95, 16 U.S.C. 470aa et
seq.), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42
U.S.C. 300f et seq.), the Noise Control
Act (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the
Archaeological and Historic
Preservation Act (Pub. L. 86–523, 16
U.S.C. 469 et seq.), the Antiquities Act
(16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), the Historic
Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act (16
U.S.C. 461 et seq.), the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act (Pub. L. 90–542, 16 U.S.C.
1281 et seq.), the Farmland Protection
Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.), the
Coastal Zone Management Act (Pub. L.
92–583, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), the
Wilderness Act (Pub. L. 88–577, 16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (Pub L. 94–
579, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the
National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act (Pub. L. 89–669, 16
U.S.C. 668dd–668ee), the Fish and
Wildlife Act of 1956 (Pub. L. 84–1024,
16 U.S.C. 742a, et seq.), the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (Pub. L. 73–
121, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
551 et seq.), the Otay Mountain
Wilderness Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106–
145), Sections 102(29) and 103 of Title
I of the California Desert Protection Act
(Pub. L. 103–433), 50 Stat. 1827, the
National Park Service Organic Act (Pub.
L. 64–235, 16 U.S.C. 1, 2–4), the
National Park Service General

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:09 Apr 07, 2008

Jkt 214001

Authorities Act (Pub. L. 91–383, 16
U.S.C. 1a–1 et seq.), Sections 401(7),
403, and 404 of the National Parks and
Recreation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–625),
Sections 301(a)–(f) of the Arizona Desert
Wilderness Act (Pub. L. 101–628), the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33
U.S.C. 403), the Eagle Protection Act (16
U.S.C. 668 et seq.), the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), the American
Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C.
1996), the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (42 U.S.C. 2000bb), the
National Forest Management Act of
1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and the
Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of
1960 (16 U.S.C. 528–531).
This waiver does not supersede,
supplement, or in any way modify the
previous waivers published in the
Federal Register on September 22, 2005
(70 FR 55622), January 19, 2007 (72 FR
2535), and October 26, 2007 (72 FR
60870).
I reserve the authority to make further
waivers from time to time as I may
determine to be necessary to accomplish
the provisions of section 102 of the
IIRIRA, as amended.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–7451 Filed 4–7–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–10–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
[USCG–2008–0202]

Information Collection Request to
Office of Management and Budget;
OMB Control Numbers: 1625–0044,
1625–0045, and 1625–0060
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting
comments.

AGENCY:
ACTION:

SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit
Information Collection Requests (ICRs)
and Analyses to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
requesting an extension of their
approval for the following collections of
information: (1) 1625–0044, Outer
Continental Shelf Activities—Title 33
CFR Subchapter N; (2) 1625–0045,
Adequacy Certification for Reception
Facilities and Advance Notice—33 CFR
part 158; and (3) 1625–0060, Vapor
Control Systems for Facilities and Tank
Vessels. Before submitting these ICRs to
OMB, the Coast Guard is inviting
comments as described below.

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Comments must reach the Coast
Guard on or before June 9, 2008.
ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate
submissions to the docket [USCG–2008–
0202], please submit them by only one
of the following means:
(1) Online: http://
www.regulations.gov.
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility
(DMF) (M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
(3) Hand delivery: DMF between the
hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The telephone number is 202–366–
9329.
(4) Fax: [phone].
The DMF maintains the public docket
for this notice. Comments and material
received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this notice as
being available in the docket, will
become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying at
room W12–140 on the West Building
Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also
find this docket on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov.
A copy of the complete ICR is
available through this docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
Additionally, copies are available from
Commandant (CG–611), U.S. Coast
Guard Headquarters (Attn: Mr. Arthur
Requina), 2100 2nd Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20593–0001. The
telephone number is 202–475–3523.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Arthur Requina, Office of Information
Management, telephone [phone],
or fax [phone], for questions on
these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, 202–366–9826, for
questions on the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:

Public Participation and Request for
Comments
The Coast Guard invites comments on
whether this information collection
request should be granted based on it
being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions.
In particular, the Coast Guard would
appreciate comments addressing: (1)
The practical utility of the collections;
(2) the accuracy of the estimated burden
of the collections; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the collections;
and (4) ways to minimize the burden of

E:\FR\FM\08APN1.SGM

08APN1

APPENDIX B
Air Emissions Calculations

CALCULATION SHEET-COMBUSTABLE EMISSIONS-DONA ANA COUNTY
Assumptions for Cumbustable Emissions
Num. of
Type of Construction Equipment
HP Rated Hrs/day
Units
Water Truck
2
300
12
Diesel Road Compactors
2
100
12
Diesel Dump Truck
2
300
12
Diesel Excavator
2
300
12
Diesel Hole Trenchers
2
175
12
Diesel Bore/Drill Rigs
2
300
12
Diesel Cement & Mortar Mixers
2
300
12
Diesel Cranes
2
175
12
Diesel Graders
2
300
12
Diesel Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2
100
12
Diesel Bull Dozers
2
300
12
Diesel Front End Loaders
2
300
12
Diesel Fork Lifts
2
100
12
Diesel Generator Set
12
40
12

Type of Construction Equipment
Water Truck
Diesel Road Compactors
Diesel Dump Truck
Diesel Excavator
Diesel Trenchers
Diesel Bore/Drill Rigs
Diesel Cement & Mortar Mixers
Diesel Cranes
Diesel Graders
Diesel Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Diesel Bull Dozers
Diesel Front End Loaders
Diesel Fork Lifts
Diesel Generator Set

VOC g/hphr
0.440
0.370
0.440
0.340
0.510
0.600
0.610
0.440
0.350
1.850
0.360
0.380
1.980
1.210

Emission Factors
CO g/hp- NOx g/hphr
hr
2.070
5.490
1.480
4.900
2.070
5.490
1.300
4.600
2.440
5.810
2.290
7.150
2.320
7.280
1.300
5.720
1.360
4.730
8.210
7.220
1.380
4.760
1.550
5.000
7.760
8.560
3.760
5.970

90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90

Total hphrs
648000
216000
648000
648000
378000
648000
648000
378000
648000
216000
648000
648000
216000
518400

PM-10
g/hp-hr
0.410
0.340
0.410
0.320
0.460
0.500
0.480
0.340
0.330
1.370
0.330
0.350
1.390
0.730

PM-2.5
g/hp-hr
0.400
0.330
0.400
0.310
0.440
0.490
0.470
0.330
0.320
1.330
0.320
0.340
1.350
0.710

Days/yr

SO2 g/hpCO2 g/hp-hr
hr
0.740
536.000
0.740
536.200
0.740
536.000
0.740
536.300
0.740
535.800
0.730
529.700
0.730
529.700
0.730
530.200
0.740
536.300
0.950
691.100
0.740
536.300
0.740
536.200
0.950
690.800
0.810
587.300

CALCULATION SHEET-COMBUSTABLE EMISSIONS-DONA ANA COUNTY

Emission factors (EF) were generated from the NONROAD2005 model for the 2006 calendar year. The VOC EFs includes exhaust and evaporative emissions. The VOC evaporative
components included in the NONROAD2005 model are diurnal, hotsoak, running loss, tank permeation, hose permeation, displacement, and spillage. The construction equipment age
distribution in the NONROAD2005 model is based on the population in U.S. for the 2006 calendar year.

Type of Construction Equipment
Water Truck
Diesel Road Paver
Diesel Dump Truck
Diesel Excavator
Diesel Hole Cleaners\Trenchers
Diesel Bore/Drill Rigs
Diesel Cement & Mortar Mixers
Diesel Cranes
Diesel Graders
Diesel Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Diesel Bull Dozers
Diesel Front End Loaders
Diesel Aerial Lifts
Diesel Generator Set
Total Emissions
Conversion factors
Grams to tons

Emission Calculations
NOx
VOC tons/yr CO tons/yr
tons/yr
0.314
1.478
3.920
0.088
0.352
1.166
0.314
1.478
3.920
0.243
0.928
3.285
0.212
1.016
2.420
0.428
1.635
5.106
0.436
1.657
5.199
0.183
0.542
2.383
0.250
0.971
3.378
0.440
1.954
1.719
0.257
0.985
3.399
0.271
1.107
3.570
0.471
1.847
2.038
0.691
2.148
3.411
4.600
18.100
44.913

1.102E-06

PM-10
tons/yr
0.293
0.081
0.293
0.229
0.192
0.357
0.343
0.142
0.236
0.326
0.236
0.250
0.331
0.417
3.723

PM-2.5
tons/yr
0.286
0.079
0.286
0.221
0.183
0.350
0.336
0.137
0.229
0.317
0.229
0.243
0.321
0.406
3.621

SO2
tons/yr
0.528
0.176
0.528
0.528
0.308
0.521
0.521
0.304
0.528
0.226
0.528
0.528
0.226
0.463
5.917

CO2 tons/yr
382.755
127.633
382.755
382.970
223.191
378.257
378.257
220.858
382.970
164.504
382.970
382.898
164.433
335.511
4289.960

CALCULATION SHEET-TRANSPORTATION COMBUSTABLE EMISSIONS-DONA ANA COUNTY

Pollutants
VOCs
CO
NOx
PM-10
PM 2.5

Construction WorkerPersonal Vehicle Commuting to Construction Sight-Passenger and Light Duty Trucks
Emission Factors
Assumptions
Results by Pollutant
Pick-up
Total
Passenger Cars
Number of Number of
Total Emissions
Trucks, SUVs
Mile/day
Day/yr
Emisssions
Total tns/yr
g/mile
cars
trucks
Trucks tns/yr
g/mile
Cars tns/yr
1.36
1.61
120
90
30
30
0.49
0.57
1.06
12.4
15.7
120
90
30
30
4.43
5.61
10.03
0.95
1.22
120
90
30
30
0.34
0.44
0.77
0.0052
0.0065
120
90
30
30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0049
0.006
120
90
30
30
0.00
0.00
0.00
Heavy Duty Trucks Delivery Supply Trucks to Construction Sight
Emission Factors
Assumptions

Pollutants
VOCs
CO
NOx
PM-10
PM 2.5

33,000-60,000
10,000-19,500
lb semi trailer
lb Delivery Truck
rig
0.29
1.32
4.97
0.12
0.13

0.55
3.21
12.6
0.33
0.36

VOCs
CO
NOx
PM-10
PM 2.5

Pick-up
10,000-19,500
Trucks, SUVs
lb Delivery Truck
g/mile
0.29
1.32
4.97
0.12
0.13

Number of
trucks

Day/yr
60
60
60
60
60

90
90
90
90
90

Number of
trucks

2
2
2
2
2

2
2
2
2
2

Bi-monthly OBP Commute for Inspection
Assumptions

Emission Factors
Pollutants

Mile/day

1.61
15.7
1.22
0.0065
0.006

Mile/day
120
120
120
120
120

Number of
Towers in
County

Day/yr
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Number of
trucks
0
0
0
0
0

Results by Pollutant

Total
Emisssions
Cars tns/yr

Total Emissions
Trucks tns/yr

Total tns/yr

0.00
0.02
0.06
0.00
0.00

0.01
0.04
0.15
0.00
0.00

0.01
0.05
0.21
0.01
0.01

Results by Pollutant
Total
Emisssions Total Emissions
Total tns/yr
Delivery Trk
Trucks tns/yr
tns/yr
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-

Truck Emission Factor Source: USEPA 2005 Emission Facts: Average annual emissions and fuel consumption for gasoline-fueled passenger cars and
light trucks. EPA 420-F-05-022 August 2005. Emission rates were generated using MOBILE.6 highway vehicle emission factor model.

CALCULATION SHEET-FUGITIVE DUST- DONA ANA COUNTY

Fugitive Dust Emissions at New Construction Site.
Construction Site
Fugitive Dust Emissions

Emission Factor
Total Areatons/acre/month Construction/mont
(1)
h
0.11
117.02

Total PM-10
Emissions
tns/yr
38.62

Months/yr
3

1. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2001. Procedures Document for National Emission Inventory, Criteria Air Pollutants 19851999. EPA-454/R-01-006. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park NC 27711.
2. 20% of the total PM-10 emissions are PM-2.5 (EPA 2001).
Coastruction Site Area
Proposed Prioject
New Road and Vehicle Fence
Access Roads
Staging Areas
Total

Conversion Factors

Demension (ft)
Width

Length
70400
14080

Units
60
28

1
1

Sq ft to Acres

Acres to sq ft

5280

New Road and Vehicle Fence
Access Roads
Assume 3 months to complete construction

Miles to Ft

0.000022957

43560

Miles
40.0
8.0
3.0

Total
Acres/month
96.97
9.05
11
117.02
Sq ft in 0.5
acres
21780

Total PM-2.5
(2)
7.72

CALCULATION SHEET-SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS-DONA ANA COUNTY

Proposed Action Construction Emissions for Criteria Pollutants (tons per year)
Emission source

VOC

CO

NOx

PM-10

PM-2.5

SO2

Combustable Emissions

4.60

18.10

44.91

3.72

3.62

5.92

NA

NA

NA

38.62

7.72

NA

Construction Workers Commuter
& Trucking

1.07

10.09

0.98

0.01

0.01

NA

Bi-monthly Commute to Tower
Site for Maintenance

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

NA

Total emissions

5.67

28.19

45.90

42.35

11.35

5.92

De minimis threshold

NA

NA

NA

100.00

NA

NA

Construction Site-fugitive PM-10

APPENDIX C
Threatened and Endangered Species List

Page I of 2

BISON-M

m e ,xi,lntDra~atian y i
~

G ~ %Ie G ; w G . c L 3
~
/'% j"

Prodding P;@@d Mexicoand its *$ti.kalblifs
"f@ar,robnd
Excelient 5svhes

D;scl&$n-nsr Policy

Database Query
Your search t e r m s were as follows:
County Name

Status

Luna

State NM: Endangered
State NM: Threatened
18 species returned.

Taxonomic Group

## Species

Taxonomic Group

# Species

Amphibians

1

Birds

15

Reptiles

1

Molluscs

1

Click t h e up- o r down-arrows next t o the column headers t o sort t h e results.

Buteogallus anthracinus

State NM: Threatened

BISON-M

Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX D
BLM Las Cruces Active Project Register

LAS CRUCES FIELD OFFICE
ACTIVE PROJECT REGISTER
Updated 06/18/2008
DATE
INITIATED

PROJECT
NUMBER

06/18/2008
06/18/2008
06/18/2008
06/16/2008
6/12/2008
06/010/2008
06/05/2008
06/03/2008
06/02/2008
05/29/20-08
05/28/2007
05/27/2008
05/23/2008
5/21/2008
5/19/2008

08-098
08-097
08-096
08-095
08-094
08-093
08-092
08-091
08-090
08-089
08-088
08-087
08-086
08-085
08-084

04/16/08
5.16.08
4/29/2008
05/15/2008
05/14/2008
5/14/08
5/08/08
5/7/08

08-083
08-082
08-081
08-080
08-079
08-078
08-077
08-076
08-075

05/05/08

PROPOSAL
CANCELED

5/02/08
5/1/08
5/1/08
4/30/08
4/29/08
4/29/08
4/29/08
4/25/08
4/23/08
4/22/08
4/17/08
4/16/08
4/16/2008
4/11/2008

08-074
08-073
08-072
08-071
08-070
08-069
08-068
08-067
08-066
08-065
08-064
08-063
08-062
08-061

PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION
City of Las Cruces, R&PP Renewal/Change of Use
Dona Ana County R&PP Renewal
Verizon Wireless ROW Amendment
Chile Challenge - 2009
El Paso Cattle Company Gates- NM120512

Dona Ana County- Hatch Free Use Permit
Aplomado Falcon Hack Station and Monitoring
Border Patrol Santa Teresa MSS Trucks
City of Las Cruces-Fencing & Capping of Old Landfill
Timber Mountain Rx
St. Cloud Spaceport Quarry
NMSU, DACC, R&PP @ Chaparral
NMSU Communication Site Renewal @ “A” Mountain
Horny Toad Hustle Bike Race
Continental Divide Storage Tanks
City of Las Cruces
CDT H20 stash boxes
City of Las Cruces ROW Amendment
Cordova ROW Assignment
Gallegos Allotment
Emergency Response Coast Guard Training, 2920 Permit
F & A Dairy Pipeline/Road ROW
Border Patrol Geotechnical Drilling
Desert Sun Toyota
Thrill of the Hill OHV
Steve Bell Road ROW
Alamosa Allotment Improvements
Quest Telephone Line
Plateau Telecommunications @ Bent
S.W. Wireless Renewal @ Tortugas Mountain
New Cingular Renewal @ Steins
Key Communications Power Line
City of Las Cruces – ROW Amendment for Pump Station and Water Line
Grazing Transfer 09058
Long-nosed bat radiotelemetry
Whiterock Mountain Pasture Fence
Columbus Elec. Columbus Border Fence Powerline ROW
Crow Canyon Archeological Tour
Desert Sands MDWCA
Water Facility ROW

PROJECT
LEAD
A Chavez
A Chavez
A Chavez
J. Thacker
L. Allen
M. Smith
R. Lister
L. Allen
F. Martinez
R.Cox
M. Smith
A Chavez
A Chavez
J.Thacker
A.
Underwood
F. Martinez
Neckels
F. Martinez
F. Martinez
J. Thacker
F. Martinez
F. Martinez
L. Allen
J.Thacker
F. Martinez
M. Atencio
A. Chavez
A. Chavez
A. Chavez
A. Chavez
A. Chavez
F. Martinez
L. Phillips
Hakkila
D Rutherford
L. Allen
J.Thacker
F. Martinez

DATE
INITIATED

PROJECT
NUMBER

04/9/2008

08-060

PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION
Grazing Permit Renewal combined for 03058, 03061, 03063, 03068

PROJECT
LEAD
M. Whitney

EA-NM-030-2005-0097
EA-NM-030-2005-0099
EA-NM-030-2005-0100
EA-NM-030-2005-0101
04/08/2008
4/8/2008
4/4/2008
4/1/2008
3/31/2008
3/31/2008
3/31/2008
3/24/2008

08-059
08-058
08-057
08-056
08-055
08-054
08-053
08-052

Bartoo Derry Quarry
U-Bar Pipeline Diversions
Cutter Protection Electric Fence Allot. 06145
Sierra Kemado Grazing Allot No. 03043 Transfer
Apache Canyon S&G: 2008
Apache Canyon Stone : 2008
SWCD sign at State line
Grazing Transfer – 01012

M. Smith
M Whitney
RG LaCasse
M. Whitney
M. Smith
M. Smith
D Rutherford
D Rutherford

3/20/2008
3/20/2008
3/20/2008
3/18/2008

08-051
08-050
08-049
08-048

Alamo Spring Rehabilitation
Santa Teresa – Strauss Yard Geotechnical Drilling
Hersey Tub Modification
“Heal the Sierra Watershed”

3/17/2008

08-047

Flying U/Mimms Well

3/14/2008
3/13/2008
03/11/2008
03/10/2008

08-046
08-045
08-044
08-043

Pitfall traps for UTEP herpetofauna / road impact study
Transfer of Grazing Allotment 03012 into LLC
Air Traffic Control Tower
“Heal the Bootheel”

03/10/2008
03/07/2008
03/05/2008
3/5/2008
3/5/2008
3/4/2008
3/3/08
2/29/2008
2/28/2007
2/25/08
2/14/2008
2/14/2008
2/14/2008
2/14/2008
2/11/2008
2/11/08
2/11/2008
2/08/2008
02/08/2008
2/4/2008
1/28/2008
1/28/2008

08-042
08-041
08-040
08-039
08-038
08-037
08-036
08-035
08-034
08-033
08-032
08-031
08-030
08-029
08-028
08-027
08-026
08-025
08-024
08-023
08-022
08-021

Camino Real Interpretive Waysides
NMDOT FUP Gary Pit, Hidalgo Co.
Dona Ana County, R & PP
NMDOT FUP 3 Rivers, Otero Co.
Otero County R&PP Renewal, Road Shop
Timber Mtn Rx burn
Aguirre Springs Fuels Treatment
Emergency Closure to Unpermitted Collection
Alley Gypsum Mine
Scholes Access Road ROW
Virden Juniper Treatment
Playa Rx
Tierra Blanca Allotments 16004 & 16005 Grazing Transfers
Lightning Dock GPD’s
Dona Ana County Flood Commision ROW
Transfer 01512, 01534 & 01542, all on same EA
Santa Teresa Land Exchange
Dona Ana County/Mimbres RMPA
Hidalgo County Communication Site Renewal
BASE LEASE TRANSFER 01501
Hermanas Pipeline
Virden Juniper Treatment

1/23/2008

08-020

Tri-State Communication Site ROW Renewal NM 32429

B. Call
L. Salas
M Whitney
Zach, Matt,
Margie, Ryan
A.
Underwood
S. Torrez
M. Whitney
D. Sykes
Lane, Jack,
Marcia,
Ricky
D. Legare
M. Smith
F. Martinez
M. Smith
K. Penn
Whiteaker
R.Cox
Thacker
Besse
L.Allen
R.Cox
R. Cox
S. Gentry
Besse
F. Martinez
D Rutherford
L. Salas
L. Salas
A. Chavez
D Rutherford
Z. Saavedra
Cox,
Whiteaker
K. Penn

DATE
INITIATED

PROJECT
NUMBER

1-22-2008
1-17-08
01/17/08
12/13/2007
1/10/2008
01/14/2008
11/07/2007
01/03/2008
12/31/2007
12/14/2007
12/10/07
12/03/07
11/29/2007
11/28/2006
11-21-07
11/20/2007
11/20/2007
11/09/2007
11/09/2007
11/06/2007
11/05/2007
11/01/2007
11/01/2007
10/25/2007
10/25/2007
10/25/2007
10/21/2007
10/25/2007
10/18/2007
10/16/07
10/16/07
10/15/2007
10/10/2007
10/10/2007
10/10/2007
9/29/2007
9-27-07
09/27/2007
9/18/2007
9/18/2007
09/17/2007
9/12/07
9/7/2007
9/7/2007
9/4/2007
09-04-2007
08-30-2007
08-28-2007
08-28-2007
08-20-2007
8-16-07

08-019
08-018
08-017
08-016
08-015
08-014
08-013
08-012
08-011
08-010
08-009
08-008
08-007
08-006
08-005
08-004
08-003
08-002
08-001
07-168
07-167
07-166
07-165
07-164
07-163
07-162
07-161
07-160
07-159
07-158
07-157
07-156
07-155
07-154
07-153
07-152
07-151
07-150
07-149
07-148
07-147
07-146
07-145
07-144
07-143
07-142
07-141
07-140
07-139
07-138
07-137

PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION
Columbus Elec. Trespass Resolution NM 119043
Aden Rally SRP
Extension of existing FUP for Gary Pit, NMDOT
Miller/Boling Road Row Assignment
Sheridan Wildlife Water Catchment Replacement
Q2 Oil & Gas lease (Apr 16, 2008)
NMDOT Gage Pit F.U.P
Blanco Tank Maintenance
Joe Hervol Allotment transfer
Chili Challenge
Section 12 Improvements
Comcast of New Mexico ROW Renewal
BLM FUP - Apache Canyon
Apache Canyon Mitigation
Kaden Horse Endo SRP-CX
State of New Mexico Prison ROW
Frederick Sherman / Columbus Electric, ROW
Without Borders-The Movie LLC, Film Permit
Qwest Corporation, ROW Renewal
RailRock – New Quarry site At Lordsburg
KOB-TV Communication Site Renewal, CX
Burning Plain Film Permit @ Baylor Pass & Dripping Springs Roads
Bartoo Sand & Gravel
El Paso Electric Co. ROW Renewal and FLPMA Conversion
El Paso Electric Co. ROW Renewal Distribution Line
City of Alamogordo, Temporary ROW Renewal
LIN Television Communication Site Renewals
Otero County Federal EQIP Structural Projects
The Burning Plain Film Permit
Richard G. Saenz Allotment No. 07044 Grazing Transfer
Black Ledge Allotment No 07050 Grazing Transfer
Dona Ana County FUA – Mesilla Dam
Beaty Grassland Restoration Project (GRP)
El Paso Electric Company Power Transmission Line Amendment
El Paso Electric Company Power Transmission Line Amendment
Wicks Gulch Allotment No. 16086 Grazing Transfer
Chamisa Outfitters – SRP
El Paso Natural Gas, ROW Renewal
Grazing Transfer No. 01002
Grazing Transfer No. 01073
R. Hoppers, ROW Renewal
JB Runyan EQIP
Sierra Co. Road A-013 ROW Amendment
Sun Valley Dairy ROW Renewal- NM110652
Carlisle Allotment No. 01037 Transfer
NMDOT NM 81 ROW and Fence Proposal
Border Patrol TI Staging Area and Roads
CDT Realignment
BLM Fossilized Wood FUP
Diamond Communication Access Road Assignment
Horny Toad III - SRP

PROJECT
LEAD
L. Allen
Oz
M. Smith
A. Chavez
Jack Barnitz
M. Smith
M. Smith
M. Whitney
Z. Saavedra
Oz
Hauser
F. Martinez
J. Thacker
J. Thacker
Oz
K. Penn
K. Penn
F. Martinez
F. Martinez
A. Merrill
A. Chavez
A. Chavez
J. Thacker
L. Salas
L. Salas
L. Salas
A. Chavez
S. Torrez
A. Chavez
L. Phillips
L. Phillips
J.Thacker
B.Call
K. Penn
A. Chavez
S. Gentry
Oz
K. Penn
D Rutherford
D Rutherford
K. Penn
L. Phillips
L. Allen
L. Allen
M. Atencio
K.Penn
L. Allen
K.Penn
J. Thacker
A. Chavez
Gomez

DATE
INITIATED

PROJECT
NUMBER

PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION

8/14/2007
8/10/07
8/07/2007
8/1/2007
7/31/2007
7/30/2007
7/30/2007
7/26/2007

07-136
07-135
07-134
07-133
07-132
07-131
07-130
07-129

Grazing Transfer No. 04554
Alameda Dam Access ROW
Ft. Cummings Thinning
Tri-State Power Transmission Line ROW
Otero County Federal EQIP Grassland Restoration Projects
El Paso Electric Company Renewal
Franklin Allotment Federal EQIP (Lee)

7/24/2007
7/24/2007
7/24/2007
7/24/2007
7/24/2007
7/24/2007
7/16/2007
7/16/2007
7/13/2007
7/11/2007
7/11/2007
7/10/07
7/9/07
7/9/07
07/02/07
07/02/07
6/25/2007
6/19/07
6/14/07
6/14/07
6/14/07
6/13/07
6/13/07
6/7/07
6/5/07
6/5/07
5/31/07
5/31/07
5/31/07
5/25/07
5/23/07
5/23/07
5/23/07
5/23 /07
5/23/07
5/17/07
5/14/07
05/04/07
5/4/07
4/25/07
4/25/07
4/25/07

07-128
07-127
07-126
07-125
07-124
07-123
07-122
07-121
07-120
07-119
07-118
07-117
07-116
07-115
07-114
07-113
07-112
07-111
07-110
07-109
07-108
07-107
07-106
07-105
07-104
07-103
07-102
07-101
07-099
07-098
07-097
07-096
07-095
07-094
07-093
07-092
07-091
07-090
07-089
07-088
07-087
07-086

Hyatt and Hyatt Federal EQIP
Hoppy Place Federal EQIP
China Pond Federal EQIP
Playas Peak Federal EQIP
Jose P. Canyon Private EQIP
Valley Telecom Fiber Optic ROW Amendment
CLC Tortugas Detention Pond Haul Access Rd Amendment
Public Service Company of NM, Renewal
Transfer Bull Creek Ls 01003
Oct 2007 O&G Lease Sale
Nestor Lopez
Koenig pipeline
Percha Creek No. 16085 Transfer
Yaple Canyon No. 06141 Transfer
First Percha Well Pipeline Extension & Trough
West Otero County Grazing Permit/Lease Renewal
Las Cruces FUA
Dinner Hill Pipeline Ext. and Road
Sucker Ville Transfer 02055
Hervol Lease Transfer 2511
Hachita Pipeline
Old Pueblo Tours- 07SRP
El Paso Electric Communication Site Renewal, CX
Rail Rock Bulk Testing
Plains Pipeline, L.P. NM 042728
Vonbuelow Domestic Water Well – NM118074
Plains Pipe Line, LP Assignment, NM 016349
Renewal NMSU – A Mtn Communication Site
Jornada del Muerto Grassland Restoration Projects
South Kelly Canyon GRT-(Chatfield)
Rio Grande Natural Gas Assignment, CX
Vangard Communication Site Assignment, CX
Amendment, City of Las Cruces, EA
Renewal, COE Tank trail and storage area, CX
Fancher Road ROW-NM117857
Hard Caliche LLC (AKA Paramount Pictures) Film Permit @ Corralitos
NMSA – Aerial Surveys Control Monuments & Photo Control Panel
EBID Afton FUP
West La Mesa Allotment No. 03050 Transfer
Blue Canyon Projects
Bennett Ranch Unit #6 APD
Dawson Geophysical 3D Seismic Project

LCPS Schools, R&PP

PROJECT
LEAD
D Rutherford
K. Penn
A. Chavez
Hauser
A. Chavez
B. Call
F. Martinez
Hauser/
Atencio
Hauser
Hauser
Hauser
Hauser
Hauser
L. Allen
L. Allen
F. Martinez
Rutherford
Besse
J. Thacker
Z. Saavedra
S. Merrill
S. Merrill
S. Merrill
L. Phillips
J. Thacker
L Phillips
Z. Saavedra
Z. Saavedra
Z. Saavedra
Gomez
A. Chavez
J. Thacker
F. Martinez
Mayes
F. Martinez
Mayes
M. Guzman
M. Atencio
A. Chavez
A. Chavez
A. Chavez
A. Chavez
F. Martinez
A. Chavez
Salas
Thacker
Bevacqua
Whitney
Besse
Besse

DATE
INITIATED

PROJECT
NUMBER

4/24/07
4/23/07
4/19/07
4/19/07
4-12-07

07-085
07-084
07-083
07-082
07-081

El Paso Electric Renewal NM 29898
Qwest Renewal NM 030463
Thompson Canyon PPL EXT II (Ogilvie)
River Pasture Corrals & River Pasture PPL. EXT. II (Hirst)
Prather Range Improvements

4/11/07
4/10/07
4/5/07
3/12/2007
3/29/07
3/29/07
03/29/2007
03/29/2007
03/29/2007
03/29/2007
3/28/07
3/28/2007
3/27/2007
3/27/07
03/22/2007
03/22/2007
03/21/2007
3/14/07
03/08/2007
03/08/2007
03/08/2007
03/08/2007
3-5-07
3/1/2007
02/28/07
2-27-07
02/26/07
2/22/07
2/22/07
2/22/07
2/22/07
2/15/07
2/15/07
2/14/07
2-8-7
2/6/07
2/2/07
1-30-07
1-30-07
1-30-07
1-29-07
1-25-07
1-25-7
1/23/07
1/23/07

07-080
07-079
07-078
07-077
07-076
07-075
07-074
07-073
07-072
07-071
07-070
07-069
07-068
07-067
07-066
07-065
07-064
07-063
07-062
07-061
07-060
07-059
07-058
07-057
07-056
07-055
07-054
07-053
07-052
07-051
07-050
07-049
07-048
07-047
07-046
07-045
07-044
07-043
07-042
07-041
07-040
07-039
07-038
07-037
07-036

Cox Pipeline/Road
Fancher ROW Assignment NMNM 92963
Dente Studio Film Permit
Otero Mesa Wildlife Waters
Weatherby Canyon Water Catchment
Foothill R&PP Landfill Lease Renewal NM-14
Assignment, Interlink to Orange Broadband
Assignment, Interlink to Orange Broadband
NM 185, Culvert Upgrade
Vangard Wireless @ Orogrande
Martin Tank Reconstruction
Foothill R&PP Landfill Lease Renewal NM-018155
Tularosa Creek Fence Replacement Project
Sierra County monitoring well renewal NM 106191
Russell’s Sand and Gravel Road ROW
MediaFLO Concrete Pad and Generator @ Twin Buttes
Lightning Dock Geothermal Lease NM108801
Otero Co Electric Amendment NM 86823
NM 26, Pavement Rehabilitation
LB Tower Road ROW Amendment
City of Truth or Consequences application for a gold driving range.
Santa Fe Mining Co., 2920 Permit Renewal
Corralitos 100 – 07SRP
Columbus Elec. Renewal NMNM 29147
Garza Cinder – Guzman’s Lookout
Brokeoff Allotment 8:1 to 5:1 Conversion
Supplier Mine
PNM Renewal NMM103688
PNM Renewal NMNM031478
Rio Grande R/W Assignment NMNM 107570
AML Closure – Boston Hill
Qwest Powerline Renewal A Mtn NM 114790
Barcelona Ridge Road- Dona Ana County
Valley Telephone Renewal (NM-29727)
Tortugas BLM Parking Lot
SFPP R/W Renewal NM 024750
Renewal R&PP Lease Hill Transfer Station NM 0253957
Transfer of Altamira Allotment No. 03040
Transfer of Sierra Kemado Allotment No. 03043
Transfer of Little Cat Allotment No. 01089
El Paso Electric Isaacks Powerline
Apache Canyon Quarry
Chile Challenge SRP
Lightning Dock Lease Assignment/Transfer
Lightning Dock Geothermal Lease

PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION

PROJECT
LEAD
Mayes
Mayes
M. Atencio
M. Atencio
L. Phillips
J Christensen
L. Phillips
L. Allen
Mayes
Hakkila
Torrez
Mayes
A. Chavez
A. Chavez
A. Chavez
A. Chavez
Hauser
Mayes
T. Frey
J Allen
A. Chavez
A. Chavez
Besse
L. Allen
A. Chavez
A. Chavez
Mayes
A. Chavez
Gomez
L. Allen
J. Thacker
Hauser
J. Thacker
A. Chavez
A. Chavez
L. Allen
Jevons
Mayes
J Allen
J Allen
Gomez
L. Allen
Mayes
Whitney
Whitney
Whitney
Mayes
Thacker
Oz
Besse
Besse

DATE
INITIATED

PROJECT
NUMBER

1/23/07
1/19/07
1-8-07
1-8-07
12/28/06
12/28/06
12/27/06
12/20/06
12/13/2006
12/06/06

07-035
07-034
07-033
07-032
07-031
07-030
07-029
07-028
07-027
07-026

11/30/06
11/30/06
11/29/06
11/29/06
11/29/06
11/28/06
11/21/06
11/17/06
11-15-06
11/15/06
11/14/06
11/14/06
11/08/06
11/1/06
11/1/06
10/30/06
10/30/06
10/30/06
10/12/06
10/12/06
10/12/06
10/5/06
10/5/06
10/4/06
10/4/06
9/28/2006
9/28/2006
9/20/06
9/20/06
9/15/06
9/13/06
9/12/06
9/12/06
9/7/06
9/7/06
9/1/06
8/29/06
8/25/06
8/25/06
8/23/06

07-025
07-024
07-023
07-022
07-021
07-020
07-019
07-018
07-017
07-016
07-015
07-014
07-013
07-012
07-011
07-010
07-009
07-008
07-007
07-006
07-005
07-004
07-003
07-002
07-001
06-0162
06-0161
06-160
06-159
06-158
06-157
06-156
06-155
06-154
06-153
06-152
06-151
06-150
06-149
06-148

PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION
Lightning Dock 55-7 Sundry
Transfer – Beacon Hill Allot. No. 01001
Rachel Baca Assignment NM-114751
Chaney Canyon Wildlife Water Replacement
Valley Telephone line renewal (Phelps Dodge monitoring station) NM-29285
Valley Telephone line renewal (Animas area) NM-29727
Qwest Corporation ROW Renewal/Update
El Paso Natural Gas 12” West El Paso Lateral
Columbus Electric Cooperative Power Line Renewal
El Paso Natural Gas pipeline replacement and temp construction sites NMLC
045517
El Paso Electric NM-0384354 reissue and amendment
NMSU Film Permit @ Corralitos
Hamilton Construction Company Exploration
Mass Assignment,(21 FLPMA) PNM
Mass Assignment, (15 Pre- FLPMA) PNM
Hawkeye Canyon Allot. No. 15008 Transfer
Dona Ana County – Chaparral Access Road and Gravel Pit
Flying X Allotment No. 06080 Transfer
FMCA 4WD Rally - SRP
Change of Use Butterfield Park Community Center – Dona Ana County
Pinos Altos Development NM-117283
City of Las Cruces Amendment NM-83954
Quest Communications Buried Conduit Cable Line @ Magdalena Peak
Dona Ana County - Realignment Shrode Road ROW Amendment NM-83929
El Paso Electric overhead 115kV transmission re-issue and renewal NM 029159
Rail Rock Testing
American Tower ROW Conversion
NMSU Film Permit @ "A" Mountain
Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale October 18, 2006
Twintress Road ROW
City of Truth or Consequences Communication Site Renewal @ Mud Mountain
El Paso Electrict NM-029817 conversion/Renewal
Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale-Hidalgo and Otero County
Truth or Consequences Landfill/Golfing Driving Range
Rio Grand Natural gase Right-of-way EA
HEYCO LEASE #14325
HEYCO BRU #6 APD
El Paso Electric Overhead 115Kv Transmission Line NM-029838
El Paso Electric Overhead 115Kv Transmission Line NM-025766
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) – Garfield FUP
X Prize - SRP
Dona Ana County FUP – Salem Pit
Dona Ana County Road Department – Mesquite Pit FUP
Leigh Isaacks and Michael L. Lydick
Otero County Shooting Range R&PP Renewal
Pankey Pipeline # 1 Reconstruction
Grazing Transfer - 01522
American Tower Corp Road ROW Renewal
Golf Driving Range TorC
Duncan Valley Electric EA – Pearson Mesa & Thompson Draw

PROJECT
LEAD
Besse
Rutherford
Mayes
J. Barnitz
J Allen
J Allen
A. Chavez
J Allen
A. Chavez
Mayes
Mayes
A. Chavez
A. Chavez
A. Chavez
A. Chavez
L. Phillips
Thacker
Atencio
Oz
Mayes
Mayes
Mayes
A. Chavez
A. Mayes
A. Mayes
J. Thacker
A. Chavez
A. Chavez
J. Besse
J. Allen
A. Chavez
A. Mayes
D. Jevons
A. Mayes
L. Allen
EA
EA
A. Mayes
A. Mayes
J. Thacker
O. Gomez
J. Thacker
J. Thacker
A. Mayes
L. Allen
M. Atencio
Rutherford
A. Chavez
A. Mayes
L. Allen

Besse
Besse

DATE
INITIATED

PROJECT
NUMBER

8/22/06
8/18/06
8/18/06
8/18/06
8/18/06
8/17/06
8/15/06
8/15/06
8/14/06
8/9/06
8/8/06
8/4/06
8/2/06
8/2/06
8/2/06
7/27/06
7/27/06
7/27/06
7/26/06
7/24/06
7/17/06
7/17/06
7/14/06
7/13/06
7/13/06
7/11/06
7/5/06
6/23/06
6/23/06
6/20/06
6/20/06
6/19/06
6/15/06
6/15/06

06-147
06-146
06-145
06-144
06-143
06-142
06-141
06-140
06-139
06-138
06-137
06-136
06-135
06-134
06-133
06-132
06-131
06-130
06-129
06-128
06-127
06-126
06-125
06-124
06-123
06-122
06-121
06-120
06-119
06-118
06-117
06-116
06-115
06-114

N. Columbus Lease Allotment Decision
W. B. Guide Service - SRP
Double H Outfitters - SRP
Kauffman Outfitters - SRP
Back Country Hunts – SRP
Hidalgo County Road EA
Virden Mesquite Treatment
Virden Creosote Treatment
Grazing Transfer – 03042
Army Corps of Engineers – Unexploded Ordinance Survey
Army Corps of Engineers – Unexploded Ordinance Survey
Transfer Station Virden Renewal
Oct. 18 O & G Lease Sale
Coast Guard Survival Instructor Training
Apache Box Prescribed Burn
Kinder Morgan pipeline
TNMP power line to Otero Road Shop
Qwest buried phone line to Otero Road Shop
Bartoo Sand & Gravel haul road
City of Las Cruces Water & Gas pipelines to Dona Ana Comm. College
Ruth A. Plenty Road ROW
El Paso Natural Gas Cathodic Protection Stations
Bartoo Sand & Gravel Mineral Material Permit Amendment
City of Las Cruces, Geotech Drilling
Sherer ROW Assignment
Dona Ana/Sierra County Fed. EQIP
El Paso Electric Patrol Yard Amendment to NM 57088
Corralitos 100 II – SRP
Horny Toad II - SRP
Dirt Bike Training - SRP
Luna Co., Federal EQIP
Hidalgo Co., Federal EQIP
Border Patrol, Big Hatchet Comm. Site
Northern Sierra Co. Grazing Permit renewal

6/15/06
6/15/06
6/13/06
6/12/06
6/9/06
6/7/09
6/6/06
6/2/06
6/1/06
6/1/06
6/1/06
5/24/06
5/25/06
5/19/06
5/15/06
5/11/06

06-113
06-112
06-111
06-110
06-109
06-108
06-107
06-106
06-105
06-104
06-103
06-102
06-101
06-100
06-099
06-098

Bodwell Access Rd.
Dragonfly Rd., Dona Ana County, NM115294
Three Rivers Tours, SRP
Grazing Transfer, Redrock Allot. No. 01051
EPNG CPS Renewal, NM 28226
Rachel Baca ROW road
Chin Access Rd. ROW assignment
Lin TV Corp. assignment @ Lt. Floridas & Caballo Mtn.
Quest Communications Buried Fiber Optic Cable
Federal Highway Administration Materials Site ROW 2 Gage
Grazing Transfer for Columbus Community Allot. No 02003
Valley Telephone ROW amendment
City of Las Cruces, Tortugas Detention Pond
Phelps Dodge Rocky Claim
TX NM overhead powerline
Verizon Wireless @ McGregor Range Camp

PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION

PROJECT
LEAD
L. Phillips
Gomez
Gomez
Gomez
Gomez
L. Allen
Aguilar
Aguilar
Rutherford
Jevons
Jevons
Mayes
Besse
Chavez
Whiteaker
J. Allen
J. Allen
J. Allen
Thacker
Mayes
Chavez
L. Allen
Chavez
L. Allen
L. Allen
LaCasse
Mayes
Gomez
Gomez
Gomez
Hauser
Hauser
L. Allen
Atencio,
Merrill
L. Allen
Mayes
Gomez
Hauser
L. Allen
Mayes
L. Allen
Chavez
Chavez
Chavez
L. Phillips
L. Allen
L. Allen
Besse
L. Allen
Chavez

DATE
INITIATED

PROJECT
NUMBER

5/10/06
5/9/06

06-097
06-096

5/2/06
4/26/06
4/19/06
4/19/06

06-095
06-094
06-093
06-092

3-phase overhead power line, “A” Mountain
3-phase overhead distribution feeder, service to Talavera & Organ Mesa
subdivisions
The “Super 8” grazing permit renewals
Dona Ana County Butterfield Transfer Station Renewal
Bailey Water Pipeline ROW
North Otero County Grazing Permit/Lease Renewal

4/19/06
4/19/06
4/13/06
4/13/06
4/11/06
Postponed
4/10/06
4/10/06
4/10/06
4/10/06
4/10/06
4/6/06

06-091
06-090
06-089
06-088
06-087
06-086
06-085
06-084
06-083
06-082
06-081
06-080

Cingular Wireless Amendment (NMNM 52596)
Cingular Wireless Name Change (NMNM 52956)
Hidalgo/Grant County O&G Lease Sale
Flagler Film Permit
Grazing transfer, No. 06136
EBID Little Black Mountain
EBID Hill
EBID La Union
EBID Mesilla Dam
EBID Mesquite
EBID Salem
Western LCDO Grazing Authorization Renewals

4/6/06
4/5/06
4/5/06
3/21/06
3/21/06
3/21/06
3/31/06
3/31/06
3/31/06
3/30/06
3/30/06
3/28/06
3/28/06
3/28/06
3/27/06
3/22/06
3/16/06
3/16/06
3/16/06
3/16/06
3/16/06
3/16/06
3/9/06
3/9/06
3/9/06
3/9/06
3/8/06
3/8/06
3/8/06
3/7/06

06-079
06-078
06-077
06-076
06-075
06-074
06-073
06-072
06-071
06-070
06-069
06-068
06-067
06-066
06-065
06-064
06-063
06-062
06-061
06-060
06-059
06-058
06-057
06-056
06-055
06-054
06-053
06-052
06-051
06-050

Gariano Christmas Tree
Moongate Water, NMNM-112036
Qwest Telephone Line, NMNM-112036
Sierra County FUP – Engle South
Sierra County FUP – Engle East
Sierra County FUP – Lone Mtn.
Columbus Electric Powerline Renewal & Conversion
NMSU Communication Site Renewal NMNM-025002
Qwest Buried Cable to New School ROW
El Paso Natural Gas Pipe Lowering ROW Amendment
Dona Ana County Road ROW @ Brenham
Mendoza Road ROW/Mineral Materials Negotiated Sale Area
El Paso Natural Gas Cathodic Protection Station
Tularosa Creek Aquatic Habitat Improvement
Sierra County Fire Radio Communication Site
American Tower renewal @ Cutter
Bear Mtn. Lodge Tours – SRP
Southerly Astronomical Observatory A. Mtn. ROW NM-115334
Northerly Astronomical Observatory A. Mtn. ROW NM-115332
Grazing Permit transfer for Rough Mtn. Allot. # 01013
Grazing Permit transfer for Weatherby Ranch Allot. # 01071
Grazing Permit transfer for Antelope Pass Allot. # 01052
NASA Communication Site @ Magdalena Peak
Apache Creek Allotment Decision
Picacho Peak Fence
Grazing Permit Transfer for Percha Creek, Allotment # 16085
Hanson Quarry
Mendosa Sand & Gravel
El Paso Electric ROW renewal
Jupiter Entertainment Film Permit

PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION

PROJECT
LEAD
Mayes
Mayes
Hauser
Mayes
L. Allen
L. Phillips, R.
Aguilar
Chavez
Chavez
Besse
L. Allen
Rutherford
Thacker
Thacker
Thacker
Thacker
Thacker
Thacker
M. Whitney,
Q. Young
L. Allen
Mayes
Mayes
Thacker
Thacker
Thacker
L. Allen
Mayes
Mayes
L. Allen
Chavez
Chavez
Chavez
Frey
Mayes
Chavez
Gomez
Mayes
Mayes
Young
Young
Young
Chavez
Atencio
Rutherford
Merrill
Thacker
Thacker
Mayes
L Allen

DATE
INITIATED

PROJECT
NUMBER

3/7/06
3/7/06
3/2/06
3/2/06
2/27/06
2/27/06
2/21/06
2/16/06
2/10/06
2/10/06
2/8/06
2/8/06
2/3/06
2/2/06
2/1/06
1/30/06
1/26/06
1/25/06
1/18/06
1/12/06
1/6/06
1/4/06
1/4/06
12/6/05
11/28/05
11/28/05
11/22/05
11/22/05
11/22/05
11/21/05

06-049
06-048
06-047
06-046
06-045
06-044
06-043
06-042
06-041
06-040
06-039
06-038
06-037
06-036
06-035
06-034
06-033
06-032
06-031
06-030
06-029
06-028
06-027
06-026
06-025
06-024
06-023
06-022
06-021
06-020

11/21/05

06-019

11/16/05
11/17/05
11/10/05

06-018
06-017
06-016

11/10/05

06-015

11/9/05

06-014

11/8/05

06-013

11/3/05

06-012

10/27/05

06-010

10/20/05

06-009

10/20/05

06-008

10/19/05

06-006

PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION
Columbus Electric ROW
El Paso Natural Gas CPS # 1260 Renewal
Grazing transfer, Akela North, Allotment # 02031
Dell Telephone Communication Site @ Cornudas
Valley Telephone ROW Amendment (Cancelled)
Key/Vangard Communication Site Assignment
Grazing transfer of Rascon allotment
Animas Mtns. NW Allotment Boundary Fence
Lackey Access Rd. ROW
Sierra Electric Poverty Crk. ROW
Besinger Road, Pipeline EA
Chili Challenge – 2006 SRP
Aden Hills grassland restoration treatment
Wamels Pond grassland restoration treatment
Bartoo Sand and Gravel
El Paso Electric Co.
NMDOT – Virden
Otero County Electric Renewal
Lazy E Ranch pipelines
Hidalgo County oil & gas lease
Renewal Butterfield Shooting Range R&PP - Lease
EPEC White Sands Test Facility Forward Security Gate Powerline
TNMP 115kV Transmission Line and Fiber Optic Line
NASA Withdrawal Revocation
Qwest
El Paso Electric
Council Tree Comm – Assignment to ZGS El Paso
Renewal El Paso Natural Gas Co.
Renewal Sierra Nevada Property - CX
Sierra Elect. Corp. Ladder Ranch EA, N1/2 SE1/4, Sec. 13, T15S, R7W & Lot 9,
Sec. 33, T10S, R8W
Crown Communications Inc. Renewal @ Oro-Grande, T22S, R8E, Sec. 11,
N2SW, SWSW
Verizon Wireless Equipment Shelter @ Steins
Cingular Wireless ROW Amendment, T24S, R21W, Sec. 15 SE,
Valley Telephone ROW
Tps. 27, 28 S., Rs. 7, 8 W.
Prospect Pipeline
T. 15 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 33 CANCELLED
Valley Telephone ROW Amendment
T. 27 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 28 & 33
Lufkin Road ROW Assignment
T. 16 S., Rs. 13, 14 W.
Payan Mineral Material Sale Modification
T. 24 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 28
Hidalgo County Oil and Gas Lease Sale
Tps. 20, 21 S., R. 20 W.
EPNG Temporary Construction Areas
T. 24 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 28 & 33
EPNG Pipeline ROW Amendments
T. 24 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 28 & 33
Marytoy Pipeline Reconstruction

PROJECT
LEAD
L.Allen
L.Allen
Rutherford
Chavez
L. Allen
Chavez
L. Phillips
Young
L. Allen
L. Allen
L. Allen
Gomez
Hauser
L. Phillips
Thacker
Mayes
Thacker
Allen
Whitney
Todd
Mayes
Salas
Salas
Mayes
Mayes
Mayes
Mayes
Mayes
Mayes
Allen
Chavez
Chavez
Chavez
Allen
Merrill
Allen
Mayes
Thacker
Torrez
Allen
Allen
Christensen

DATE
INITIATED

PROJECT
NUMBER

10/18/05

06-005

10/13/05
10/7/05

06-004
06-001

9/22/05

05-160

9/21/05

05-159

9/19/05

05-158

9/8/05

05-157

9/8/05

05-156

9/8/05

05-155

9/8/05

05-154

8/24/05

05-152

8/23/05

05-150

8/11/05

05-146

8/11/05

05-145

8/11/05

05-144

8/11/05

05-143

8/11/05

05-142

8/11/05

05-141

8/10/05

05-140

8/5/05

05-139

6/22/05

05-128

6/9/05

05-122

6/9/05

05-121

6/9/05

05-120

6/6/05

05-118

6/2/05

05-116

PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION
T. 22 S., R. 12 E., Secs. 7 & 8
Lazy E Mesquite Control
T. 22 S., R. 5 W.
Las Cruces storm sewer ROW
Moongate Waterline and Storage Tank ROW
T. 22 S., Rs. 1, 2 E.
Seraphim Falls Film Permit
Tps. 22, 23 S., R. 20 W.
Columbus Electric Coop Powerline ROW
T. 28 S., R. 19 W., Sec. 29
Grazing Transfer and Permit Issuance for Jornada Lakes Allotment #06147, T. 14
S., Rs. 1, 2 W.
Browning Pipeline
T. 23 S., R. 18 W.
Schafer Boundary Fence
T. 23 S., R. 18 W.
West Well Pipeline
T. 12 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 3
Thompson Canyon Pipeline Burial and Extension
T. 20 S., R. 17 W., Secs. 26, 27, & 34
Picacho Peak Trails
T. 23 S., Rs. 1 W. & 1 E.
Berino Sale Tract Road ROW
T. 25 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 34
Hidalgo County Free Use Mineral Material @ Steins
T. 24 S., R. 21 W., Sec. 30
Hidalgo County Free Use Mineral Material @ Animas
T. 27 S., R. 18 W., Sec. 19
Hidalgo County Free Use Mineral Material @ Waldo
T. 23 S., R. 18 W., Sec. 8
Sierra County Free Use Mineral Material @ Engle East
T. 12 S., R. 1 E., Sec. 31
Sierra County Free Use Mineral Material @ Engle South
T. 16 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 12
Sierra County Free Use Mineral Material @ Lone Mountain
T. 15 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 21
South Kelly Erosion Control
T. 15 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 31 & T. 16 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 6
Grazing Transfer and Permit Issuance for Hanover Lease Allotment #04542, T. 17
S., R. 12 W.
CLC Monitoring Well and Water Storage Tank
T. 23 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 11
Grazing Lease Renewal for Carne Allotment #02534
T. 23 S., Rs. 7, 8 W.
Grazing Lease Renewal for Catfish Cove Allotment #02516
T. 20 S., Rs. 10, 11 W.
Grazing Lease Renewal for Taylor Mountain Allotment #02525
T. 20 S., Rs. 10, 11 W.
Windmill Canyon Well
T. 25 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 18
Grazing Permit Renewal for Foster Canyon Allotment #03006
T. 21 S., R. 1 W.

PROJECT
LEAD
Call
Mayes
Salas
Allen
Mayes
Melendez
Aguilar
Aguilar
Atencio
Atencio
Gomez
Mayes
Chavez
Chavez
Chavez
Chavez
Chavez
Chavez
Gunn
Rutherford
Allen
Guzman
Guzman
Guzman
L. Phillips
Merrill

DATE
INITIATED

PROJECT
NUMBER

6/2/05

05-115

6/2/05

05-114

6/1/05

05-112

6/1/05

05-111

6/1/05

05-110

6/1/05

05-109

5/26/05

05-107

5/25/05

05-106

5/25/05

05-105

5/25/05

05-104

5/25/05

05-103

5/25/05

05-102

5/25/05

05-101

5/25/05

05-100

5/18/05

05-099

5/18/05

05-098

5/18/05

05-097

5/18/05

05-096

5/18/05

05-095

5/18/05

05-094

5/16/05

05-091

5/11/05

05-089

4/26/05

05-084

4/21/05

05-081

4/21/05

05-079

4/18/05

05-075

PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION
Grazing Permit Renewal for Horse Canyon Allotment #03026
T. 20 S., R. 2 W.
Grazing Permit Renewal for Broad Canyon Allotment #03025
Tps. 20, 21 S., Rs. 1, 2 W.
Grazing Permit Renewal for Rock Canyon Allotment #03007
T. 20 S., R. 2 W.
Grazing Permit Renewal for Bignell Arroyo Allotment #03027
Tps. 19, 20 S., R. 2 W.
Grazing Permit Renewal for Hersey Arroyo Allotment #03014
T. 20 S., R. 2 W.
Grazing Permit & Lease Renewals for Seventysix Draw Allotments #02041 &
#02520, Tps. 26, 27 S., Rs. 7, 8, 9 W.
Grazing Permit Renewal for Seventeen Well Allotment #02049
T. 26 S., Rs. 8, 9 W.
Grazing Permit Renewal for Picacho Peak Allotment #03008
Tps. 22, 23 S., Rs. 1 W. & 1 E.
Grazing Permit Renewal for Sierra Alta Ranch Allotment #03012
Tps. 19, 20 S., Rs. 2, 3 W.
Grazing Permit Renewal for Alamo Basin Allotment #03015
Tps. 20, 21 S., Rs. 2, 3 W.
Grazing Permit Renewal for Little Black Mountain Allotment #03048
Tps. 24, 25 S., Rs. 1, 2 E.
Grazing Permit Renewal for Home Ranch Allotment #03002
Tps. 23, 24, 25 S., Rs. 1, 2 W. & 1 E.
Grazing Permit Renewal for Palma Park Allotment #03058
Tps. 18, 19 S., Rs. 2, 3 W.
Grazing Permit Renewal for Thorn Well Allotment #03063
T. 18 S., Rs. 1, 2 W. & 1 E.
Grazing Permit Renewal for Garfield Allotment #03061
T. 18 S., R. 4 W.
Grazing Permit Renewal for Akela Allotment #03041
T. 25 S., R. 5 W.
Grazing Permit Renewal for Upham Allotment #03068
T. 19 S., Rs. 1, 2 W. & 1 E.
Grazing Lease Renewal for Hay Draw Allotment #04525
Tps. 23, 24 S., Rs. 12, 13, 14 W.
Grazing Lease Renewal for Red Mountain Allotment #02503
Tps. 24, 25 S., R. 10 W.
Grazing Permit & Lease Renewals for Flat Ranch Allotments #02020 & #02575,
Tps. 25, 26 S., Rs. 10, 11 W.
Grazing Permit & Lease Renewals for San Juan Ranch Allotment #02033 &
Koenig Allotment #02536, Tps. 26, 27 S., Rs. 7, 8 W.
Grazing Permit Renewal for Altamira Ranch Allotment #03040
Tps. 21, 22 S., Rs. 1 W. & 1 E.
Grazing Permit Renewal for Akela North Allotment #02031
Tps. 23, 24 S., Rs. 5, 6 W.
Sierra County Trespass Communication Site
T. 11 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 7
Schafer Fence and Pipeline
T. 24 S., Rs. 17, 18 E.
Jack Cain Erosion Control
Tps. 13, 14 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 3, 35, & 36

PROJECT
LEAD
Merrill
Merrill
Barnitz
Barnitz
Barnitz
Barnitz
Young
Hauser
Hauser
Hauser
Atencio
Atencio
Whitney
Whitney
Whitney
Melendez
Whitney
Aguilar
Aguilar
Aguilar
L. Phillips
Atencio
Melendez
Mayes
Aguilar
Guzman

DATE
INITIATED

PROJECT
NUMBER

4/15/05

05-074

4/14/05

05-073

4/7/05

05-070

3/30/05

05-066

3/21/05

05-065

3/21/05

05-064

3/18/05

05-063

3/17/05

05-062

3/15/05

05-060

3/15/05

05-059

3/4/05

05-053

2/28/05

05-052

2/10/05

05-048

2/9/05

05-046

2/9/05

05-045

2/9/05

05-044

2/9/05

05-043

2/9/05

05-042

2/2/05

05-038

1/28/05

05-035

1/27/05

05-033

1/19/05

05-028

1/13/05

05-027

1/6/05

05-025

1/4/05

05-021

11/29/04

05-018

PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION
Grazing Permit Renewal for Spanish Stirrup Allotment #02035
Tps. 24, 25 S., Rs. 7, 8 W.
Grazing Permit Renewal for Florida Mtn. Ranch Allotment #02025
Tps. 25, 26 S., Rs. 8, 9 W.
XT Prescribed Burn
Tps. 29, 30, 31 S., Rs. 19, 20 W.
Grazing Transfer and Permit Issuance for Virden Allotment #01088
Tps. 18, 19 S., R. 21 W.
McGregor Black Grama Study Plot
T. 21 S., R. 11 E., Sec. 10
McGregor Corrals Reconstructiion
T.21S., R.11E., Sec.13; T.23S., R.12E., Sec.18; T.21S., R.12E., Sec.4
Dogtown Ranch Fence and North Hermanas Pipeline
T. 28 S., Rs. 10, 11 W.
Detroit Pipeline South
T. 19 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 29
Change in Class of Livestock for B T Allotment #09031
Tps. 23, 24, 25 S., Rs. 11, 12, 13 E.
Grazing Transfer and Permit Issuance for Phillips Ranch Allotment #02043, Tps.
24, 25 S., Rs. 11, 12 W.
Stepro Mineral Materials Exploration
T. 28 S., R. 5 W.; T. 21 S., R. 4 W.; & T. 25 S., R. 2 E.
Grazing Transfer and Permit Issuance for Brokeoff Ranch Allotment #09062, Tps.
24, 25 S., Rs. 19, 20 E.
Grazing Transfer and Permit Issuance for Hidden Valley Ranch Allotment #02009,
T. 21 S., R. 9 W.
EBID Mineral Material Permit @ Hill
T. 22 S., R. 1 E., Sec. 3
EBID Mineral Material Permit @ Salem
T. 18 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 25
EBID Mineral Material Permit @ Mesquite
T. 24 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 30
EBID Mineral Material Permit @ Mesilla Dam
T. 24 S., R. 1 E., Sec. 14
EBID Mineral Material Permit @ La Union
T. 27 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 13
Garfield Dam ROW Amendment
T. 18 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 10
Tri-County Resource Management Plan
Dona Ana, Otero, and Sierra Counties
Orphey Trap and Road
T. 26 S., R. 22 W., Sec. 12
Rocky Nevarez Mineral Material Sale
T. 22 S., R. 1 E., Sec. 3
Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Realignment
Luna, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties
Dona Ana Equine Endurance Rides SRP
T. 26, 27, 28 S., R. 2, 3 E.
Flaring of Bennett Ranch Unit #1-Y and 25-1 Wells
T. 26 S., R. 12 E., Secs. 14 & 25
Crawford Competitive Land Sale
T. 24 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 1

PROJECT
LEAD
L. Phillips
L. Phillips
Whiteaker
L. Phillips
Christensen
Christensen
Young
Rutherford
Aguilar
Hauser
Todd
Hauser
Hauser
Chavez
Chavez
Chavez
Chavez
Chavez
Besse
T. Phillips
Whitney
Chavez
Hakkila
Gomez
Torrez
Mayes

DATE
INITIATED

PROJECT
NUMBER

11/29/04

05-017

11/29/04

05-016

11/26/04

05-015

11/26/04

05-014

10/26/04

05-004

PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION
Cooke’s Peak Access Re-Route
T. 20 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 29
Snake Tank Road Re-Route
T. 13 S., R. 10 E., Sec. 6
Change in Livestock from Cattle to Goats for Willow Draw Allotment #02052, T.
27, 28 S., R. 14, 15 W.
Change in Livestock from Cattle to Goats for Hachita Allotment #02010
T. 27, 28 S., R. 14, 15 W.
Cornucopia Draw Prescribed Burn
T. 22 S., R. 16 E., Secs. 20, 21, 28, & 29

PROJECT
LEAD
Mayes
Mayes
L. Phillips
L. Phillips
Whiteaker

← continued from front cover
SPCCP
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan
SWPPP
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TI
Tactical Infrastructure
U.S.
United States
USACE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
USBP
United States Border Patrol
USCB
United States Census Bureau
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USIBWC
United States Section, International Boundary Water Commission
WUS
Waters of the U.S.