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).

Download PDF
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, privacycommittee@dhs.gov. 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, privacycommittee@dhs.gov, 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: 202–493–2251. 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 202–475–3523, or fax 202–475–3929, 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.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?