CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 12/22/10 - FME005529-FME005716 RGV PDEIS - 10.23.07 - SBMTL (Final)

FME005529
FME005530
FME005531
COVER SHEET
PRELIMINARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR

CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR, TEXAS
Responsible Agencies: U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP).
Affected Location: U.S./Mexico international border in Starr, Hidalgo, and

Cameron counties, Texas.
Proposed Action: The Proposed Action includes the construction,

maintenance, and operation of tactical infrastructure to include a primary
pedestrian fence; access roads; and patrol roads along approximately 70 miles of
the U.S./Mexico international border within USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector,
Texas. The Proposed Action would be implemented in 21 distinct segments.
Individual segments would range from approximately 1 mile to more than 13
miles in length.
Report Designation: Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Abstract: USBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate approximately 70

miles of tactical infrastructure, including fences, access roads, and patrol roads,
along the U.S./Mexico international border in Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron
counties, Texas.
The Proposed Action includes the installation of tactical infrastructure in 21

segments along the international border in the vicinity of Roma, Rio Grande City,
McAllen, Progreso, Mercedes, Harlingen, and Brownsville, Texas. Individual
segments would range from approximately 1 mile to more than 13 miles in
length. For much of its length, the proposed infrastructure would follow the
International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) levee; however, some
portions would also encroach on parcels of privately owned land. The
infrastructure would cross multiple land use types, including rural, agricultural,
suburban, and urban land. It might also encroach on portions of the Lower Rio
Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Texas state parks in the Rio Grande
Valley.
The EIS process will serve as a planning tool to assist agencies with
decisionmaking authority associated with the Proposed Action and ensure that
the required public involvement under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) is accomplished. When completed, the EIS will present potential
environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action and provide
information to assist in the decisionmaking process about whether and how to
implement the Proposed Action.
FME005532
Throughout the NEPA process, the public may obtain information concerning the
status and progress of the Proposed Action and the EIS via the project web site at
www.BorderFenceNEPA.com, by emailing information@BorderFenceNEPA.com,
or by written request to Mr. (b) (6) Environmental Manager, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District, Engineering Construction
Support Office (ECSO), 814 Taylor Street, Room 3A28, Fort Worth, TX 76102; and
Fax: (817) 886-6404.
You may submit written comments to CBP by contacting the SBInet, Tactical
Infrastructure Program Office. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the
following methods:
(a) Electronically through the web site at: www.BorderFenceNEPA.com;

(b) By email to RGVcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com;
(c) By mail to: Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS, c/o e²M,
2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031; or
(d) By fax to: (757) 282-7697.
Privacy Notice
Your comments on this document are requested. Comments will normally be

addressed in the EIS and made available to the public. Any personal information
included in comments will therefore be publicly available.
FME005533
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FOR
CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION
OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR, TEXAS
U.S. Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Border Patrol
OCTOBER 2007
FME005534
FME005535
Preliminary Draft EIS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 INTRODUCTION
3 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border
4 Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (herein referred to as USBP) proposes to
5 construct, maintain, and operate approximately 70 miles of tactical infrastructure,
6 including pedestrian fence, access roads, patrol roads, temporary construction
7 staging areas, and lights along the U.S./Mexico international border in the Rio
8 Grande Valley Sector, Texas.
9 USBP is charged with preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering
10 the United States and interdicting illegal drugs, illegal aliens, and those that
11 attempt to smuggle illegal drugs or aliens into the United States. USBP has nine
12 administrative sectors along the U.S./Mexico international border. USBP Rio
13 Grande Valley Sector is responsible for 17,000 square miles of southeastern
14 Texas, including the following counties: Cameron, Willacy, Hidalgo, Starr,
15 Brooks, Kenedy, Kleberg, Nueces, San Patricio, Jim Wells, Bee, Refugio,
16 Calhoun, Goliad, Victoria, Dewitt, Jackson, and Lavaca (CBP 2007).
17 This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared in cooperation

18 with additional Federal agencies and departments to comply with the
19 requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and such
20 compliance shall fulfill the NEPA responsibilities of such agencies and
21 departments related to the construction, maintenance, and operation of tactical
22 infrastructure in USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector.
23 PURPOSE AND NEED

24 The purpose of the Proposed Action is to construct, operate, and maintain
25 tactical infrastructure in the form of fences, roads, and supporting technological
26 assets to increase security capabilities at the U.S./Mexico international border.
27 The Proposed Action would assist USBP agents and officers in gaining effective
28 control of our nation’s borders.
29 The Proposed Action is needed to provide USBP agents with the tools necessary
30 to strengthen their control of the U.S. borders between ports of entry (POEs).
31 The Proposed Action will also help to deter illegal entries through improved
32 enforcement, prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United
33 States, reduce the flow of illegal drugs, and provide a safe work environment for
34 and enhance the response time for USBP agents.
35 In many areas fences are a critical element of border security. To achieve

36 effective control of our nation’s borders, USBP is developing an effective
37 combination of personnel, technology, and infrastructure; mobilizing and rapidly
38 deploying people and resources; and fostering partnerships with other law
39 enforcement agencies.
Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007
ES-1
FME005536
1 The Rio Grande Valley Sector has identified several areas along the border that
2 experience high levels of illegal immigration and drug trafficking. These hot
3 spots occur in areas that are, among other factors, remote and not easily
4 accessed by USBP agents, areas near POEs where concentrated populations
5 might live on opposing sides of the border, areas with thick vegetation that
6 provide concealment on opposing sides of the border, or areas with quick access
7 to U.S. transportation routes.
8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
9 USBP initiated the public scoping process for this EIS on October 14, 2007, with
10 the publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS in the Federal
11 Register. The NOI requested public comments on the scope of the EIS and
12 provided information on how the public could submit comments by mail,
13 facsimile, electronic mail, or through the project-specific Web site. Public
14 comments submitted as part of the scoping process were considered during the
15 development of the Draft EIS. Additional opportunities for public involvement will
16 occur throughout the EIS development process.
17 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION

18 USBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate tactical infrastructure
19 consisting of pedestrian fence, patrol roads, access roads, and lights along the
20 U.S./Mexico international border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas. The
21 Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 DHS Appropriations Act (Public Law [P.L.] 109-295)
22 provided $1.2 billion for the installation of fencing, infrastructure, and technology
23 along the border (CRS 2006).
24 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
25 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
26 Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed tactical infrastructure would not be
27 built and there would be no change in fencing, access roads, or other facilities
28 along the U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations
29 within the Rio Grande Valley Sector. The No Action Alternative would not meet
30 USBP mission or operational needs. However, inclusion of the No Action
31 Alternative is prescribed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
32 regulations and will be carried forward for analysis in the EIS. The No Action
33 Alternative also serves as a baseline against which to evaluate the impacts of the
34 Proposed Action.
35 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

37 consisting of pedestrian fences, access roads, and patrol roads along the
38 U.S./Mexico international border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas.
ES-2
FME005537
1 Congress has appropriated funds for the construction of the proposed tactical
2 infrastructure. Construction of additional tactical infrastructure might be required
3 in the future as mission and operational requirements are continually reassessed.
4 The proposed tactical infrastructure would be constructed in 21 distinct segments
5 along the international border within the Rio Grande Valley Sector in Starr,
6 Hidalgo, and Cameron counties, Texas. Individual segments might range from
7 approximately 1 mile in length to more than 13 miles in length.
8 Two alternatives for the alignment of the infrastructure (Route Alternatives) are
9 being considered under Alternative 2. Route A is the route initially identified by
10 the Rio Grande Valley Sector as best meeting its operational needs. Route B
11 would modify some of the proposed segment alignments to avoid or minimize
12 environmental impacts. Route B was developed during the EIS scoping process
13 through consultation with cooperating agencies to identify a route alternative with
14 fewer potentially adverse environmental impacts than the original proposal.
15 Therefore, Route B represents a compromise alignment that takes into account a
16 balance between operational effectiveness of proposed tactical infrastructure and
17 environmental quality.
18 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative

19 The Secure Fence Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-367) authorized USBP to construct at
20 least two layers of reinforced fencing along the U.S./Mexico international border.
21 Two layers of fence, known as primary and secondary fence, would be
22 constructed approximately 130 feet apart along the same route as Alternative 2,
23 Route B.
24 This alternative would also include construction and maintenance of access and
25 patrol roads. The patrol roads would be constructed between the primary and
26 secondary fences. The design of the tactical infrastructure for this alternative
27 would be similar to that of Alternative 2.
28 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

29 Table ES-1 provides an overview of potential impacts anticipated under each
30 alternative considered, broken down by resource area. Section 4 of this EIS
31 evaluates these impacts.
32 MITIGATION
33 [[Preparer’s Note: The section will be finalized once the analysis has been
34 completed prior to the publication of the Draft EIS and will include such
35 items as the ESA Section 7 consultation preliminary findings or results, the
36 NHPA Section 106 results, etc.]]

ES-3
FME005538
1 Table ES-1. Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts by Alternative
Alternative 2 Alternative 2
Alternative 1: Alternative 3:
(Route A): (Route B):
Resource Area No Action Secure Fence
Proposed Proposed
Alternative Act Alignment
Action Action
Air Quality
Noise
Land Use
Geology and
Soils
Water
Resources
Biological
Resources
Cultural
Resources
Aesthetics and
Visual
Resources
Socioeconomics
Resources,
Environmental
Justice, and
Safety
Utilities and
Infrastructure
Hazardous
Materials and
Waste
2 [[Preparer’s Note: This table will be populated once the analysis is

3 complete and will be included prior to the publication of the Draft EIS.]]

ES-4
FME005539
1 PRELIMINARY DRAFT
2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
3 FOR CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION
4 OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
5 RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR, TEXAS
6
7 TABLE OF CONTENTS
8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... ES-1
9 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................1-1
10 1.1 USBP BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................1-3
11 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ...........................................................................................................1-3
12 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................................................................1-4
13 1.4 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS..............................................................................................1-4
14 1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .........................................................................................................1-6
15 1.6 COOPERATING AGENCIES ..................................................................................................1-8
16 1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS ...............................1-9
17 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................2-1
18 2.1 SCREENING CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES .....................................................................2-1
19 2.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................2-2
20 2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative..........................................................................2-2
21 2.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action .................................................................................2-2
22 2.2.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative ............................................2-8
23 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER DETAILED
24 ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................2-11
25 2.3.2 Technology in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure ..........................................................2-12
26 2.3.3 Native Thorny Scrub Hedge in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure .................................2-12
27 2.3.4 Fence Within the Rio Grande ..................................................................................2-12
28 2.3.5 Brownsville Weir and Reservoir Project in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure ...............2-13
29 2.3.6 Raising Levees in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure.....................................................2-13
30 2.4 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................2-13
31 2.5 IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ...............2-14
32 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................3-1
33 3.1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................3-1
34 3.2 AIR QUALITY ..........................................................................................................................3-2
35 3.2.1 Definition of the Resource .........................................................................................3-2
36 3.2.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................................3-5
37 3.3 NOISE .....................................................................................................................................3-5
38 3.3.1 Definition of Resource ...............................................................................................3-5
40 3.4 LAND USE ..............................................................................................................................3-9
41 3.4.1 Definition of the Resource .........................................................................................3-9
43 3.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................................3-10
44 3.5.1 Definition of the Resource .......................................................................................3-10
45 3.5.2 Affected Environment ..............................................................................................3-11

i
FME005540
1 3.6 WATER RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 3-14

2 3.6.1 Definition of the Resource ...................................................................................... 3-14
3 3.6.2 Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 3-16
4 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 3-19
7 3.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 3-32
10 3.9 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES ......................................................................... 3-43
13 3.10 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND SAFETY ............. 3-52
16 3.11 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................. 3-70
19 3.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE............................................................................ 3-74
22 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES............................................................................................ 4-1
23 4.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 4-1
24 4.2 AIR QUALITY ......................................................................................................................... 4-2
25 4.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative ......................................................................... 4-2
26 4.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ................................................................................ 4-2
27 4.2.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative ........................................... 4-4
28 4.3 NOISE .................................................................................................................................... 4-7
31 4.3.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative ........................................... 4-8
32 4.4 LAND USE.............................................................................................................................. 4-9
35 4.4.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative ......................................... 4-10
36 4.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS........................................................................................................ 4-14
37 4.5.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 4-14
38 4.5.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action .............................................................................. 4-15
40 4.6 WATER RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 4-17
44 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 4-20
48 4.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 4-27

ii
FME005541
1 4.8.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative ..........................................4-29

2 4.9 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES ..........................................................................4-30
3 4.9.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative........................................................................4-31
4 4.9.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ...............................................................................4-31
6 4.10 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND SAFETY ..............4-40
10 4.11 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ...................................................................................4-44
14 4.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE ............................................................................4-46
18 5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................5-1
19 5.1 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................................5-11
20 5.2 NOISE ...................................................................................................................................5-11
21 5.3 LAND USE ............................................................................................................................5-11
22 5.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................................5-11
23 5.5 HYDROLOGY AND GROUNDWATER .................................................................................5-11
24 5.6 SURFACE WATERS AND WATERS OF THE U.S. ..............................................................5-11
25 5.7 FLOODPLAINS .....................................................................................................................5-12
26 5.8 VEGETATION RESOURCES ...............................................................................................5-12
27 5.9 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES.............................................................................5-12
28 5.10 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ...................................................................5-12
29 5.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................5-12
30 5.12 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL .................................................................................................5-13
31 5.13 SOCIOECONOMICS.............................................................................................................5-13
32 5.14 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN .....................................5-13
33 5.15 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY...........................................................................................5-13
34 5.16 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ...................................................................................5-13
35 5.17 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE ............................................................................5-14
36 5.18 SUSTAINABILITY AND GREENING .....................................................................................5-14
37 6. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................6-1
38 7. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...............................................................................................7-1
39 8. LIST OF PREPARERS ......................................................................................................................8-1
40
41

iii
FME005542
1 APPENDICES
2
3 A. Applicable Laws and Regulations
4 B. Agency Coordination – Scoping
5 C. Comments on the Draft EIS
6 D. Description of Tactical Infrastructure
7 E. Detailed Description of Fence Segments
8 F. Detailed Proposed Segment Maps Showing Land Use and Water
9 G. Detailed Proposed Segment Maps Showing Soils
10 H. Detailed Summary of Soils in the Proposed Project Corridor
11 I. Summary of Natural Resources and Data Collection Efforts
12 J. Summary of Cultural Resources
13 K. Photographs of Views Towards Construction Corridor
14 L. Air Emissions Calculations
15
16 FIGURES
17
18 Figure 1.0-1. General Location of the Proposed Action – Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas ...................... 1-2
19 Figure 2.2-1. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure – Upper Rio Grande Valley ...................... 2-3
20 Figure 2.2-2. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure – Middle Rio Grande Valley ..................... 2-4
21 Figure 2.2-3. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure – Lower Rio Grande Valley ...................... 2-5
22 Figure 2.2-4. Schematic of Proposed Impact Areas – Alternative 2 ............................................................ 2-9
23 Figure 2.2-5. Schematic of Proposed Impact Areas – Alternative 3 .......................................................... 2-10
24 Figure 3.3-1. Common Noise Levels ........................................................................................................... 3-7
25 Figure 3.9-1. Photograph View of Arroyo within Wildlife Refuge (Segment O-1) ...................................... 3-47
26 Figure 3.9-2. Photograph View of Typical Rural Land Unit (Segment O-17)............................................. 3-47
27 Figure 3.9-3. Town of Los Ebanos Photograph, Segment O-3 ................................................................. 3-48
28 Figure 3.9-4. Photograph View of Rio Grande City POE, Segment O-2 ................................................... 3-48
29 Figure 3.10-1. Total County Employment, 1980 to 2005........................................................................... 3-57
30 Figure 3.10-2. Per Capita Income, 1970 to 2005 (Real $2006) ................................................................ 3-62
31 Figure 3.10-3. Distribution of Farm Income by Type, 2005 ....................................................................... 3-64
32 Figure 4.9-1. Typical Views towards Proposed Construction Corridor, Showing How the
33 Park/Refuge Land Unit would Appear with a Fence and Patrol Road ......................................... 4-36
34 Figure 4.9-2. Typical Views towards Proposed Construction Corridor, Showing How the Rural
35 Land Unit would Appear with a Fence and Patrol Road .............................................................. 4-36
37 Town/Suburban Land Unit would Appear with a Fence and Patrol Road .................................... 4-37
39 Urban/Industrial Land Unit would Appear with a Fence and Patrol Road .................................... 4-37
40
41 TABLES
42
43 Table ES-1. Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts by Alternative ..................................................4
44 Table 1.7-1. Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations ......................................................................... 1-9
45 Table 2.2-1. Proposed Fence Segments for USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector ........................................... 2-6
46 Table 3.2-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................................................. 3-3
47 Table 3.3-1. Predicted Noise Levels for Construction Equipment ............................................................... 3-8
48 Table 3.7-1. Ecological Systems Present in Each Proposed Fence Segment .......................................... 3-23
49 Table 3.7-2. Common Wildlife Species Observed in the Rio Grande Valley Sector ................................. 3-26

iv
FME005543
1 Table 3.7-3. Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species in Texas, by County .....................3-29
2 Table 3.9-1. Character of Visual Resources within Typical Rio Grande Valley Land Units (Current
3 Conditions) ...................................................................................................................................3-50
4 Table 3.9-2. Quality of Visual Resources within Typical Rio Grande Valley Land Units (Current
5 Conditions) ...................................................................................................................................3-51
6 Table 3.10-1. State and County Population Trends Comparison in the ROI 1980 to 2006........................3-54
7 Table 3.10-2: County Population Trends, 2000 to 2020 ............................................................................3-54
8 Table 3.10-3. Racial and Ethnic Characteristics in the ROI 2000 to 2006 .................................................3-56
9 Table 3.10-4. Employment by Industrial Sector in the ROI, 2005 ..............................................................3-59
10 Table 3.10-5. State and ROI Labor Force and Unemployment Rate Averages .........................................3-62
11 Table 3.10-6. Poverty Rates and Median Income......................................................................................3-63
12 Table 3.10-7. Characteristics of Local Agriculture, 2002 ...........................................................................3-65
13 Table 3.10-8. Ethnic and Racial Distribution by county and School District in the ROI..............................3-66
14 Table 3.10-9. Law Enforcement Agencies and Personnel in the ROI ........................................................3-67
15 Table 3.10-10. Racial and Ethnic Population Composition in Geographic Comparison Areas ..................3-68
16 Table 3.10-11. Census Tract Detail of Demographic Characteristics Relevant to Environmental
17 Justice ..........................................................................................................................................3-70
18 Table 3.11-1. Water Intake and Outfall Pipes Within the Impact Corridor by Fence Segment ..................3-72
19 Table 3.11-2. Remaining Capacity of Municipal Landfills as of 2005.........................................................3-73
20 Table 3.11-3. Location of Utility Infrastructure Within the Impact Corridor by Fence Segment..................3-73
21 Table 4.2-1. Estimates of Total Proposed Construction Emissions from the Proposed Action ....................4-3
22 Table 4.2-2. Estimates of Total Proposed Construction Emissions from Alternative 3 ................................4-6
23 Table 4.3-1. Estimated Noise from Proposed Construction Activities ...........................................................4-8
24 Table 4-4.1. Land Uses that Intersect Alternative 2 Routes A and B and Alternative 3 .............................4-11
25 Table 4.4-2. Communities Affected by Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 ......................................................4-14
26 Table 4.9-1. Character of Visual Resources within Typical Rio Grande Valley Land Units
27 (Alternative 2, Route B) ................................................................................................................4-34
28 Table 5.0-1. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions by Proposed Fence Segments for the Rio
29 Grande Valley Sector .....................................................................................................................5-3
30 Table 5.0-2. Summary of Potential Cumulative Effects................................................................................5-7
31
32

v
FME005544
1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

vi
FME005545
1 1. INTRODUCTION
2 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border
3 Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (herein referred to as USBP) proposes to
4 construct, maintain, and operate approximately 70 miles of tactical infrastructure,
5 including hybrid (pedestrian fence with vehicle barriers) and pedestrian fences,
6 access roads, and patrol roads along the U.S./Mexico international border in the
7 Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas.
8 The Proposed Action includes the installation of tactical infrastructure in 21

9 segments (designated O-1 through O-21) along the international border with
10 Mexico in the vicinity of Roma, Rio Grande City, McAllen, Progreso, Mercedes,
11 Harlingen, and Brownsville, Texas (see Figure 1.0-1). Portions of the 21
12 segments would be contiguous while other segments would be separate.
13 Detailed descriptions of the segments are presented in Section 2.2.2. Individual
14 segments would range from approximately 1 mile to more than 13 miles in
15 length. For much of its length, the proposed tactical infrastructure would follow
16 the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) levee. The IBWC
17 applies the boundary and water treaties of the United States and Mexico and
18 settles differences that arise in their application (IBWC 2007). Some portions of
19 the tactical infrastructure would also encroach on privately owned land parcels
20 and would cross multiple land use types, including rural, agricultural, suburban,
21 and urban land. It might also encroach on portions of the Lower Rio Grande
22 Valley National Wildlife Refuge (LRGVNWR) and Texas state parks in the Rio
23 Grande Valley. A detailed description of the Proposed Action and the
24 alternatives considered is presented in Section 2.
25 This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is divided into seven sections plus
26 appendices. Section 1 provides background information on USBP missions,
27 identifies the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, describes the area in
28 which the Proposed Action would occur, and explains the public involvement
29 process. Section 2 provides a detailed description of the Proposed Action,
30 alternatives considered, and the No Action Alternative. Section 3 describes
31 existing environmental conditions in the areas where the Proposed Action would
32 occur. Section 4 identifies potential environmental impacts that could occur
33 within each resource area under the alternatives evaluated in detail. Section 5
34 discusses potential cumulative impacts and other impacts that might result from
35 implementation of the Proposed Action, combined with foreseeable future
36 actions. Sections 6 and 7 provide a list of preparers and references for the EIS,
37 respectively.
38 Appendix A contains a listing of those laws, regulations, and executive orders

39 potentially applicable to the Proposed Action. Appendix B presents material
40 related to the scoping process and public involvement. Appendix C presents
41 materials related to the draft EIS comment process and public involvement.
42

1-1
4
3
2
1
Gulf
U N I T E D S T A T E S of
Mexico
FME005546
Linn
Te x as
Roma 56
Rio Grande
City
O-1
O-2
R
107
i
o 83
G e McAllen
r and Mission
Harlingen
O-3 O-4 433
Alamo
Weslaco
Mercedes San Benito
Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS

O-5
281 Progreso
O-6 77 100
1-2
O-7 Brownsville
O-8 O-9 O-11
O-12
O-10
Sector, Texas
O-13 O-15
Texas
Corpus O-14 O-16
Christi
O-17
O-18 O-19 O-20 O-21
Gulf
of
M E X I C O Proposed Rio Grande Valley
Mexico Sector Fence Segments
O-2 Fence Segment Label
Miles
MEXICO Rio Grande Valley
Sector 0 5 10 20
Scale
Projection: A bers
USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic
North American Datum of 1983
Source: ESRI StreetMap USA 2005
Figure 1.0-1. General Location of the Proposed Action – Rio Grande Valley
October 2007
FME005547
1 Appendix D provides potential fence designs and a description of the proposed

2 tactical infrastructure. Appendix E contains a detailed description of proposed
3 fence segments. Appendix F contains detailed parcel maps of each of the 21
4 proposed tactical infrastructure segment alignments. Appendix G contains
5 detailed soil maps of each of the 21 proposed tactical infrastructure segment
6 alignments. Appendix H contains a detailed summary of soils in the proposed
7 project corridor. Appendix I contains results of biological surveys to support the
8 impact analysis. Appendix J contains cultural resource surveys to support the
9 impact analysis. Appendix K presents air emissions calculations.
10 1.1 USBP BACKGROUND

11 USBP has multiple missions, including the following:
12 • Prevention of terrorists and terrorist weapons, including weapons of mass

13 destruction, from entering the United States
14 • Interdiction of illegal drugs and those who attempt to smuggle them into
15 the United States
16 • Interdiction of illegal aliens and those who attempt to smuggle them into
17 the United States (CBP 2006).
18 USBP’s new and traditional missions, both of which are referred to above, are
19 complementary.
20 USBP has nine administrative sectors along the U.S./Mexico international border.
21 The Rio Grande Valley Sector is responsible for 17,000 square miles of land in
22 southeastern Texas, including the following counties: Cameron, Willacy, Hidalgo,
23 Starr, Brooks, Kenedy, Kleberg, Nueces, San Patricio, Jim Wells, Bee, Refugio,
24 Calhoun, Goliad, Victoria, Dewitt, Jackson, and Lavaca (CBP 2007). The areas
25 affected by the Proposed Action include Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties,
26 Texas, within the Rio Grande Valley Sector.
27 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

28 The purpose of the Proposed Action is to construct, maintain, and operate
29 tactical infrastructure in the form of fences, roads, lights, and supporting
30 technological assets to increase security capabilities at the U.S. /Mexico
31 international border. The Proposed Action would assist USBP agents and
32 officers in gaining effective control of our nation’s borders.
33 The Proposed Action is needed to provide USBP agents with the ability to
34 enhance security capabilities by providing the tools necessary to strengthen their
35 control of the U.S. border. This is especially important between ports of entry
36 (POEs). The Proposed Action will also help to deter illegal entries, prevent
37 terrorists, and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, reduce the flow

1-3
FME005548
1 of illegal drugs, and provide a safer work environment for and enhance the
2 response time of USBP agents.
3 In many areas, fences are a critical element of border security. To achieve

4 effective control of our nation’s borders, USBP is developing an effective
5 combination of personnel, technology, and infrastructure; mobilizing and rapidly
6 deploying people and resources; and fostering partnerships with other law
7 enforcement agencies.
8 In the Rio Grande Valley Sector, barrier fencing exists along the U.S./Mexico
9 international border only in a few local areas near the POEs. In the Rio Grande
10 Valley Sector, the Rio Grande forms a natural border between the United States
11 and Mexico. Although it is a logical geographic demarcation between the two
12 countries, the Rio Grande provides little deterrence and is easily crossed by
13 those seeking to gain illegal entry into the United States from Mexico.
14 USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector has identified several areas along the border
15 that experience high levels of illegal immigration and drug trafficking. These
16 areas are, among other factors, remote and not easily accessed by USBP
17 agents, near the POEs where concentrated populations might live on opposite
18 sides of the border, or have quick access to U.S. transportation routes. Based
19 on operational challenges in these areas, USBP needs to construct, maintain,
20 and operate the proposed tactical infrastructure to gain the required effective
21 control of our nation’s borders.
22 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION

24 consisting of pedestrian, aesthetic, or hybrid fence; access roads; and patrol
25 roads along the U.S./Mexico international border in the Rio Grande Valley
26 Sector, Texas. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 DHS Appropriations Act (Public Law
27 [P.L.] 109-295) provided $1.2 billion for the installation of fencing, infrastructure,
28 and technology along the border (CRS 2006). Figure 1.0-1 illustrates the
29 location of the proposed tactical infrastructure within the Rio Grande Valley
30 Sector. Details of the Proposed Action are included in Section 2.2.2.
31 1.4 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS

32 There are both Federal and state statutes that require comprehensive evaluation
33 of major government actions that could affect the natural and/or human
34 environment. Both are structured to ensure that the public is afforded
35 opportunities to participate in the evaluations so that that all points of view are
36 considered and possible alternatives to the action proposed by the agency are
37 identified. These Federal and state statutes are described below to establish a
38 framework for the development of this document.

1-4
FME005549
1 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a Federal statute requiring the
2 identification and analysis of potential environmental impacts of proposed
3 Federal actions before those actions are taken. NEPA also established the
4 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which is charged with the development
5 of implementing regulations and ensuring agency compliance with NEPA. CEQ
6 regulations mandate that all Federal agencies use a systematic interdisciplinary
7 approach to environmental planning and the evaluation of actions that might
8 affect the environment. This process evaluates potential environmental
9 consequences associated with a proposed action and considers alternative
10 courses of action. The intent of NEPA is to protect, restore, or enhance the
11 environment through well-informed Federal decisions.
12 The process for implementing NEPA is codified in 40 CFR 1500–1508,

13 Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National
14 Environmental Policy Act, and DHS’s Management Directive (MD) 5100.1,
15 Environmental Planning Program. The CEQ was established under NEPA to
16 implement and oversee Federal policy in this process.
17 An EIS is prepared when a proposed action is anticipated to have potential

18 “significant” environmental impacts, or a proposed action is environmentally
19 controversial. An EIS generally presents separate chapters specifically tailored
20 to address the following:
21 • The need for the Proposed Action

22 • Reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action
23 • The affected environment
24 • The nature and extent of environmental impacts associated with the
25 Proposed Action and alternatives (including the No Action Alternative)
26 • A listing of agencies and persons contacted during the EIS preparation
27 process and public involvement efforts.
28 To comply with NEPA, the planning and decisionmaking process for actions
29 proposed by Federal agencies involves a study of other relevant environmental
30 statutes and regulations. The NEPA process, however, does not replace
31 procedural or substantive requirements of other environmental statutes and
32 regulations. It addresses them collectively in the form of an Environmental
33 Assessment (EA) or EIS, which enables the decisionmaker to have a
34 comprehensive view of major environmental issues and requirements associated
35 with the Proposed Action. According to CEQ regulations, the requirements of
36 NEPA must be integrated “with other planning and environmental review
37 procedures required by law or by agency so that all such procedures run
38 concurrently rather than consecutively.”
39 Within the framework of environmental impact analysis under NEPA, additional

40 authorities that can also be considered include the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean

1-5
FME005550
1 Water Act (CWA) (including a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

2 [NPDES] storm water discharge permit), Noise Control Act, Endangered Species
3 Act (ESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), National Historic Preservation Act
4 (NHPA), Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Resource Conservation and
5 Recovery Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, and various Executive Orders
6 (EOs). A summary of additional laws, regulations, and EOs that might be
7 applicable to the Proposed Action are shown in Appendix A.
8 1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

9 Agency and public involvement in the NEPA process promotes open
10 communication between the public and the government and enhances the
11 decisionmaking process. All persons or organizations having a potential interest
12 in the Proposed Action are encouraged to participate in the decisionmaking
13 process.
14 NEPA and implementing regulations from the CEQ and DHS direct agencies to
15 make their EISs available to the public during the decisionmaking process and
16 prior to decisions on what actions are to be taken. The premise of NEPA is that
17 the quality of Federal decisions will be enhanced if proponents provide
18 information to the public and involve the public in the planning process.
19 Public scoping activities for this EIS were initiated on September 24, 2007, when
20 a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare this EIS was published in the Federal Register
21 (72 FR 184, pp. 54276-77, see Appendix B). Besides providing a brief
22 description of the Proposed Action and announcing USBP’s intent to prepare this
23 EIS, the NOI also established a 20-day public scoping period. The purpose of
24 the scoping process was to solicit public comment regarding the range of issues,
25 including potential impacts and alternatives that should be addressed in the EIS.
26 Public comments received during the public scoping period are taken into
27 consideration as part of the preparation of the Draft EIS (see Appendix C).
28 In addition to the NOI published in the Federal Register, newspaper notices
29 coinciding with the NOI were published in The Monitor, The Brownsville Herald,
30 and The Valley Morning Star on September 24 and 30, 2007. The notice was
31 also published in Spanish in La Frontera and El Nuevo Heraldo on September
32 28, 2007. Copies of the newspaper notices are included in Appendix B.
33 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) will publish a Notice of

34 Availability (NOA) for this Draft EIS in the Federal Register. The purpose of the
35 USEPA NOA is to announce to the public the availability of this Draft EIS, and to
36 begin a 45-day public comment period. In addition to the USEPA NOA, USBP
37 will simultaneously publish a separate NOA in the Federal Register announcing
38 the dates, times, and places for public informational meetings and to request
39 comments on the Draft EIS. All comments received will be taken into
40 consideration in development of and included in Appendix C of the Final EIS.
41 Upon completion, USBP will make the Final EIS available to the public for 30

1-6
FME005551
1 days. At the conclusion of the 30-day period, a Record of Decision (ROD)

2 regarding the Proposed Action will be signed and published in the Federal
3 Register.
4 Through the public involvement process, USBP also notified relevant Federal,
5 state, and local agencies of the Proposed Action and requested input about
6 environmental concerns they might have regarding the Proposed Action. The
7 public involvement process provides USBP with the opportunity to cooperate with
8 and consider state and local views in its decision regarding implementing this
9 Federal proposal. As part of the EIS process, USBP has coordinated with the
10 USEPA; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); Texas State Historic
11 Preservation Office (SHPO); and other Federal, state, and local agencies (see
12 Appendix B). Input from agency responses has been incorporated into the
13 analysis of potential environmental impacts.
14 This Draft EIS also serves as a public notice regarding floodplain involvement.
15 EO 11988 directs Federal agencies to avoid floodplains unless the agency
16 determines that there is no practicable alternative. Where the only practicable
17 alternative is to site in a floodplain, a specific step-by-step process must be
18 followed to comply with EO 11988. This “eight-step” process is detailed in the
19 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) document “Further Advice on
20 EO 11988 Floodplain Management.” The eight steps in floodplain compliance
21 are as follows:
22 1. Determine whether the action will occur in, or stimulate development in, a
23 floodplain.
24 2. Receive public review/input of the Proposed Action.
25 3. Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating in the floodplain.
26 4. Identify the impacts of the Proposed Action (when it occurs in a
27 floodplain).
28 5. Minimize threats to life, property, and natural and beneficial floodplain
29 values, and restore and preserve natural and beneficial floodplain values.
30 6. Reevaluate alternatives in light of any new information that might have
31 become available.
32 7. Issue findings and a public explanation.
33 8. Implement the action.
34 Steps 1, 3, and 4 have been undertaken as part of this Draft EIS and are further
35 discussed in Section 3.6 and 4.6. Steps 2 and 6 through 8 are being conducted
36 simultaneously with the EIS development process, including public review of the
37 Draft EIS. Step 5 relates to mitigation and is currently undergoing development.
38 Anyone wishing to provide written comments, suggestions, or relevant
39 information regarding the Proposed Action may do so by submitting comments to

1-7
FME005552
1 USBP by contacting SBInet, Tactical Infrastructure Program Office. To avoid

2 duplication, please use only one of the following methods:
3 a. Electronically through the web site at www.BorderFenceNEPA.com;
4 b. By email to RGVcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com;
5 c. By mail to: Rio: Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS, c/o e²M, 2751
6 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031; or.
7 d. By fax to 757-282-7697.
8 Throughout the NEPA process, the public may obtain information concerning the
9 status and progress of the EIS via the project web site at
10 www.BorderFenceNEPA.com, by emailing information@BorderFenceNEPA.com,
11 or by written request to Mr. Charles McGregor, Environmental Manager, U.S.
12 Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District, Engineering Construction
13 Support Office (ECSO), 814 Taylor Street, Room 3A28, Fort Worth, TX 76102;
14 and Fax: (817) 886-6404.
15 1.6 COOPERATING AGENCIES

16 As cooperating agencies, the USACE-Galveston District, the USFWS, and the
17 IBWC also have decisionmaking authority for components of the Proposed
18 Action and intend for this EIS to fulfill their requirements for compliance with
19 NEPA. The CEQ regulations implementing NEPA instruct agencies to combine
20 environmental documents to reduce duplication and paperwork (40 Code of
21 Federal Regulations [CFR] 1506.4).
22 The USACE-Galveston District will act on applications for Department of the

23 Army permits pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
24 (33 United States Code [U.S.C.] 403), and Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C.
25 1344). In a _date to be inserted here_ letter, the USACE-Galveston District
26 identified the Proposed Action as the alternative for placement of assets with the
27 least potential for environmental damage.
28 Section 7 of the ESA (P.L. 93-205, December 28, 1973) states that any project
29 authorized, funded, or conducted by any Federal agency should not
30 “…jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened
31 species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such
32 species which is determined … to be critical.” The USFWS is a cooperating
33 agency regarding this Proposed Action to determine whether any federally listed,
34 proposed endangered, or proposed threatened species or their designated
35 critical habitats would be adversely impacted by the Proposed Action. As a
36 cooperating agency, the USFWS will assist in completing the Section 7
37 consultation process, identifying the nature and extent of potential effects, and
38 developing measures that would avoid or reduce potential effects on any species
39 of concern. The USFWS will issue the Biological Opinion (BO) of the potential
40 for jeopardy. If the USFWS determines that the project is not likely to jeopardize

1-8
FME005553
1 any listed species, it can also issue an incidental take statement as an exception
2 to the prohibitions in Section 9 of the ESA.
3 In addition, the Proposed Action would encroach on multiple component parcels

4 of the LRGVNWR. In order to proceed with geotechnical studies, and natural
5 and cultural resources surveys prior to fence and road construction on
6 LRGVNWR areas, the USFWS would need to issue special use permits for the
7 proposed studies and surveys to commence.
8 For much of the proposed segments, the tactical infrastructure would follow the
9 levee rights-of-way (ROWs) administered by the IBWC. The IBWC is an
10 international body composed of a U.S. Section and a Mexican Section, each
11 headed by an Engineer-Commissioner appointed by their respective president.
12 Each Section is administered independently of the other. The U.S. Section of the
13 IBWC is a Federal government agency headquartered in El Paso, Texas, and
14 operates under the foreign policy guidance of the Department of State (IBWC
15 2007). The U.S. Section of the IBWC will provide access and ROWs to construct
16 proposed tactical infrastructure along its levee system within the Rio Grande
17 Valley Sector. It will also ensure that design and placement of the proposed
18 tactical infrastructure does not impact flood control and does not violate treaty
19 obligations between the United States and Mexico.
20 [[Preparer’s Note: Information on additional cooperating agencies (if any)

21 will be incorporated when that information becomes available.]]
22 1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS

23 Table 1.7-1. Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations
Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation
Section 7 (ESA) consultation
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) coordination
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Special Use Permits for access to National Wildlife
Refuge areas
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
(USEPA) System (NPDES) permit
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CWA Section 404
Texas Commission on Environmental Clean Water Act Section 401State Water Quality
Quality (TCEQ) Certification
Texas General Land Office (TxGLO) CZMA Consistency Determination
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Texas Endangered Species Act coordination
(TPWD)
Texas Historical Commission NHPA Section 106 consultation
Federally recognized American Indian Consultation regarding potential effects on cultural
Tribes resources
Advisory Council on Historic
NHPA Section 106 consultation
Preservation
24
1-9
FME005554

1-10
FME005555
1 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2 This section provides detailed information on USBP’s proposal to construct,

3 maintain, and operate tactical infrastructure along the U.S./Mexico international
4 border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas. The range of reasonable
5 alternatives considered in this EIS is constrained by those that meet the purpose
6 and need to provide USBP agents with the tools necessary to achieve effective
7 control of the border. Such alternatives must also meet essential technical,
8 engineering, and economic threshold requirements to ensure that each is
9 environmentally sound, economically viable, and complies with governing
10 standards and regulations.
11 2.1 SCREENING CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES

12 The following screening criteria were used to develop the Proposed Action and
13 evaluate potential alternatives.
14 • USBP Operational Requirements. Pedestrian border fencing must

15 support USBP mission needs to hinder or delay individuals crossing the
16 border. Once individuals have entered an urban area or suburban
17 neighborhood, it is much more difficult for USBP agents to identify and
18 apprehend suspects engaged in unlawful border entry. In addition, around
19 populated areas it is relatively easy for illegal border crossers to find
20 transportation into the interior of the United States. USBP undertook a
21 detailed screening process to develop a optimum combination of tactical
22 infrastructure to include fence, technology, and other resources that would
23 best meet its operational needs.
24 • Threatened or Endangered Species and Critical Habitat. The
25 construction, maintenance, and operation of the proposed tactical
26 infrastructure would be designed to minimize adverse impacts on
27 threatened or endangered species and their critical habitat to the
28 maximum extent practicable. USBP is working with the USFWS as a
29 cooperating agency to identify potential conservation and mitigation
30 measures.
31 • Wetlands and Floodplains. The construction, maintenance, and operation
32 of the proposed tactical infrastructure would be designed to minimize
33 impacts on wetlands, surface waters, and floodplain resources to the
34 maximum extent practical. USBP is working with the USACE-Galveston
35 District and IBWC as cooperating agencies to minimize wetland and
36 floodplain impacts.
37 • Cultural and Historic Resources. The construction, maintenance, and
38 operation of the proposed tactical infrastructure would be designed to
39 minimize impacts on cultural and historic resources to the maximum

2-1
FME005556
1 extent practical. USBP is working with the Texas SHPO to identify

2 potential conservation and mitigation measures.
3 • Suitable Landscape. Some areas of the border have steep topography,
4 highly erodible soils, unstable geology, or have other characteristics that
5 could compromise the integrity of fence or other tactical infrastructure. For
6 example, in areas susceptible to flash flooding, fence and other tactical
7 infrastructure might be prone to erosion that could undermine the fence’s
8 integrity. Areas with suitable landscape conditions would be prioritized.
9 Section 2.2.1 presents the No Action Alternative. Section 2.2.2 provides

10 specific details of the Proposed Action, Section 2.2.3 discusses the Secure
11 Fence Act Alternative, and Section 2.3 discusses alternatives considered but not
12 analyzed in detail.
13 2.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

14 2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
15 Under the No Action Alternative, proposed tactical infrastructure would not be
18 within the Rio Grande Valley Sector. The No Action Alternative would not meet
19 USBP mission needs and does not address the Congressional mandates for
20 gaining effective control of our borders. However, inclusion of the No Action
21 Alternative is prescribed by the CEQ regulations and will be carried forward for
22 analysis in the EIS. The No Action Alternative also serves as a baseline against
23 which to evaluate the impacts of the Proposed Action.
24 2.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

26 consisting of pedestrian and hybrid fence; access roads; and patrol roads along
27 the U.S./Mexico international border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, Texas.
28 Congress has appropriated funds for the construction of the proposed tactical
29 infrastructure. Construction of additional tactical infrastructure might be required
30 in the future as mission and operational requirements are continually reassessed.
31 The proposed tactical infrastructure would be constructed in 21 distinct segments
32 along the border within the Rio Grande Valley Sector in Starr, Hidalgo, and
33 Cameron counties, Texas. Individual segments might range from approximately
34 1 mile in length to more than 13 miles in length. These 21 segments of
35 pedestrian fence are designated as Segments O-1 through O-21 on
36 Figures 2.2-1 through 2.2-3. Table 2.2-1 presents general information for each
37 of the 21 proposed segments.
38

2-2
FME005557
024301
950101
950202
950201
Fronton
Los Villareales
North 950102
Escobares 950103
TEXAS
950701
Garceno
ty
nt y
un
Roma Escobares
La
ou
Co
950702 Rosita
oC
rr
Sta
alg
Los
Hid
O-1 Alvarez
Rio
Grande
City
950600
950500
950400
Las
Lomas
La Puerta
Santa
Cruz
MEXICO El Refugio
La Victoria
83
O-2
La Casita-
024201
Garciasville
Alto
Bonito
024102
Sullivan 024103
La Grulla City
Corpus
Rio
G ra Christi
n Texas
de
Cuevitas
Nuevo Laredo
Route A Proposed Los
Laredo
Fence Segments Ebanos
Havana
R i
024202
Route B Proposed
o
Fence Segments Gulf Gr La Joya Penitas
ande
Route A/B Overlap of
Construction Staging
Mexico Abram-
Perezville
Areas
Census Tracts Monterrey O-3
##### Census Tract Number
MEXICO
O-2 Fence Segment Label O-4
Rio Grande Valley
Miles Sector
0 1 2 4
Scale
Map Projection: Albers
Source: ESRI StreetMap 2007
Figure 2.2-1. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure – Upper Rio Grande Valley

2-3
FME005558
Laguna Seca
West Tierra
023505
024103 Sharyland Bonita
024104 Edinburg
Palmhurst 023902 023800 023508
La Homa 024106 020701 Nurillo Muniz Santa
020801 024402 024500
Lopezville 024600 Rosa
107
020901 Grand
020721
Acres
020202
Palmview
020203
020722
020802 TEXAS Olivarez
010300
020300 020902
Cameron County
Hidalgo County
South 021700 021801 Mila
Mission North 021901
Doce
020724 Alamo Indian
020723
McAllen 021000 022501 Hills
Pharr
020401 022101
020501 021100 021600 022201 Ratamosa
020600 021802
021500 San 022400
021201 021401
Juan Alamo 021902
336 Midway 023101 023102
020100 North
020502 Heidelberg La Feria
020402 North
021402 022001 Donna 022502
Solis
022002 83 022600 011901
020503 021202 Midway La Feria
Weslaco
South South
Alamo 022701 Mercedes
115
022300 023000 011902

Granjeno 021302 022900 Bixby
022102 Arroyo
Scissors Llano Alto
Villa
Verde Grande
022702
021301 022202
012000
Hidalgo
021303 Progreso
O-5
022800 011903
Relampago
Santa Bluetown-
281
Maria Iglesia
Progreso Antigua
O-6
Lakes
ran de
Rio G
O-7 O-9
Texas Corpus O-10
Rio
O-11
Gra Christi
nd
e
Nuevo Laredo O-8 Route A Proposed

Laredo Fence Segments
Route B Proposed
Fence Segments
Route A/B Overlap
Gulf Construction Staging

of MEXICO Areas
Mexico Census Tracts
Monterrey
Rio Grande Valley O-2 Fence Segment Label

MEXICO Sector
Miles
0 1 2 4
Scale
Source: ESRI StreetMap 2007
Figure 2.2-2. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure – Middle Rio Grande Valley

2-4
FME005559
011802
011901
011902 011700
011500 011400
011600 Green
012301
San Valley Farms 012200 Laureles
Benito Bayview
012000 Laguna
Vista
Rangerville
011903
012100
Los
Bluetown- Fresnos
Iglesia 012402
Antigua
100
012505 77
012401
Los Indios TEXAS

281 Encantada- Rancho Viejo 012403
O-11 Ranchito El 012506
Calaboz 012303
O-12 Olmito
O-13 O-14
O-15
012604
O-16 012508
R
io
San
G
Pedro 012605
ra
012507 012612
n
012609
d
e
012606
012504
012613 012610
012700
012608
O-17
012900 012611 012607
013002
013003 013104
013102 013203
013207
012800 013004 013106 013206
013303 013205
O-18 013600 013500 Brownsville 013204
Texas Corpus 013401
R
io
Gr a Christi 013700
013901 013304
013402
nd
014002 013801
e
Nuevo Laredo 013208

Route A Proposed
O-19 014001 013802 013902
Laredo 013903 Fence Segments
013305
Gulf 013306 Route B Proposed
of 013307 013308 Fence Segments
Mexico 013309 Route A/B Overlap
MEXICO 014100 Construction Staging
O-19 Areas
O-20 South
Monterrey Point Census Tracts

Rio Grande Valley
MEXICO Sector O-2 Fence Segment Label
Miles
0 1 2 4
O-21 Scale
Source: ESRI StreetMap USA 2007
Figure 2.2-3. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure – Lower Rio Grande Valley

2-5
FME005560
1 Table 2.2-1. Proposed Fence Segments for USBP Rio Grande Valley Sector
Fence
Border Patrol
Segment General Location
Station
Number
O-1 Rio Grande City Near Roma Port of Entry
O-2 Rio Grande City Near RGC Port of Entry
O-3 McAllen Los Ebanos Port of Entry
O-4 McAllen From Penitas to Abram
O-5 McAllen Future Anzalduas Port of Entry
O-6 McAllen Hidalgo Port of Entry
O-7 Weslaco Proposed Donna Port of Entry
O-8 Weslaco Retamal Dam
O-9 Weslaco West Progreso Port of Entry
O-10 Weslaco East Progreso Port of Entry
O-11 Harlingen Joe's Bar-Nemo Road
O-12 Harlingen Weaver's Mountain
O-13 Harlingen W Los Indios Port of Entry
O-14 Harlingen E Los Indios Port of Entry
O-15 Harlingen Triangle - La Paloma
O-16 Harlingen Ho Chi Minh - Estero
Proposed Carmen Road Freight
O-17 Brownsville
Train Bridge
Proposed Flor De Mayo POE to
O-18 Brownsville
Garden Park
O-19 Brownsville B&M Port of Entry to Los Tomates
Los Tomates to Veterans
O-20 Brownsville
International Bridge
Veterans International Bridge to
O-21 Fort Brown
Sea Shell Inn
Total
2
3 If approved, the final design would be developed by a design/build contractor
4 overseen by the USACE. However, design criteria that have been established
5 based on USBP operational needs require that, at a minimum, any fencing must
6 meet the following requirements:
7 • 15 feet high and extend below ground

8 • Capable of withstanding a crash of a 10,000-pound (gross weight) vehicle
9 traveling at 40 miles per hour

2-6
FME005561
1 • Capable of withstanding vandalism, cutting, or various types of penetration

2 • Semi-transparent, as dictated by operational need
3 • Designed to survive extreme climate changes
4 • Designed to reduce or minimize impacts on small animal movements
5 • Not impede the natural flow of surface water
6 • Aesthetically pleasing to the extent possible.
7 Typical pedestrian fence designs that could be used are included in Appendix E.
8 There are two alternatives for alignment of the infrastructure (Route Alternatives)
9 being considered under the Proposed Action. Route A is the route initially
10 identified by the Rio Grande Valley Sector as best meeting its operational needs.
11 Route B would modify the alignment to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
12 Route B was developed during the EIS development process through
13 consultation with cooperating agencies to identify a route alternative with fewer
14 potentially adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, Route B represents a
15 compromise alignment that takes into account a balance between operational
16 effectiveness of proposed tactical infrastructure and environmental quality.
17 Differences between Route A and B are shown in Figures 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 and
18 presented in detail in Appendix D.
19 [[Preparer’s Note: More details on Route A and B alignment differences
20 will be developed for Figures 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 once they are available to
21 USBP.]]
22 Routes A and B would follow the IBWC levee system for the majority of their
23 length. In most cases, the proposed segment alignments along the IBWC levee
24 would be placed approximately 30 feet from the toe of the levee (i.e., lowest point
25 of the base of the structure facing away from the Rio Grande). This configuration
26 would allow the proposed infrastructure to be placed in an existing ROW without
27 disturbing current IBWC operations or USBP patrol roads. However, several
28 proposed locations along the levee ROW would require the relocation of private
29 residences or other structures that encroach on the levee ROW.
30 [[Preparer’s Note: Information on segments and parcels (number of parcels
31 and acres) where the Government proposes to acquire land is requested.]]
32 Under both Route Alternatives, the tactical infrastructure within several of the 21
33 segments would also encroach on multiple privately owned land parcels. Some
34 proposed fence segments could also encroach on portions of the LRGVNWR
35 and Texas state parks in the Rio Grande Valley.
36 The proposed tactical infrastructure would impact an approximate 60-foot-wide

37 corridor along each fence segment. This corridor would include fences, access
38 roads, patrol roads, and construction staging areas. Vegetation would be cleared

2-7
FME005562
1 and grading would occur where needed. The area impacted after construction
2 within the 21 segments where the construction staging areas are located (both
3 route alternatives) would total approximately 508 acres. Wherever possible,
4 existing roads would be used for construction access. Figure 2.2-4 shows a
5 typical schematic of impact areas for tactical infrastructure for both route
6 alternatives.
7 Construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure would require minor

8 adjustments in USBP operations in the Rio Grande Valley Sector.
9 [[Preparer’s Note: Input on potential changes in operations due to the new

10 tactical infrastructure, if releasable and reasonably foreseeable
11 maintenance issues with the fence and patrol road are requested.]]
12 USBP is working closely with local landowners and others potentially affected by
13 the proposed infrastructure. For both Route Alternatives, gates would be
14 constructed to allow USBP and landowners access to land, the Rio Grande, and
15 water resources, and infrastructure. The Proposed Action would include the
16 construction of approximately 90 secure access gates. In agricultural areas,
17 gates would be wide enough to allow access for necessary farming equipment.
18 In other cases, gates would be situated to provide access to existing recreational
19 amenities; water resources, including pump houses and related infrastructure;
20 grazing areas; existing parks; and other areas. On a case-by-case basis, the
21 USACE might purchase the land between the fence and the Rio Grande.
22 If approved, construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure would begin in

23 Spring 2008 and continue through December 31, 2008.
24 To the extent that additional actions are known, they are discussed in Section 5,
25 Cumulative Impacts, of this EIS. Both Routes A and B under Alternative 2 are
26 viable and will be evaluated in the EIS.
27 2.2.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative

28 The Secure Fence Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-367) authorized the construction of at
29 least two layers of reinforced fencing along the U.S./Mexico international border.
30 Two layers of fence, known as primary and secondary fence, would be
31 constructed approximately 130 feet apart along the same route as Alternative 2,
32 Route B.
33 This alternative would also include construction and maintenance of access and
34 patrol roads. The patrol road would be between the primary and secondary
35 fences. Figure 2.2-5 shows a typical schematic of permanent and temporary
36 impact areas for this alternative. The design of the tactical infrastructure for this
37 alternative would be similar to that of Alternative 2.
38

2-8
FME005563
NOT TO SCALE
±
57'
PEDESTRIAN FENCE
PERMANENT IMPACT AREA
PATROL ROAD
3'
60' ROOSEVELT RESERVATION

United States
Mexico
2 Figure 2.2-4. Schematic of Proposed Impact Areas – Alternative 2

3 Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007
2-9
FME005564
NOT TO SCALE
±
SECONDARY FENCE
PRIMARY FENCE
PATROL ROAD
150’ PERMANENT IMPACT AREA

United States
Mexico
2 Figure 2.2-5. Schematic of Proposed Impact Areas – Alternative 3

2-10
FME005565
1 Construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure would impact an approximate

2 150-foot wide corridor for 70 miles along the 21 fence segments. This
3 construction corridor would accommodate access roads and construction staging
4 areas. Vegetation would be cleared and grading would occur where needed.
5 Wherever possible, existing roads would be used for construction access. This is
6 a viable alternative and will be evaluated in the EIS.
7 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER

8 DETAILED ANALYSIS
9 USBP evaluated possible alternatives to be considered as the Proposed Action.
10 This section addresses options that were reviewed but not carried forward for
11 detailed analysis.
12 2.3.1 Additional USBP Agents in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure
13 USBP considered the alternative of increasing the number of agents as a means

14 of gaining effective control of the border. Under this alternative, USBP would hire
15 and deploy a significantly larger number of agents than are currently deployed
16 along the U.S./Mexico international border and increase air patrols to apprehend
17 illegal border crossers. USBP would deploy additional agents as determined by
18 operational needs, but might include 4-wheel drive vehicle, All Terrain Vehicles,
19 helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft. Currently, USBP maintains an aggressive
20 hiring program and a cadre of well-trained and disciplined agents.
21 The physical presence of an increased number of agents could provide an

22 enhanced level of deterrence against illegal entry into the United States, but the
23 use of additional agents alone, in lieu of the proposed tactical infrastructure,
24 would not provide a practical solution to achieving effective control of the border
25 in the San Diego Sector. Many illegal border crossers travel under the cover of
26 darkness, particularly in urban or developed areas, when agents or aircraft would
27 have difficulty spotting movement on the ground. The use of physical barriers
28 forces illegal border crossers into areas that do not provide easily accessible
29 urban cover or quick transportation into the interior of the United States. Forcing
30 the illegal border crossers into remote, open areas allows for more effective use
31 of other resources such as aircraft overflights and agent patrols. It also provides
32 agents with longer response times to make apprehensions (USACE 2000).
33 Tactical infrastructure, such as a pedestrian fence, is a force multiplier to allow
34 USBP to deploy agents efficiently and effectively. As tactical infrastructure is
35 built, some agents would be redeployed to other areas of the border within the
36 sector. Increased patrols would aid in interdiction activities, but not to the extent
37 anticipated by the Proposed Action. As such, this alternative is not practical in
38 the San Diego sector and will not be carried forward for further detailed analysis.

2-11
FME005566
1 2.3.2 Technology in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure

2 Under this alternative, USBP would use radar, cameras, lights, and other
3 technology and combinations of technology to identify illegal border crossings.
4 The use of technology in certain sparsely populated areas is a critical component
5 of SBInet and an effective force multiplier that allows USBP to monitor large
6 areas and deploy agents to where they will be most effective. However, the
7 apprehension of illegal border crossers is still performed by USBP agents and
8 other law enforcement agents. In the more densely populated areas within the
9 Rio Grande Valley Sector, physical barriers represent the most effective means
10 to control illegal entry into the United States, as noted above. The use of
11 technology alone would not provide a practical solution to achieving effective
12 control of the border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. Therefore, this alternative
13 would not meet the purpose and need as described in Section 1.2 and will not
14 be carried forward for further detailed analysis.
15 2.3.3 Native Thorny Scrub Hedge in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure

16 During the public scoping process, an alternative was proposed to maintain a
17 200- to 300-yard-wide mowed area outside the Rio Grande floodplain and plant a
18 100-yard-wide hedge of dense, short native thorny scrub brush (a hedge row)
19 within the mowed area. This alternative would also incorporate technology such
20 as sensors, cameras, and lights toward the Rio Grande from the cleared area.
21 The primary benefit associated with this alternative would be its ability to provide
22 suitable habitat for the endangered ocelot (Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis) and
23 jaguarondi (Herpailurus (=Felis) yagouaroundi cacomitli), which would find
24 suitable habitat along the riverbank travel corridor and within the hedge. The
25 hedge could also serve to connect the LRGVNWR units into a larger habitat
26 area.
27 The primary deficiency with this alternative is that a hedge would not be as
28 durable as a fence (pathways could be cut or burned through or under the
29 hedge), it would be relatively slow to grow, and it might require more
30 maintenance than a fence. USBP experience indicates that illegal border
31 crossers are willing to traverse dangerous terrain to avoid being caught. A 100-
32 yard-wide hedge might become a haven where they could hide. If an illegal
33 border crosser were to become injured and trapped in the hedge, USBP agents
34 would likely have to cut through the hedge to rescue the person, damaging or
35 destroying the hedge in the process. For these reasons, this alternative was
36 determined not to be a viable alternative and was not carried forward for further
37 detailed analysis.
38 2.3.4 Fence Within the Rio Grande

39 During the public scoping process, an alternative was proposed to construct a
40 fence in the middle of the Rio Grande. This alternative would consist of installing
41 poles in the river with cables stretched between the poles. A screen fence could
2-12
FME005567
1 be suspended from the cables and anchored to the river bottom. This alternative
2 was not considered in detail due to multiple concerns, including infeasibility due
3 to technical uncertainty, cost considerations, the likelihood of significantly altering
4 the natural flow of the Rio Grande, and the potential to cause violations of
5 international treaty obligations.
6 2.3.5 Brownsville Weir and Reservoir Project in Lieu of Tactical

7 Infrastructure
8 During the public scoping process, the proposed Brownsville Weir and Reservoir
9 Project was identified as a practical alternative in lieu of fence construction. The
10 Public Utilities Board of Brownsville, Texas, is proposing to construct a weir and
11 reservoir system on the lower Rio Grande as a water conservation project.
12 Under this alternative, it was suggested that the resulting reservoir would create
13 a body of water large enough that it would serve as an effective deterrent to
14 illegal border crossing.
15 USBP believes that water levels associated with this feature would fluctuate
16 seasonally and would not deter illegal border crossings when water levels are
17 low. This alternative might also flood sabal palm groves, flood the riparian
18 vegetation along more than a dozen miles of the river, disturb the movements of
19 the jaguarondi and ocelot along the river, and disturb a key estuary where the
20 Rio Grande enters the Gulf of Mexico. The U.S. section of the IBWC also
21 informed USBP that it would not support any construction near the international
22 boundary that increases, concentrates, or relocates overland drainage flows into
23 Mexico or the United States. Since the reservoir might create substantial
24 flooding in Mexico due to fewer levees there, it has also been reported that the
25 proposal lacks the support of the Government of Mexico. In addition, a larger
26 barrier might not deter illegal border crossers but only potentially lead to a larger
27 number of drownings. For these reasons, this alternative was determined not to
28 be a viable alternative and was not carried forward for further detailed analysis.
29 2.3.6 Raising Levees in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure

30 During the public scoping process, an alternative was proposed to reconstruct
31 river levees as 18-foot-high reinforced earthen barriers. USBP considered an
32 alternative of constructing concrete barriers into the levees and installing an
33 additional fence on top of those concrete barriers. There are numerous legal
34 obstacles to this alternative, such as concerns over levee ownership and
35 maintenance that the U.S. section of the IBWC identified during consultation.
36 Therefore, because of legal and infrastructure uncertainties, this alternative was
37 not carried forward for detailed analysis.
38 2.4 SUMMARY
39 [[Preparer’s Note: This section will be included in the Draft EIS.]]

2-13
FME005568
1 2.5 IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED

2 ALTERNATIVE
3 CEQ’s implementing regulation 40 CFR 1502.14(c) instructs EIS preparers to
4 “Identify the agency’s preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists,
5 in the draft statement and identify such alternative in the final statement unless
6 another law prohibits the expression of such a preference.” USBP has identified
7 its Preferred Alternative as Alternative 2, Route B (hereinafter referred to simply
8 as “Route B.”
9 Implementation of Route B would meet USBP’s purpose and need described in

10 Section 1.2. The No Action Alternative would not meet USBP’s purpose and
11 need. Route A would meet the purpose and need described in Section 1.2, but
12 it would cause environmental impacts greater than the impacts identified for
13 Route B. Alternative 3 would meet USBP’s purpose and need but would have
14 greater environmental impacts compared to the Preferred Alternative without
15 substantially increasing USBP’s ability to effectively control these areas of the
16 U.S./Mexico international border.
17

2-14
FME005569
1 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
2 3.1 INTRODUCTION
3 All potentially relevant resource areas were initially considered in this EIS. In
4 compliance with NEPA, the CEQ guidelines, and DHS MD 5100.1, the following
5 evaluation of environmental impacts focuses on those resources and conditions
6 potentially subject to impacts and on potentially significant environmental issues
7 deserving of study, and deemphasizes insignificant issues. Some environmental
8 resource areas and conditions that are often selected for analysis in an EIS have
9 been omitted from detailed analysis in this EIS. Some were eliminated from
10 detailed examination because of their inapplicability to this proposal. The
11 following paragraphs provide the basis for such exclusions.
12 Climate. The Proposed Action would neither affect nor be affected by the
13 climate. However, air emissions and their impacts on air quality are discussed in
14 Section 3.2 and Section 4.2.
15 Sustainability and Greening. EO 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental,

16 Energy, and Transportation Management (January 24, 2007) promotes
17 environmental practices, including acquisition of biobased, environmentally
18 preferable, energy-efficient, water-efficient, and recycled-content products, and
19 maintaining cost-effective waste prevention and recycling programs in Federal
20 facilities. The Proposed Action would use minimal amounts of resources during
21 construction and maintenance. Therefore, the Proposed Action would have
22 negligible impacts on sustainability and greening.
23 Construction Safety. Construction site safety is largely a matter of adherence

24 to regulatory requirements imposed for the benefit of employees and
25 implementation of operational practices that reduce risks of illness, injury, death,
26 and property damage. OSHA and the USEPA issue standards that specify the
27 amount and type of training required for industrial workers, the use of protective
28 equipment and clothing, engineering controls, and maximum exposure limits with
29 respect to workplace stressors.
30 Construction workers at any of the proposed construction sites would be exposed

31 to greater safety risks from the inherent dangers at construction sites.
32 Contractors would be required to establish and maintain safety. The proposed
33 construction would not expose members of the general public to increased safety
34 risks. Therefore, because the proposed construction would not introduce new or
35 unusual safety risks, and assuming construction protocols are carefully followed,
36 detailed examination of safety is not included in this EA.

3-1
FME005570
1 3.2 AIR QUALITY

2 3.2.1 Definition of the Resource
3 In accordance with Federal CAA requirements, the air quality in a given region or
4 area is measured by the concentrations of various pollutants in the atmosphere.
5 The measurements of these “criteria pollutants” in ambient air are expressed in
6 units of parts per million (ppm), milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3), or
7 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). The air quality in a region is a result of not
8 only the types and quantities of atmospheric pollutants and pollutant sources in
9 an area, but also surface topography, the size of the topological “air basin,” and
10 the prevailing meteorological conditions.
11 The CAA directed USEPA to develop, implement, and enforce strong

12 environmental regulations that would ensure clean and healthy ambient air
13 quality. To protect public health and welfare, USEPA developed numerical
14 concentration-based standards, or National Ambient Air Quality Standards
15 (NAAQS), for pollutants that have been determined to impact human health and
16 the environment. USEPA established both primary and secondary NAAQS
17 under the provisions of the CAA. NAAQS are currently established for six criteria
18 air pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur
19 dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate matter (including particulate matter equal to
20 or less than 10 microns in diameter [PM10] and particulate matter equal to or less
21 than 2.5 microns in diameter [PM2.5]), and lead (Pb). The primary NAAQS
22 represent maximum levels of background air pollution that are considered safe,
23 with an adequate margin of safety to protect public health. Secondary NAAQS
24 represent the maximum pollutant concentration necessary to protect vegetation,
25 crops, and other public resources along with maintaining visibility standards. The
26 State of Texas has adopted the NAAQS and titled them the Texas Ambient Air
27 Quality Standards (TAAQS). Table 3.2-1 presents the primary and secondary
28 USEPA NAAQS that apply to the air quality in the state of Texas. The TCEQ has
29 established air pollution control regulations. These regulations are contained in
30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Title 30. The TCEQ has also promulgated
31 rules regulating the emissions of toxic substances which are defined as those
32 chemicals listed in TAC Title 30, Chapter 113 plus any other air pollutant that is
33 considered a health hazard, as defined by OSHA.
34 The Federal CAA and USEPA delegated responsibility for ensuring compliance
35 with NAAQS to the states and local agencies. As such, each state must develop
36 air pollutant control programs and promulgate regulations and rules that focus on
37 meeting NAAQS and maintaining healthy ambient air quality levels. The Texas
38 Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is responsible for implementation
39 of the CAA. The TCEQ has adopted the NAAQS by reference, thereby requiring
40 the use of the standards within the state of Texas.
41 These programs are detailed in State Implementation Plans (SIPs), which are
42 required to be developed by each state or local regulatory agency and approved
3-2
FME005571
1 by USEPA. A SIP is a compilation of regulations, strategies, schedules, and

2 enforcement actions designed to move the state into compliance with all NAAQS.
3 Any changes to the compliance schedule or plan (e.g., new regulations,
4 emissions budgets, controls) must be incorporated into the SIP and approved by
5 USEPA.
6 Table 3.2-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Standard Value Standard Type

CO
8-hour Average a 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) Primary and Secondary
a 3
1-hour Average 35 ppm (40 mg/m ) Primary
NO2
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Primary and Secondary
O3
8-hour Average b 0.08 ppm (157 µg/m3) Primary and Secondary
c 3
1-hour Average 0.12 ppm (240 µg/m ) Primary and Secondary
Pb
Quarterly Average 1.5 µg/m3 Primary and Secondary
PM10
Annual Arithmetic Mean d 50 µg/m3 Primary and Secondary
a 3
24-hour Average 150 µg/m Primary and Secondary
PM2.5
Annual Arithmetic Mean e 15 µg/m3 Primary and Secondary
f 3
24-hour Average 35 µg/m Primary and Secondary
SO2
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.03 ppm (80 µg/m3) Primary
a 3
24-hour Average 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m ) Primary
a 3
3-hour Average 0.5 ppm (1,300 µg/m ) Secondary
Source: SM#2
Notes: Parenthetical values are approximate equivalent concentrations.
a
Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
b
To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not
exceed 0.08 ppm.
c
(a) The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with
maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is ≤ 1. (b) As of June 15, 2005,
USEPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas except the 14 8-hour ozone
nonattainment Early Action Compact Areas.
d
To attain this standard, the expected annual arithmetic mean PM10 concentration at each
monitor within an area must not exceed 50 µg/m3.
e
To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the annual arithmetic mean PM2 5 concentrations
from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 µg/m3.
3-3
FME005572
f
To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at
each population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 µg/m3.
1 USEPA classifies the air quality in an air quality control region (AQCR), or in
2 subareas of an AQCR, according to whether the concentrations of criteria
3 pollutants in ambient air exceed the primary or secondary NAAQS. All areas
4 within each AQCR are therefore designated as either “attainment,”
5 “nonattainment,” “maintenance,” or “unclassified” for each of the six criteria
6 pollutants. Attainment means that the air quality within an AQCR is better than
7 the NAAQS, nonattainment indicates that criteria pollutant levels exceed NAAQS,
8 maintenance indicates that an area was previously designated nonattainment but
9 is now attainment, and unclassified means that there is not enough information to
10 appropriately classify an AQCR, so the area is considered attainment.
11 The General Conformity Rule requires that any Federal action meet the
12 requirements of a SIP or Federal Implementation Plan. More specifically, CAA
13 conformity is ensured when a Federal action does not cause a new violation of
14 the NAAQS; contribute to an increase in the frequency or severity of violations of
15 NAAQS; or delay the timely attainment of any NAAQS, interim progress
16 milestones, or other milestones toward achieving compliance with the NAAQS.
17 The General Conformity Rule applies only to actions in nonattainment or

18 maintenance areas and considers both direct and indirect emissions. The rule
19 applies only to Federal actions that are considered “regionally significant” or
20 where the total emissions from the action meet or exceed the de minimis
21 thresholds presented in 40 CFR 93.153. An action is regionally significant when
22 the total nonattainment pollutant emissions exceed 10 percent of the AQCR’s
23 total emissions inventory for that nonattainment pollutant. If a Federal action
24 does not meet or exceed the de minimis thresholds and is not considered
25 regionally significant, then a full Conformity Determination is not required.
26 Title V of the CAA Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 requires states and local
27 agencies to permit major stationary sources. A major stationary source is a
28 facility (i.e., plant, base, or activity) that can emit more than 100 tons per year
29 (tpy) of any one criteria air pollutant, 10 tpy of a hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tpy
30 of any combination of hazardous air pollutants. However, lower pollutant-specific
31 “major source” permitting thresholds apply in nonattainment areas. For example,
32 the Title V permitting threshold for an “extreme” O3 nonattainment area is 10 tpy
33 of potential volatile organic compound (VOC) or nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions.
34 The purpose of the permitting rule is to establish regulatory control over large,
35 industrial-type activities and monitor their impact on air quality.
36 Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations also define air

37 pollutant emissions from proposed major stationary sources or modifications to
38 be “significant” if (1) a proposed project is within 10 kilometers of any Class I
39 area, and (2) regulated pollutant emissions would cause an increase in the
40 24-hour average concentration of any regulated pollutant in the Class I area of 1

3-4
FME005573
1 µg/m3 or more [40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(iii)]. A Class I area includes national parks
2 larger than 6,000 acres, national wilderness areas and national memorial parks
3 larger than 5,000 acres, and international parks. PSD regulations also define
4 ambient air increments, limiting the allowable increases to any area’s baseline air
5 contaminant concentrations, based on the area’s class designation [40 CFR
6 52.21(c)].
7 [[Preparer’s Note: e²M analysis of greenhouse gas emissions is currently

8 under development and will be included in the Draft EIS. ]]
9
10 3.2.2 Affected Environment
11 The Proposed Action is within Starr County, Hidalgo County, and Cameron
12 County, Texas, within the Brownsville-Laredo Intrastate Air Quality Control
13 Region (BLIAQCR). The BLIAQCR is composed of Cameron County, Hidalgo
14 County, Jim Hogg County, Starr County, Webb County, Willacy County, and
15 Zapata County, Texas. The BLIAQCR is classified as being in
16 attainment/unclassified for all criteria pollutants.
17 3.3 NOISE
18 3.3.1 Definition of Resource
19 Sound is defined as a particular auditory effect produced by a given source, for
20 example the sound of rain on a rooftop. Sound is measured with instruments
21 that record instantaneous sound levels in decibels. A-weighted sound level
22 measurement is used to characterize sound levels that can be sensed by the
23 human ear. “A-weighted” denotes the adjustment of the frequency range for what
24 the average human ear can sense when experiencing an audible event.
25 C-weighted sound level measurement correlates well with physical vibration
26 response of buildings and other structures to airborne sound. Impulsive noise
27 resulting from demolition activities and the discharge of weapons are assessed in
28 terms of C-weighted decibels (dBC).
29 Noise and sound share the same physical aspects, but noise is considered a
30 disturbance while sound is defined as an auditory effect. Noise is defined as any
31 sound that is undesirable because it interferes with communication, is intense
32 enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. Noise can be intermittent
33 or continuous, steady or impulsive, and can involve any number of sources and
34 frequencies. It can be readily identifiable or generally nondescript. Human
35 response to increased sound levels varies according to the source type,
36 characteristics of the sound source, distance between source and receptor,
37 receptor sensitivity, and time of day. How an individual responds to the sound
38 source will determine if the sound is viewed as music to one’s ears or as
39 annoying noise. Affected receptors are specific (i.e., schools, churches, or
40 hospitals) or broad (e.g., nature preserves or designated districts) areas in which
41 occasional or persistent sensitivity to noise above ambient levels exists.
3-5
FME005574
1 Most people are exposed to sound levels of 50 to 55 A-weighted decibel (dBA) or

2 higher on a daily basis. Studies specifically conducted to determine noise
3 impacts on various human activities show that about 90 percent of the population
4 is not significantly bothered by outdoor sound levels below 65 dBA (USEPA
5 1974). Studies of community annoyance in response to numerous types of
6 environmental noise show that A-weight Day Night Average Sound Level (ADNL)
7 correlates well with impact assessments and that there is a consistent
8 relationship between ADNL and the level of annoyance.
9 Ambient Sound Levels. Noise levels in residential areas vary depending on the
10 housing density and location. As shown in Figure 3.3-1, a suburban residential
11 area is about 55 dBA, which increases to 60 dBA for an urban residential area,
12 and 80 dBA in the downtown section of a city.
13 Construction Sound Levels. Building construction, modification, and

14 demolition work can cause an increase in sound that is well above the ambient
15 level. A variety of sounds come from graders, pavers, trucks, welders, and other
16 work processes. Table 3.3-1 lists noise levels associated with common types of
17 construction equipment that are likely to be used under the Proposed Action.
18 Construction equipment usually exceeds the ambient sound levels by 20 to 25
19 dBA in an urban environment and up to 30 to 35 dBA in a quiet suburban area.

21 The proposed border fence for the Rio Grande Valley passes through areas with
22 different acoustical environments. The ambient acoustical environment in the
23 Rio Grande Valley is primarily impacted by vehicular traffic, aircraft operations,
24 agricultural equipment, and industrial noise sources.
25 The Lower Rio Grande Valley area is composed of many different cities, towns,
26 and communities. The city of Brownsville is in the eastern section of the Rio
27 Grande Valley project area, and Rio Grande City is on the western edge of the
28 project area. In between these two cities lie the municipalities of McAllen, Alamo,
29 Weslaco, Progreso, Mercedes, Harlingen, and San Benito. Several subdivisions
30 and smaller communities also exist along the border. Each of these cities and
31 towns has its own ambient sound level depending on the size of the municipality
32 and the nearby activities.
33

3-6
FME005575
2
3 Source: Landrum & Brown 2002
4 Figure 3.3-1. Common Noise Levels

3-7
FME005576
1 Table 3.3-1. Predicted Noise Levels for Construction Equipment
Construction Category Predicted Noise Level at

and Equipment 50 feet (dBA)
Clearing and Grading
Bulldozer 80
Grader 80 - 93
Truck 83 - 94
Roller 73 - 75
Excavation
Backhoe 72 - 93
Jackhammer 81 - 98
Building Construction
Concrete mixer 74 - 88
Welding generator 71 - 82
Pile driver 91 - 105
Crane 75 - 87
Paver 86 - 88
Source: USEPA 1971
2 SR 83 passes in the vicinity of Rio Grande City and SR 281 is adjacent to

3 Progreso, Texas. CR 433 traverses the towns of McAllen, Alamo, Weslaco, and
4 Mercedes. SR 77 traverses the cities of Harlingen and Brownsville. CR 56 is
5 also a major transportation route into the Rio Grande Valley. Traffic along each
6 of these roads contributes to the ambient acoustical environment in the Rio
7 Grande Valley.
8 Brownsville/South Padre Island International Airport is approximately 4 miles east

9 of the city of Brownsville. An average of 126 aircraft operations are performed at
10 the Brownsville/South Padre Island International Airport daily. There is a railroad
11 track on the west side of Brownsville that traverses north from the U.S./Mexico
12 International border. The B&M Railroad, MP Railroad, and Union Pacific
13 Railroad are stationed at this location. In addition, there are numerous industrial
14 facilities in the city. It is estimated that proposed sites near Brownsville have
15 ambient noise levels comparable to an urban environment (50–80 dBA). McAllen
16 Miller International Airport is approximately 2 miles south of the city of McAllen
17 (Segment O-6). An average of 172 aircraft operations occur at McAllen Miller
18 International Airport (AirNav 2007b).
19 Along the U.S./Mexico International border in areas west of Brownsville,

20 agricultural activities are prominent. Agricultural equipment being used in these
21 areas can produce noise levels up to 100 dBA (Ohio State University 2007).
22 While farms are generally spread out, noise from agricultural activities is likely to

3-8
FME005577
1 extend past the farm boundaries. Agricultural activities contribute to the ambient
2 acoustical environment in the Rio Grande Valley.
3 The remaining segments in the Rio Gande Valley Sector likely have ambient
4 noise levels that are comparable to rural or suburban areas (25–55 dBA) (see
5 Figure 3.3-1).
6 3.4 LAND USE

8 The term “land use” refers to real property classifications that indicate either
9 natural conditions or the types of human activity occurring on a parcel. In many
10 cases, land use descriptions are codified in local zoning laws. There is, however,
11 no nationally recognized convention or uniform terminology for describing land
12 use categories. As a result, the meanings of various land use descriptions,
13 “labels,” and definitions vary among jurisdictions.
14 Two main objectives of land use planning are to ensure orderly growth and
15 compatible uses among adjacent property parcels or areas. Compatibility among
16 land uses fosters the societal interest of obtaining the highest and best uses of
17 real property. Tools supporting land use planning include written master
18 plans/management plans and zoning regulations. In appropriate cases, the
19 location and extent of a proposed action needs to be evaluated for its potential
20 effects on a project site and adjacent land uses. The foremost factor affecting a
21 proposed action in terms of land use is its compliance with any applicable land
22 use or zoning regulations. Other relevant factors include matters such as
23 existing land use at the project site, the types of land uses on adjacent properties
24 and their proximity to a proposed action, the duration of a proposed activity, and
25 its “permanence.”
26 Recreational resources are both natural and manmade lands designated by

27 Federal, state, and local planning entities to offer visitors and residents diverse
28 opportunities to enjoy leisure activities. Recreational resources are those places
29 or amenities set aside as parklands, trails (hiking, bicycling, equestrian, etc.),
30 recreational fields, sport or recreational venues, open spaces, aesthetically
31 pleasing landscapes, and a variety of other locales. National, state, and local
32 jurisdictions typically have designated land areas with defined boundaries for
33 recreation. Other less structured activities like hunting are performed in broad,
34 less-defined locales. A recreational setting might consist of natural or manmade
35 landscapes and can vary in size from a roadside monument to a multimillion-acre
36 wilderness area.

38 The Proposed Action is adjacent to multiple public domain lands (Federal and
39 state), agricultural lands, municipalities, industrial, and privately owned lands.

3-9
FME005578
1 Land uses were identified by using aerial photograph interpretation and the GIS
2 data showing the Proposed Action. These land uses were then divided into five
3 categories:
4 • Park/Refuge – lands owned by the Federal, state, local government, and

5 private groups such as the LRGV NWR and other natural areas
6 • Agricultural – agricultural fields
7 • Residential/Municipalities – Residential areas consist of low-density
8 housing (homes, ranches, trailers, apartments, townhouses, etc.), and
9 municipalities consist of high-density housing (homes, trailers, apartments,
10 townhouses, etc.)
11 • Undeveloped – Undeveloped lands with no houses or agricultural fields
12 • Industrial/Commercial – Warehouses, factories, businesses, etc.
13 3.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

15 Geology and soils resources include the surface and subsurface materials of the
16 earth. Within a given physiographic province, these resources typically are
17 described in terms of topography, soils, geology, minerals, and paleontology,
18 where applicable.
19 Topography is defined as the relative positions and elevations of the natural or

20 human-made features of an area that describe the configuration of its surface.
21 Regional topography is influenced by many factors, including human activity,
22 seismic activity of the underlying geologic material, climatic conditions, and
23 erosion. Information describing topography typically encompasses surface
24 elevations, slope, and physiographic features (i.e., mountains, ravines, hills,
25 plains, deltas, or depressions).
26 Site-specific geological resources typically consist of surface and subsurface

27 materials and their inherent properties. Principal factors influencing the ability of
28 geologic resources to support structural development are seismic properties (i.e.,
29 potential for subsurface shifting, faulting, or crustal disturbance), topography, and
30 soil stability.
31 Soils are the unconsolidated materials overlying bedrock or other parent material.
32 They develop from the weathering processes of mineral and organic materials
33 and are typically described in terms of landscape position, slope, and physical
34 and chemical characteristics. Soil types differ in structure, elasticity, strength,
35 shrink-swell potential, drainage characteristics, and erosion potential, which can
36 affect their ability to support certain applications or uses. In appropriate cases,
37 soil properties must be examined for compatibility with particular construction
38 activities or types of land use.

3-10
FME005579
1 Prime and unique farmland is protected under the Farmland Protection Policy Act
2 (FPPA) of 1981. Prime farmland is defined as land that has the best combination
3 of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber,
4 and oilseed crops, and is also available for these uses. Unique farmland is
5 defined as land other than prime farmland that is used for the production of
6 specific high-value food and fiber crops. It has the special combination of soil
7 quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically
8 produce sustained high quality and/or high yields of a specific crop when treated
9 and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Soil qualities, growing
10 season, and moisture supply are needed for a well-managed soil to produce a
11 sustained high yield of crops in an economic manner. The land could be
12 cropland, pasture, rangeland, or other land, but not urban built-up land or water.
13 The intent of the FPPA is to minimize the extent that Federal programs contribute
14 to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The act also
15 ensures that Federal programs are administered in a manner that, to the extent
16 practicable, will be compatible with private, state, and local government programs
17 and policies to protect farmland.
18 The implementing procedures of the FPPA and Natural Resources Conservation

19 Service (NRCS) require Federal agencies to evaluate the adverse effects (direct
20 and indirect) of their activities on prime and unique farmland, as well as farmland
21 of statewide and local importance, and to consider alternative actions that could
22 avoid adverse effects. Determination of whether an area is considered prime or
23 unique farmland and potential impacts associated with a proposed action is
24 based on preparation of the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form AD-1006
25 for areas where prime farmland soils occur and by applying criteria established at
26 Section 658.5 of the FPPA (7 CFR 658). The NRCS is responsible for
27 overseeing compliance with the FPPA and has developed the rules and
28 regulations for implementation of the act (see 7 CFR Part 658, 5 July 1984).

30 Physiography and Topography. The Rio Grande Valley Sector occupies Starr,
31 Hidalgo, and Cameron Counties in Texas along the U.S./Mexico International
32 border. The Rio Grande Valley Sector occurs in a subtropical semi-arid zone
33 located in the Gulf Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of Texas. The project
34 site occurs on two of the three Gulf Coastal Plains subprovinces, the Coastal
35 Prairies and Interior Coastal Plains. Fence Segments O-7 to O-21 occur in the
36 Coastal Plains subprovince, which is characterized by young deltaic sands, silts,
37 and clays that have eroded to nearly imperceptible slopes occupied by flat
38 grasslands. Trees are uncommon except along streams; on coarser underlying
39 sediments of ancient streams; within fencerows; on lands protected as refuges;
40 and along the Rio Grande, where sugarberry, Texas ebony, honey mesquite,
41 Mexican palm trees and citrus plantations can be found. Fence Segments O-1 to
42 O-7 occur in the Interior Coastal Plains subprovince, which is characterized by
43 alternating belts of resistant uncemented sands among weaker shales that erode
44 into long, sandy ridges. In the project area, trees are few, and barretal
3-11
FME005580
1 shrublands dominates (CR.11). The topographic profile of the project area is a

2 nearly level to rolling, slightly to moderately dissected plain that has formed
3 between the Balcones Escarpment to the north, the Lower Rio Grande to the
4 southwest, and the Gulf of Mexico to the southeast. Elevations in the Rio
5 Grande Valley Sector range from approximately mean sea level (MSL) to 10 feet
6 above MSL along the O-21 fence segment and grade gently higher with slightly
7 steeper topography to the west to approximately 50 to 80 feet above MSL along
8 the O-1 fence segment (CR.12).
9 Geology. The Rio Grande Valley Sector occurs within the Gulf Coastal Plains
10 geomorphic region. The surface geology of the Gulf Coastal Plains is
11 characterized by broad sub-parallel bands of sedimentary rocks deposited in the
12 Tertiary and Quaternary Period of the Cenozoic Era. The western end of the
13 project area, as proposed, is located in the Breaks of the Rio Grande; a region of
14 steep-sided, narrow, and deep valleys created as the north-south trending Rio
15 Grande tributaries eroded the resistant Tertiary formations. The Breaks of the
16 Rio Grande terminate near the Starr-Hidalgo County line and define the
17 beginning of the Lower Rio Grande Valley, which consist of Quaternary alluvial
18 sediments. From oldest to youngest (west to east), the Tertiary-deposited
19 sediments include the Jackson Group (made up of the Whitsett, Manning,
20 Wellborn, Caddell, Yazoo, and Moodys Branch Formations), the Catahoula and
21 Frio formations undivided, the Goliad Formation, and Uvalde gravels.
22 Quaternary-deposited sediments of the Lower Rio Grande Valley include
23 fluviatile terrace deposits, the Lissie and Beaumont formations, wind-blown
24 deposits, and the most recent alluvium deposits (DHS 2004).
25 The Jackson Group consists of Eocene Epoch volcanic and marine deposited
26 during the Tertiary Period. It is composed mostly of sandstone and tuffaceous
27 clay with some crossbeds of white volcanic ash. The Jackson Group is overlain
28 by the Catahoula and Frio formations, which are composed of mudstone;
29 sandstone; light-brown clays; gray sandy clays; and, in the basal layer, dark
30 greenish sandy clays. Towards the end of the Tertiary, large river systems
31 deposited calcareous muds formed from Cretaceous marls and limestones, over
32 broad areas of the low coastal plain. Overlaying the Catahoula and Frio
33 formations is the Goliad formation and Uvalde gravels. The Goliad formation
34 includes clay, sand, marble, and caliche with abundant reworked Cretaceous
35 Period invertebrate fossils; the caliche is locally popular, used to surface roads.
36 The Uvalde gravels are found on inter stream ridges and divides and are
37 composed of rounded flint pebbles and cobbles weathered from Lower
38 Cretaceous formations (DHS 2004).
39 During the Quaternary, a series of interglacial and glacial periods produced an

40 active environment of fluviatile deposition and subsequent erosion. Ancient river
41 systems transported enormous quantities of suspended sand and mud and
42 during interglacial periods deposited the sediments into accumulating deltas and
43 fluvial plains at the gulf. During glacial periods, the drop in sea level eroded
44 underlying fluvial deposits creating new deltas miles into the gulf. During this
3-12
FME005581
1 time, the ancestral Rio Grande cut through the older Tertiary formations and
2 remnant meander scars in the floodplain were converted into 3-to-10-foot high
3 river terraces composed of unsorted coarse sand and gravel (DHS 2004).
4 The Lissie Formation consists of thick beds of sand interbedded with clay and silt
5 with the clays predominating in the upper part. It contains thin lenses of rounded
6 gravels composed of ferruginous sandstones, quartz, and other siliceous rocks.
7 Large amounts of silicified wood are found among the gravel sheets. This
8 formation is characterized by many undrained circular or irregular depressions
9 and relict windblown sand and clay dunes that are stabilized in a northwest-
10 trending direction. The sands and clays of the Lissie formation are overlain by
11 the bluish-gray clays of the Beaumont Formation, which were deposited by
12 ancient rivers in the form of deltas or natural levees. Broad faint ridges,
13 containing more sand than the flats between them, are the remnants of natural
14 levees that formed as the ancient river shifted across the coastal lowlands. The
15 flat lowlands of the Beaumont Formation form a featureless and often marshy
16 plain, called the Coastal Prairie, as it approaches the Gulf Coast (DHS 2004).
17 The recent alluvial deposits of the Lower Rio Grande Valley are composed of
18 sedimentary rocks resulting from dissection of previous sedimentation and
19 floodplain deposition during the Modern-Holocene Period. In the Pleistocene
20 Epoch, interglacial deltas formed by the Rio Grande were combined into a larger
21 delta that extended farther beyond the current Gulf Coast. The modern coastal
22 barrier island system was formed by the subsidence and compaction of this
23 ancient delta. During the sea level rise of the Holocene, brackish water
24 inundated the ancient valley, creating an estuarine environment that was
25 eventually replaced by fertile floodplain deposits of the Lower Rio Grande Valley
26 as it graded to its present level (DHS 2004).
27 Soils. Generally the soils of the Rio Grande Valley Sector are loamy to clayey,
28 moderately to slowly permeable, and occur on nearly level to gentle slopes.
29 None of the soil map units occurring within the portion of the corridor in Starr
30 County were designated as farmland of importance. In Hidalgo County, soils of
31 the Camargo, Cameron, Laredo, Matamoros, Olmito, Reynosa, Rio Grande, and
32 Runn series within the project corridor were classified as prime farmland soils;
33 and soils of the Arents, McAllen, and Raymondville series within the project
34 corridor were classified as prime farmland soils if irrigated. In Cameron County,
35 soils of the Camargo, Cameron, Laredo, Matamoros, Olmito, and Rio Grande
36 series within the project corridor were classified as prime farmland soils; and the
37 Harlingen series and Laredo-Olmito complex soils within the project corridor were
38 classified as prime farmland soils if irrigated. In Starr County, soils classified as
39 hydric and that potentially occur within the proposed project corridor are soils of
40 the Grulla series. In Hidalgo County, soils classified as hydric and that occur
41 within the proposed project corridor are soils of the Grulla and McAllen series. In
42 Cameron County, soils classified as hydric and that occur within the proposed
43 project corridor are Ustifluvents and soils of the Benito, Chargo, Grulla, Sejita,
44 and Tiocanosoil series (CR.3). Hydric soils are soils that are saturated, flooded,
3-13
FME005582
1 or have ponding sufficiently long during the growing season to develop anaerobic
2 (oxygen-deficient) conditions in upper horizons. The presence of hydric soil is
3 one of the three criteria (hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland
4 hydrology) used to determine that an area is a wetland based on the USACE
5 Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1 (CR.4). See Appendix F
6 for a Mapbook of soil units within the project area. The properties of soil map
7 units identified in Starr Hidalgo and Cameron counties are located Appendix G.
8 3.6 WATER RESOURCES

10 Hydrology and Groundwater. Evaluations of hydrology and groundwater
11 examine the quantity and quality of the water resource and its demand for
12 various human purposes. Hydrology consists of the redistribution of water
13 through the processes of evapotranspiration, surface runoff, and subsurface flow.
14 Hydrology results primarily from temperature and total precipitation which
15 determine evapotranspiration rates, topography which determine rate and
16 direction of surface flow, and soil properties which determine rate of subsurface
17 flow and recharge to the groundwater reservoir. Groundwater consists of
18 subsurface hydrologic resources. It is an essential resource that functions to
19 recharge surface water and is used for drinking, irrigation, and industrial
20 processes. Groundwater typically can be described in terms of depth from the
21 surface, aquifer or well capacity, water quality, recharge rate, and surrounding
22 geologic formations.
23 The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2011-300) establishes
24 a Federal program to monitor and increase the safety of all commercially and
25 publicly supplied drinking water. Congress amended the SDWA in 1986,
26 mandating changes in nationwide safeguards for drinking water and establishing
27 new Federal enforcement responsibility on the part of USEPA. The 1986
28 amendments to the SDWA require USEPA to establish Maximum Contaminant
29 Levels (MCLs), Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs), and Best
30 Available Technology (BAT) treatment techniques for organic, inorganic,
31 radioactive, and microbial contaminants; and turbidity. MCLGs are maximum
32 concentrations below which no negative human health effects are known to exist.
33 The 1996 amendments set current Federal MCLs, MCLGs, and BATs for
34 organic, inorganic, microbiological, and radiological contaminants in public
35 drinking water supplies.
36 Surface Water and Waters of the United States. Surface water resources
37 generally consist of lakes, rivers, and streams. Surface water is important for its
38 contributions to the economic, ecological, recreational, and human health of a
39 community or locale.
40 The CWA (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) sets the basic structure for regulating
41 discharges of pollutants to U.S. waters. Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C.
3-14
FME005583
1 1344) establishes a Federal program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill
2 material into waters of the United States. The USACE administers the permitting
3 program for the CWA. Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires that
4 proposed dredge and fill activities permitted under Section 404 be reviewed and
5 certified by the designated state agency that the proposed project will meet state
6 water quality standards. The Federal permit is deemed to be invalid unless it has
7 been certified by the state. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states and
8 USEPA to identify waters not meeting state water-quality standards and to
9 develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and an implementation plan to
10 reduce contributing sources of pollution.
11 Waters of the United States are defined within the CWA of 1972, as amended,
12 and jurisdiction is addressed by USEPA and the USACE. Both agencies assert
13 jurisdiction over (1) traditional navigable waters, (2) wetlands adjacent to
14 navigable waters, (3) nonnavigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that
15 are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-around or have
16 continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months), and (4) wetlands
17 that directly abut such tributaries.
18 The CWA (as amended in 1977) established the basic structure for regulating
19 discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The objective of the
20 CWA is restoration and maintenance of chemical, physical, and biological
21 integrity of U.S. waters. To achieve this objective several goals were enacted,
22 including (1) discharge of pollutants into navigable waters be eliminated by 1985;
23 (2) water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish,
24 shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved
25 by 1983; (3) discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited; (4)
26 Federal financial assistance be provided to construct publicly owned waste
27 treatment works; (5) the national policy that areawide waste treatment
28 management planning processes be developed and implemented to ensure
29 adequate control of sources of pollutants in each state; (6) the national policy that
30 a major research and demonstration effort be made to develop technology
31 necessary to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters, waters
32 of the contiguous zone, and the oceans; and (7) the national policy that programs
33 developed and implemented in an expeditious manner so as to enable the goals
34 to be met through the control of both point and nonpoint sources of pollution.
35 The USACE regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material (e.g., concrete,
36 riprap, soil, cement block, gravel, sand.) into waters of the United States
37 including adjacent wetlands under Section 404 of the CWA and work on/or
38 structures in or affecting navigable waters of the United States under Section 10
39 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
40 Wetlands are an important natural system and habitat, performing diverse

41 biologic and hydrologic functions. These functions include water quality
42 improvement, groundwater recharge and discharge, pollution mitigation, nutrient
43 cycling, wildlife habitat provision, unique flora and fauna niche provision, storm
44 water attenuation and storage, sediment detention, and erosion protection,
3-15
FME005584
1 among others. Wetlands are protected as a subset of the waters of the United
2 States under Section 404 of the CWA. The term “waters of the U.S.” has a broad
3 meaning under the CWA and incorporates deepwater aquatic habitats and
4 special aquatic habitats (including wetlands). The USACE defines wetlands as
5 “those areas that are inundated or saturated with ground or surface water at a
6 frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
7 circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in
8 saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs,
9 and similar areas” (33 CFR 328).
10 Floodplains. Floodplains are areas of low-level ground and alluvium adjacent to

11 rivers, stream channels, or coastal waters. Such lands might be subject to
12 periodic or infrequent inundation due to runoff of rain or melting snow. Risk of
13 flooding typically hinges on local topography, the frequency of precipitation
14 events, and the size of the watershed upstream from the floodplain. Flood
15 potential is evaluated by FEMA, which defines the 100-year floodplain. The 100-
16 year floodplain is the area that has a 1 percent chance of inundation by a flood
17 event in a given year. Certain facilities inherently pose too great a risk to be
18 constructed in either the 100- or 500-year floodplain, including hospitals, schools,
19 or storage buildings for irreplaceable records. Federal, state, and local
20 regulations often limit floodplain development to passive uses, such as
21 recreational and preservation activities, to reduce the risks to human health and
22 safety.
23 EO 11988, Floodplain Management, requires Federal agencies to determine

24 whether a proposed action would occur within a floodplain. This determination
25 typically involves consultation of appropriate FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps
26 (FIRMs), which contain enough general information to determine the relationship
27 of the project area to nearby floodplains. EO 11988 directs Federal agencies to
28 avoid floodplains unless the agency determines that there is no practicable
29 alternative. Where the only practicable alternative is to site in a floodplain, a
30 specific step-by-step process must be followed to comply with EO 11988 outlined
31 in the FEMA document Further Advice on EO 11988 Floodplain Management.
32 As a planning tool, the NEPA process incorporates floodplain management
33 through analysis and public coordination of the EA.

35 Hydrology and Groundwater. The Proposed Action is located in the Rio
36 Grande Drainage Basin, which comprises an area of approximately 355,500
37 square miles. Much of the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo (on the Mexico side) drainage
38 basins are comprised of rural, undeveloped land used primarily for farming and
39 ranching. Water development projects in the Lower Rio Grande Valley have
40 disrupted natural flow regimes, including structures such as Anzalduas Dam,
41 Falcon Dam, and Amistad Dam. Substantial quantities of surface water are
42 diverted from the Rio Grande to meet municipal, industrial, and agricultural
43 demands in Texas and Mexico, with a significant portion used in the Lower Rio
3-16
FME005585
1 Grande Valley for farming and urban applications. Most of the water diverted in
2 the Lower Rio Grande Valley is not returned to the river as irrigation tailwater or
3 treated wastewater effluent. The used water is not returned to the Rio Grande
4 because the land naturally slopes away from the river channel. The return flows
5 are usually discharged into constructed drainage ditches/channels and floodways
6 that eventually flow into the Laguna Madre estuary, and ultimately into the Gulf of
7 Mexico (VW.022).
8 The major aquifer within the Lower Rio Grande Valley is the Gulf Coast Aquifer.
9 The aquifer consists of alternating beds of clay, silt, sand, and gravel that are
10 hydrologically connected to form a large, leaky, artesian system. Challenges
11 related to withdrawal of groundwater from the Gulf Coast Aquifer include land-
12 surface subsidence, increased chloride content in the groundwater from the
13 southwest portion of the aquifer, and saltwater intrusion along the coast
14 (VW.015).
15 In Cameron County the major source of groundwater is the Lower Rio Grande
16 Valley Alluvium Aquifer, which consists of recent deposits of unconsolidated
17 sand, silt, gravel, and clay. The aquifer is close to the Rio Grande in an area
18 bounded by the river on the south and Highway 83 on the north. Water in the
19 Lower Rio Grande Valley Alluvium Aquifer is characterized by high
20 concentrations of chloride, dissolved solids, boron, and sodium. The water does
21 not meet U.S. drinking water standards (VW.015).
22 Surface Waters and Waters of the U.S. The predominant surface water feature
23 in the Area of the Proposed Action is the Rio Grande. The combined Rio
24 Grande/Rio Bravo (in Mexico) drainage is one of the longest rivers in North
25 America, and an important river basin to both the U.S. and Mexico. The
26 allocation of Rio Grande water between the two countries is governed by a treaty
27 signed in 1944.
28 The Rio Grande main channel lies south of the impact corridor associated with
29 the Proposed Action (VW.022). In 1932, an agreement was reached between
30 the U.S. and Mexico to develop a coordinated plan to protect the Lower Rio
31 Grande Valley against flooding from the Rio Grande in both countries (VW.009).
32 This agreement was developed by the IBWC and resulted in the Lower Rio
33 Grande Flood Control Project (LRGFCP) (VW.009).
34 The LRGFCP is designed for flood protection of urban, suburban, and highly
35 developed irrigated farm lands in the Rio Grande delta in both countries. The
36 LRGFCP flood levees are grass-covered earthen structures, with a distance
37 between the U.S. and Mexico levees ranging from approximately 400 feet to 3
38 miles. The LRGFCP is jointly operated by the U.S. IBWC and Mexican IBWC to
39 convey excess floodwaters of the Rio Grande to the Gulf of Mexico via the river
40 channel and U.S. and Mexican interior floodways (VW.009). The LRGFCP
41 includes approximately 180 miles of levees within the project area.

3-17
FME005586
1 Surface water features that could be potentially classified as waters of the U.S. in
2 the proposed impact corridor include arroyos, resacas, lakes, ponds, irrigation
3 canals, drainage ditches, and wetlands typically formed from irrigation
4 wastewater flows or groundwater seepage (see Appendix F). Arroyos are deep,
5 narrow intermittently flooded drainages that flow down bluff faces into the Rio
6 Grande. Resacas are oxbow lakes which have formed in historic floodplain
7 channels of the Rio Grande. Dams and levees for flood control and water
8 storage along the Rio Grande River have severed the natural surface water
9 connection between the river and most of the resacas, although groundwater
10 flows are thought to be intact. Resacas are typically filled by pumping water from
11 the Rio Grande, rainfall, or input of irrigation return flows.
12 Segments O-1, O-2, and O-3 between Roma and Los Ebanos are characterized
13 by rugged river banks and steep bluffs, arroyos, and rapid erosion; there are no
14 levees constructed within these segments. Arroyos are intermittently flooded
15 drainages that flow into the Rio Grande. Segments O-4 through O-21 are
16 characterized by lakes, ponds, levees, public water canals, irrigation canals, and
17 drainage ditches.
18 Wetlands are also potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and can be
19 associated with all of the above surface water features. Wetlands have been
20 identified along the proposed impact corridor based on vegetation and hydrology.
21 Wetland indicator species are listed in Appendix I and include: (1) Mule’s Fat
22 Shrubland, (2) Black Willow Woodland/Shrubland, (3) Giant Reed Herbaceous
23 Vegetation, (4) Common Reed Herbaceous Vegetation, (5) Alkali Sacaton
24 Herbaceous Vegetation, (6) Narrowleaf Cattail, and (7) Smartweed Herbaceous
25 Vegetation. A few floating aquatic communities have also become established
26 on some small ponds. A more complete description of these potential wetland
27 communities is presented in Appendix I. Mule’s Fat Shrubland is associated
28 with near-to-surface ground water or occasional standing water, characterized by
29 stands in Segment O-3 and O-13. Black Willow Woodland/Shrubland is
30 associated with Rio Grande canals, drainage ditches, and ponds, characterized
31 by stands in Segments O-3, O-8, O-13, O-14, and O-20. Giant Reed
32 Herbaceous Vegetation is associated with ditch and canal banks, standing water
33 in ditches, and near to surface groundwater, characterized by stands in
34 Segments O-2, O-9, and O-14. Common Reed Herbaceous vegetation was
35 observed in narrow strips along canal banks and is relatively rare within the
36 project corridor. Alkali Sacaton Herbaceous Vegetation occupies shallow
37 depressions that likely capture runoff, and was observed only in Segment O-4.
38 Narrowleaf Cattail Stands occur along perennial water bodies, specifically pond
39 shorelines as characterized in Segment O-8. Smartweed Herbaceous
40 Vegetation was observed in the bottom of one canal or large irrigation ditch in
41 Segment O-14. The location of potential wetlands identified during the October
42 2007 natural resources survey are presented in Appendix F.
43 The combined use of irrigation and application of fertilizers, pesticides, and

44 herbicides results in the contamination of agricultural drainage ditches and
3-18
FME005587
1 resacas in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. These waters are eventually
2 discharged into the Laguna Madre (VW.012). Because resacas are also integral
3 parts of the urban storm water drainage system in the Lower Rio Grande Valley,
4 they are subject to urban non-point source pollution such as pesticides (e.g.
5 chlordane), automotive oil, grease and metals, fertilizers, sewage, and dissolved
6 salts. Resacas can also be affected negatively if they receive contaminated river
7 water for municipal water storage or irrigation. In addition, there are concerns
8 about illegal dumping into resacas (VW.020).
9 Floodplains. Segments O-1 and O-2 occur in the 100-year floodplain of the Rio
10 Grande, as identified on the January 2, 1981, FEMA FIRM Panel No.
11 4805750014A for Starr County, Texas. As illustrated, Segments O-1 and O-2
12 are located in Zone A designation. Zone A is the flood insurance rate zone that
13 corresponds to the 100-year floodplain determined in the Flood Insurance Study
14 (FIS) by approximate methods (AP.001, AP.003). Therefore, it cannot be
15 determined if portions of Segments O-1 and O-2 occur in the 100-year floodplain,
16 as they occupy bluffs and the valley rim. As described in Section 3.5.2 the
17 topography of these segments is characterized by rugged river banks (at the Rio
18 Grande), arroyos, and heavy erosion with no levees.
19 Segment O-3 is also in the 100-year floodplain of the Rio Grande, as identified
20 on the January 2, 1981 FEMA FIRM Panel No. 4803340375B for Hidalgo
21 County, Texas. Segment O-3 would be located within FEMA Zone A23, which is
22 one of the flood insurance rate zones that correspond to the 100-year floodplains
23 that are determined in the FIS by detailed methods (AP.001, AP.003). The
24 topography and surface waters of Segment O-3 are similar to that of Segments
25 O-1 and O-2.
26 Segments O-4 and O-5 do not lie within the 100-year floodplain. These
27 proposed fence segments would follow the IBWC levee system as discussed in
28 Section 2.3, and would be outside the current FEMA 100-year flood zone and the
29 IBWC international drainage. Areas outside the 100-year flood zone are
30 generally zoned B, C and X. FEMA defines Zones B, C and X as zones that
31 correspond to areas outside the 100-year floodplains, areas of 100-year sheet
32 flow flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 100-year
33 stream flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile,
34 or areas protected from the 100-year flood by levees (AP.001, AP.003)
35 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

37 Vegetation. Vegetation resources include native or naturalized plants and
38 serves as habitat for a variety of animal species. This section describes the
39 affected environment for native and nonnative vegetation.

3-19
FME005588
1 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources. Wildlife and aquatic resources include native
2 or naturalized animals and the habitats in which they exist.
3 Special Status Species. Three groups of special status species are addressed
4 in this EIS: Federal threatened and endangered species, state threatened and
5 endangered species, and migratory birds. Each group has its own definitions,
6 and legislative and regulatory drivers for consideration during the NEPA process;
7 these are briefly described below.
8 The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-
9 1544 et seq.) provides broad protection for species of fish, wildlife, and plants
10 that are listed as threatened or endangered in the U.S. or elsewhere. Provisions
11 are made for listing species, as well as for recovery plans and the designation of
12 critical habitat for listed species. Section 7 of the ESA outlines procedures for
13 Federal agencies to follow when taking actions that may jeopardize listed
14 species, and contains exceptions and exemptions. Criminal and civil penalties
15 are provided for violations of the ESA.
16 Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act directs all Federal agencies to use their
17 existing authorities to conserve threatened and endangered species and, in
18 consultation with the USFWS, to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize listed
19 species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Section 7 applies to
20 management of Federal lands as well as other Federal actions that may affect
21 listed species, such as approval of private activities through the issuance of
22 Federal permits, licenses, or other actions.
23 Under the ESA a Federal endangered species is defined as any species which is
24 in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The
25 ESA defines a Federal threatened species as any species which is likely to
26 become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
27 significant portion of its range.
28 In 1973, the Texas legislature authorized the Texas Parks and Wildlife
29 Department (TPWD) to establish a list of endangered animals in the state. State
30 endangered species are those species which the Executive Director of the
31 TPWD has named as being "threatened with statewide extinction.” Threatened
32 species are those species which the TPWD has determined are likely to become
33 endangered in the future (MG.2).
34 In 1988 the Texas legislature authorized TPWD to establish a list of threatened

35 and endangered plant species for the state. An endangered plant is one that is
36 "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A
37 threatened plant is one that is likely to become endangered within the
38 foreseeable future (MG.2).
39 TPWD regulations prohibit the taking, possession, transportation, or sale of any

40 of the animal species designated by state law as endangered or threatened

3-20
FME005589
1 without the issuance of a permit. State laws and regulations prohibit commerce
2 in threatened and endangered plants and the collection of listed plant species
3 from public land without a permit issued by TPWD. Listing and recovery of
4 endangered species in Texas is coordinated by the Wildlife Division. The TPWD
5 Wildlife Permitting Section is responsible for the issuance of permits for the
6 handling of listed species (MG.2).
7 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703–712) as amended,
8 implements various treaties for the protection of migratory birds. Under the
9 MBTA, taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds is unlawful without a valid
10 permit. Under EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect
11 Migratory Birds, the USFWS has the responsibility to administer, oversee, and
12 enforce the conservation provisions of the MBTA, which includes responsibility
13 for population management (e.g., monitoring), habitat protection (e.g.,
14 acquisition, enhancement, and modification), international coordination, and
15 regulations development and enforcement. The MBTA defines a migratory bird
16 as any bird listed in 50 C.F.R. 10.13, which includes nearly every native bird in
17 North America.
18 The MBTA and EO 13186 require Federal agencies to minimize or avoid impacts
19 to migratory birds listed in 50 CFR 10.13. If design and implementation of a
20 Federal action cannot avoid measurable negative impact to migratory birds, EO
21 13186 requires the responsible agency to consult with the USFWS and obtain a
22 Migratory Bird Depredation Permit.

24 [[Preparer’s Note: The following descriptions of Vegetation, Wildlife and
25 Aquatic Resources, Special Status Species, and Potential Habitat are based
26 on preliminary results of the Phase I Biological Resources Survey
27 conducted in October 2007 (e2M In Prep.). The October 2007 surveys
28 covered as much of the fence alignment known as of 2 October 2007, as
29 well as the local CBP agents’ understanding of the fence alignment at the
30 time of the survey. The Phase I surveys will be finalized once ROEs and
31 NWR Special Use Permits have been obtained, and fence laydown
32 (including access roads and staging areas) is fully identified. Once the
33 Phase I surveys have been conducted, the Biological Resources Survey
34 Report (e2M In Prep) will be completed and will replace the interim report
35 presented in Appendix I. In addition, once contracted, Phase 2 Biological
36 Resources Surveys will be conducted and will include delineation of
37 wetlands and waters of the U.S.]]
38 Vegetation. The following is a summary of the results of the vegetation

39 description and classification based on the October 2007 Phase I Biological
40 Resources survey (e2M In Prep). The native vegetation of the corridor was
41 sampled using walking and driving survey techniques that were dependent on
42 vegetation distribution, and land use (e2M in Prep). A more detailed description of

3-21
FME005590
1 vegetation and classification, including plant species recorded for the O-1
2 through O-21 Segments and their wetland indicator status (NRCS 2007) when
3 appropriate, is presented in Appendix I.
4 [[Preparer’s Note: e²M field teams are currently gathering biological

5 information for each potential fence site. A Field Survey Report will be
6 included as part of Appendix I when it becomes available. ]]
7
8 NatureServe (NatureServe 2007) has defined ecological systems to represent

9 recurring groups of biological communities that are found in similar physical
10 environments and are influenced by similar dynamic ecological processes such
11 as fire or flooding. Ecological systems represent classification units that are
12 readily identifiable by conservation and resource managers in the field. Table
13 3.7-1 indicates which of the eight NatureServe ecological systems in each
14 proposed fence segment along the survey corridor (NatureServe 2007)
15 In general range from upland thornscrub on the western end of proposed

16 Segment O-1, upper and mid-valley riparian forest and woodland communities
17 throughout the proposed middle segments, and sabal palm and mid-delta thorn
18 forests within proposed Segment O-21 (e2M In Prep). Much of the vegetation
19 cover consists of nonnative grassland species that are themselves dominant or
20 often support an overstory of honey mesquite, retama, or huisache shrubs or
21 small trees. Agricultural fields occur along much of the corridor as proposed and
22 include sugar cane, sorghum, Johnsongrass, sunflowers, cotton, row crop
23 vegetables particularly onions, citrus trees (grapefruit and orange), and fields that
24 were fallow at the time of site visit. Urban development and private property with
25 single homes occur adjacent to several proposed segments. A detailed
26 description of vegetation resources can be found in Appendix I.

3-22
FME005591
Table 3.7-1. Ecological Systems Present in Each Proposed Fence Segment
Fence Segments
Vegetation
Classifications
O-10
O-11
O-12
O-13
O-14
O-15
O-16
O-17
O-18
O-19
O-20
O-21
O-1
O-2
O-3
O-4
O-5
O-6
O-7
O-8
O-9
Tamaulipan
Calcareous X
Thornscrub
Tamaulipan
Mesquite Upland X X X X X X X X X
Scrub
Tamaulipan Mixed
3-23
Deciduous X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Thornscrub
Tamaulipan
Savanna X X X
Grassland
Tamaulipan Arroyo
X X
Shrubland
Tamaulipan

X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Floodplain
Tamaulipan Palm
October 2007
Grove Riparian X
Forest

3-23
FME005592
Fence Segments
Vegetation
Classifications
O-10
O-11
O-12
O-13
O-14
O-15
O-16
O-17
O-18
O-19
O-20
O-21
O-1
O-2
O-3
O-4
O-5
O-6
O-7
O-8
O-9
North American
Arid West X X X X
Emergent Marsh
Non-native
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
species
3-24

October 2007

3-24
FME005593
1 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources. The Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) is a
2 highly distinctive subregion of the South Texas Plains. The South Texas Plains
3 ecoregion consists mostly of level to rolling terrain characterized by dense brush.
4 Usually defined as Cameron, Willacy, Hidalgo, and Starr counties, the LRGV
5 contains the only subtropical area in Texas. The LRGV brushland is considered
6 an ecological transition zone between Mexico and the United States. This key
7 community supports many rare, threatened and endangered species and is a
8 stop-over for migrating neotropical birds (MG.10).
9 Most of the 70 miles of the proposed corridor has been heavily disturbed by
10 agriculture and grazing; however, some high quality habitat was identified during
11 the October 2007 survey (e2M In Prep). Unique habitat includes: wetlands,
12 riparian areas, arroyos, and LRGVNWR, Texas State parks, and Wildlife
13 Management Areas (WMA).
14 There are presently three NWRs in LRGV including Santa Ana NWR and
15 LRGVNWR, which form a complex rather than two separate entities, and Laguna
16 Atascosa NWR, which is located outside the project area.
17 Santa Ana NWR contains one of the largest remaining tracts of subtropical
18 riparian forest and native brushland in south Texas and provides habitat for more
19 endangered and threatened species than any other U.S. NWR (MG. 8).
20 The LRGVNWR, established February 2, 1979, is a component of a multi-partner

21 effort attempting to connect and protect blocks of rare and unique habitat, known
22 locally as a Wildlife Corridor. The Wildlife Corridor partnership includes USFWS,
23 TPWD, National Audubon Society, and private owners. Found within the lower
24 four counties of Texas, the refuge currently contains more than 90,000 acres and
25 is considered a top priority acquisition area by the USFWS. The refuge provides
26 breeding and foraging habitat for numerous coastal wetland, inland wetland, and
27 upland migratory bird species, and numerous other amphibians, reptiles, and
28 mammal species (MG.7). USFWS-described biotic communities located along
29 the survey corridor are described in the Vegetation Section.
30 There are several tracts of land owned by TPWD and private conservation
31 organizations throughout the LRGV. The TPWD administers the Las Palomas
32 WMA in Cameron, Hidalgo, Presidio, Starr, and Willacy counties. Bentsen-Rio
33 Grande State Park is located southwest of McAllen adjacent to the Rio Grande.
34 The National Audubon Society’s Texas Sabal Palm Sanctuary is south of
35 Brownsville along the Rio Grande (MG. 8).
36 The fauna representative of the LRGV region is characterized as semi-tropical,

37 with some tropical species at the northern limit of their ranges and, additionally,
38 some Chihuahuan desert species. This region was once open grassland with a
39 scattering of shrubs, low trees, and wooded flood plains along rivers.
40 Overgrazing, the suppression of prairie fires, and other changes in land use

3-25
FME005594
1 patterns have transformed most of the grasslands into a thorn forest, covered
2 with subtropical shrubs and trees (CBP 2003b).
3 Common wildlife species observed during the October 2007 surveys are listed in
4 Table 3.7-2.
5 Table 3.7-2. Common Wildlife Species Observed

6 in the Rio Grande Valley Sector
Common Name Scientific Name

FISH
Mosquito Fish Gambusia affinis
Texas Cichlid Herichthys cyanoguttatus
AMPHIBIANS
Giant (Marine) Toad Bufo marinus
Gulf Coast Toad Bufo valliceps
Rio Grande Chirping Frog Syrrhophus cystignathoides campi
Rio Grande Leopard Frog Rana berlandieri
Rio Grande River Cooter Pseudemys concinna gorzugi
Texas Spiny Softshell Turtle Apalone spinifera emoryi
REPTILES
Blue Spiny Lizard Sceloporus serrifer cyanogenys
Laredo Striped Whiptail Aspidoscelis laredoensis
Prairie Racerunner Aspidoscelis sexlineatus viridis
BIRDS
American Avocet Recurvirostra americana
American Kestrel Falco sparverius
Anhinga Anhinga anhinga
Barn Owl Tyto alba
Barn Swallow Riparia riparia
Black Vulture Coragyps atratus
Black-bellied Whistling Duck Dendrocygna autumnalis
Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus
Bobwhite Colinus virginianus
Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus
Bronzed Cowbird Molothrus aeneus
Brown Jay Cyanocorax morio
Brown-crested Flycatcher Myiarchus tyrannulus
Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater
Cactus Wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus
Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis
Chihuahuan Raven Corvus cryptoleucus
BIRDS (continued)

3-26
FME005595

Common Ground Dove Columbina passerina
Couch's Kingbird Tyrannus couchii
Crested Caracara Caracara plancus
Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus
Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna
European Starling Sturnus vulgaris
Golden-fronted Woodpecker Melanerpes aurifrons
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias
Great Egret Ardea alba
Great Kiskadee Flycatcher Pitangus sulphuratus
Greater Roadrunner Geococcyx californianus
Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca
Great-tailed Grackle Quiscalus mexicanus
Green Heron Butorides virescens
Green Jay Cyanocorax yncas
Groove-billed Ani Crotophaga sulcirostris
Harris's Hawk Parabuteo unicintus
Hooded Oriole Icterus cucullatus
House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus
House Sparrow Passer domesticus
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus
Lesser Nighthawk Chordeiles acutipennis
Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus
Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus
Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus
Long-billed Thrasher Toxostoma longirostre
Mourning Dove Zenaida aurtia
Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis
Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus
Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
Pied -billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps
Plain Chachalaca Ortalis vetula
Purple Gallinule Porphyrula martinica
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus
Rock Pigeon Columba livia
Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Tyrannus forticatus
Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura

3-27
FME005596

BIRDS (continued)
Vermillion Flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus
Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri
White Ibis Eudocimus albus
White-winged Dove Zenaida asiatica
MAMMALS
Bobcat Lynx rufus
Collared Peccary (Javelina) Tayassu tajacu
Common Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Common Raccoon Procyon lotor
Coyote Canis latrans
Desert Cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii
Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus
Fulvous Harvest Mouse Reithrodointomys fulvescens
Gulf Coast Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys compactus
Hispid Cotton Rat Sigmodon hispidus
Mexican Ground Squirrel Spermophilus mexicanus
Nine-banded Armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus
Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis
Source: e2M In Prep
1
2 Past collections of fish from the Lower Rio Grande suggest two indigenous faunal
3 assemblages, upstream and downstream. A total of 104 species of fish have
4 been recorded from the Lower Rio Grande (Falcon Reservoir to Boca Chica).
5 The upstream fauna is dominated by minnows and sunfishes, while the
6 downstream fauna includes dominant estuarine and marine species of herrings,
7 drums, and jacks (MG.9).
8 Two fish species, Texas cichlid (Herichthys cyanoguttatus) and mosquito fish
9 (Gambusia affinis), were observed in irrigation ditches during the October 2007
10 surveys (e2M In Prep).
11 Special Status Species. [[Preparer’s Note: Full descriptions of federally

12 listed species will be updated when the Phase I surveys are complete, and
13 those data as well as the dataset from NatureServe have been incorporated
14 into the analysis. Additional information will also be added through the
15 Section 7 Consultation process with the USFWS.]]
16 There are 52 state-listed taxa that have the potential to occur within or proximal
17 to the proposed fence corridors in Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron Counties in the
18 LRGV, including: 4 fish; 6 amphibians; 8 reptiles; 22 birds; 5 mammals; and 7
19 plants (see Table 3.7-3). Of those, 12 are also federally listed species including:
20 3 birds; 2 mammals; and 7 plants. No Federal threatened or endangered species

3-28
FME005597
1 were observed during the October 2007 surveys (e2M In Prep). State-listed
2 species observed during the October 2007 surveys included the Mexican treefrog
3 (Smilisca baudinii) and the Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum).
4 Potential habitat for the white-lipped frog (Leptodactylus labialis) and Mexican
5 burrowing toad (Rhinophrynus dorsalis) was observed in Segments O-8 and O-2,
6 respectively. State-listed species observed and species with potential habitat in
7 the project area are described below.
8 Table 3.7-3. Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species

9 in Texas, by County
Federal State
Common Name Scientific Name County
Status1 Status
FISH
Blackfin goby Gobionellus atripinnis C T
Opossum pipefish Microphis brachyurus C T
Rio Grande silvery
Hybognathus amarus S, H, C E
minnow
River goby Awaous banana H, C T
AMPHIBIANS
Black spotted newt Notophthalmus meridionalis S, H, C T
Mexican burrowing toad Rhinophrynus dorsalis S T
Mexican treefrog Smilisca baudinii S, H, C T
Sheep frog Hypopachus variolosus S, H, C T
South Texas siren
Siren sp 1 S, H, C T
(large form)
White-lipped frog Leptodactylus fragilis S, H, C T
REPTILES
Black-striped snake Coniophanes imperialis H, C T
Indigo snake Drymarchon corais S, H, C T
Northern cat-eyed Leptodeira septentrionalis
S, H, C T
snake septentrionalis
Reticulate collared
Crotaphytus reticulatus S, H T
lizard
Speckled racer Drymobius margaritiferus H, C T
Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum S, H, C T
Texas scarlet snake Cemophora coccinea lineri C T
Texas tortoise Gopherus berlandieri S, H T
BIRDS
American peregrine
Falco peregrinus anatum S, H, C E
falcon
Arctic peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius S, H, C T
Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis C E E

3-29
FME005598
Federal State
Common Name Scientific Name County
Status1 Status
BIRDS (continued)
Cactus ferruginous Glaucidium brasilianum
S, H, C T
pygmy-owl cactorum
Common black-hawk Buteogallus anthracinus S, H, C T
Eskimo curlew Numenius borealis C E
Gray hawk Asturina nitida S, H, C T
Least tern Sterna antillarum S, H, C E E
Mexican hooded oriole Icterus cucullatus cucullatus S T
Northern Aplomado
Falco femoralis septentrionalis C E E
falcon
Northern beardless-
Camptostoma imberbe S, H, C T
tyrannulet
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus S, H, C E, T
Piping plover Charadrius melodus C T T
Reddish egret Egretta rufescens H, C T
Rose-throated becard Pachyramphus aglaiae S, H, C T
Sooty tern Sterna fuscata C T
Texas Botteri's sparrow Aimophila botterii texana H, C T
Tropical parula Parula pitiayumi S, H, C T
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi H, C T
White-tailed hawk Buteo albicaudatus S, H, C T
Wood stork Mycteria americana S, C T
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus S, C T
MAMMALS
Coues' rice rat Oryzomys couesi S, H, C T
Gulf Coast jaguarundi Herpailurus (=Felis) yaguarondi S, H, C E E
Ocelot Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis S, H, C E E
Southern yellow bat Lasiurus ega H, C T
White-nosed coati Nasua narica S, H, C T
PLANTS
Ashy dogweed Thymophylla tephroleuca S E E
Johnston's frankenia Frankenia johnstonii S E E
South Texas ambrosia Ambrosia cheiranthifolia C E E
Star cactus Astrophytum asterias S, H, E E
Texas ayenia Ayenia limitaris H E E
Walker's manioc Manihot walkerae S, H E E
Zapata bladderpod Lesquerella thamnophila S E E
Sources: (MG.1) (CAS.1)
Notes:
S: Starr County, Texas
H: Hidalgo County, Texas
C: Cameron County, Texas
1
E = endangered; T = Threatened

3-30
FME005599
1 Mexican Treefrog (Smilisca baudinii)
2 The Mexican treefrog is found along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and inland
3 from South Texas into northern Mexico. In Texas, it is found in the extreme
4 southern tip of the state. This nocturnal frog prefers sub-humid regions and
5 breeding occurs year-round with rainfall. It is seen near streams and in resacas.
6 It finds shelter under loose tree bark or in damp soil during the heat of the day
7 (MG.5). This species was observed in Segment O-10.
8 Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)
9 The Texas horned lizard ranges from the south-central United States to northern
10 Mexico, throughout much of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and New Mexico. It can
11 be found in arid and semiarid habitats in open areas with sparse plant cover.
12 Because horned lizards dig for hibernation, nesting and insulation purposes, they
13 commonly are found in loose sand or loamy soils (MG.6). This species was
14 observed in Segment O-2.
15 White-Lipped Frog (Leptodactylus labialis)
16 The white-lipped frog is found in the extreme southern tip of Texas. This frog's
17 habitat consists of various moist places including roadside ditches, irrigated
18 fields, and low grasslands. This nocturnal frog burrows in the damp soil during
19 the day and forages at night. Breeding takes place in the Spring with heavy rains
20 (MG.5). Potential habitat for this species was observed in Segment O-8, but no
21 individuals were found.
22 Mexican Burrowing Toad (Rhinophrynus dorsalis)
23 The Mexican burrowing toad is found in extreme South Texas. This nocturnal
24 frog prefers low areas with loose soil (i.e., cultivated fields) and feeds on termites
25 and ants. Breeding occurs after heavy rains (MG.5). Potential habitat for this
26 species was observed in Segment O-2, but no individuals were found.
27 [[Preparer’s Note: Information will be updated when surveys on Refuge

28 lands are allowed and completed, and when species location data from
29 NatureServe are delivered.]]
30 The LRGV provides important habitat for migratory birds. The Central and
31 Mississippi flyways meet here and the most southern tip of Texas is also the
32 northernmost range for many bird species (CAS.3). Nearly 500 bird species,
33 including neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, raptors, and waterfowl, can be
34 found in the LRGV. For species such as the plain chachalaca, green jay, great
35 kiskadee, least grebe, and many others, this is the only area in the nation in
36 which they can be observed (CAS.3).
37 Habitat Potential. On-site inspection of habitat within the potential fence

38 alignment was conducted by species specialists in October 2007 (CAS.2). While
3-31
FME005600
1 much of the survey corridor included highly disturbed segments (e.g. urban
2 areas, dump sites, levees) and agricultural fields, areas of suitable habitat for
3 ocelot, jaguarundi, Texas indigo snake, and Texas tortoise were scattered
4 throughout. Migratory bird habitat is also distributed throughout the survey
5 corridor. Segment O-1 was observed to contain high quality habitat potential for
6 Zapata bladderpod and Walker’s manioc, although these two species were not
7 observed within this segment. Segment O-2 provides habitat for Texas horned
8 lizards, one individual of which was observed in that segment. Two Mexican tree
9 frogs were observed in suitable habitat in Segment O-10. Segments O-2 and O-
10 8 presented potential habitat for white-lipped frog and Mexican burrowing toad,
11 respectively; however, no individuals of these two taxa were discovered during
12 the surveys (CAS.2).
13 [[Preparer’s Note: Information will be updated when Phase I Biological

14 Survey Report are completed.]]
15 3.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES

16 [[Preparer’s Note: This cultural resources section is based on limited data
17 largely compiled from the Texas Historical Commission’s Texas Historic
18 Sites Atlas and Texas Archaeological Sites Atlas. This information was
19 supplemented by other sources. These atlases provide summary
20 information about archaeological sites and surveys, markers describing
21 historical sites and events, neighborhood surveys, and individual
22 properties and historic districts listed in the National Register of Historic
23 Places (NRHP). Because the atlases include only architectural resources
24 that are listed in the NRHP and none that have been determined eligible for
25 the NRHP, it is not a complete data set for architectural resources. It is
26 expected that the project area will contain a large number of additional
27 buildings and other resources that have been previously determined to be
28 eligible for listing in the NRHP, as well as additional ones that have not
29 been surveyed or evaluated. Further research and cultural resources
30 surveys are being conducted at this time. Once completed, a separate
31 report will be prepared and presented in Appendix J. The findings of the
32 report will be summarized and will replace the following length
33 discussion.]]

35 NEPA and the CEQ regulations require consideration of the impacts of Federal
36 actions on the "human environment.” CEQ regulations define the human
37 environment as “the natural and physical (built) environment and the relationship
38 of people with that environment” (40 CFR 1508.14). Many Federal laws,
39 regulations, and EOs require consideration of the built or human environment,
40 present and past. The specific subjects of these legal requirements and the legal
41 triggers vary and overlap.

3-32
FME005601
1 Cultural resources are commonly subdivided into archaeological resources

2 (prehistoric or historic sites where human activity has left physical evidence of
3 that activity but no structures remain standing), architectural resources (buildings
4 or other structures or groups of structures that are of historic, architectural, or
5 other significance), and traditional cultural resources (e.g., traditional gathering
6 areas, locations referenced in origin myths or traditional stories).
7 Archaeological resources comprise areas where human activity has measurably

8 altered the earth or where deposits of physical remains of human activity are
9 found. Architectural resources include standing buildings, bridges, dams and
10 other structures of historic, architectural, engineering, or aesthetic significance.
11 Generally, resources must be more than 50 years old to be considered for the
12 NRHP. More recent resources, such as Cold War-era buildings, might warrant
13 protection if they have the potential to gain significance in the future or if they
14 meet “exceptional” significance criteria. Traditional cultural properties (TCPs) are
15 properties eligible for or listed in the NRHP that Native Americans or other
16 groups consider essential for the preservation of traditional cultures. Examples of
17 TCPs are archaeological resources, prominent topographic features, habitat,
18 plants, minerals, and animals and the physical location or referent of the
19 resource. For example, an animal would not constitute one of the five property
20 types (see discussion below), but the forest occupied by the animal could meet
21 the definition of a property type.
22 The NRHP is our nation’s official listing of properties significant in history,

23 architecture, or prehistory, and includes both publicly and privately owned
24 properties. The list is administered by the National Park Service (NPS) on behalf
25 of the Secretary of the Interior. Cultural resources that are listed in or eligible for
26 listing in the NRHP (36 CFR 800.16(l)) are called historic properties. Properties
27 are determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP by the Secretary of the
28 Interior (NPS) or by consensus of a Federal agency official and the SHPO. In
29 Texas, the SHPO is Mr. Lawrence Oaks, executive director of the Texas
30 Historical Commission (THC). NRHP-listed properties of exceptional national
31 significance can be designated as National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) by the
32 Secretary of the Interior.
33 Buildings, structures, sites, objects, or districts are property types that might be
34 historic properties. To be listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource
35 must be one of the property types, generally should be at least 50 years of age or
36 older, and must meet at least one of the four following criteria (cf. 36 CFR 60.4):
37 • The resource is associated with events that have made a significant

38 contribution to the broad pattern of history (criterion A).
39 • The resource is associated with the lives of people significant in the past
40 (criterion B).
41 • The resource embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or
42 method of construction; represents the work of a master; possesses high

3-33
FME005602
1 artistic value; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose

2 components might lack individual distinction (criterion C).
3 • The resource has yielded, or could be likely to yield, information important
4 in prehistory or history (criterion D).
5 In addition to meeting at least one of the above criteria, a historic property must
6 also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
7 feeling, and association. Integrity is defined as the authenticity of a property’s
8 historic identity, as evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics it
9 possessed in the past and its capacity to convey information about a culture or
10 group of people, a historic pattern, or a specific type of architectural or
11 engineering design or technology. Resources that might not be considered
12 individually significant can be considered eligible for listing on the NRHP as part
13 of a historic district. According to the NPS, a historic district possesses a
14 significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or
15 objects that are historically or aesthetically united by plan or physical
16 development.

18 The prehistory and history of the lower Rio Grande are rich, unique, and
19 important. The river has been a critical conduit for trade and a natural border
20 between interests to the north and the south. This is true from the earliest times.
21 Evidence of human occupation in the region is abundant. The area’s
22 archaeological record is dominated by open-air sites, burned rock middens, lithic
23 artifact scatters, clay dunes in the Rio Grande delta, and shell middens near the
24 coast. These sites are difficult to date because of heavy erosion, shallow soil
25 horizons, and extensive artifact removal by collectors. The lack of excavation of
26 deeply stratified subsurface sites means that the chronology of the south Texas
27 plains is poorly understood.
28 The following discussion of the precontact south Texas plains is divided into five
29 general cultural periods. The Paleoindian period represents the first well-
30 documented human occupation of the region. Evidence of the earliest
31 Paleoindian complexes, Clovis and Folsom, has been found throughout South
32 Texas, although most of this evidence is from surface collections of the
33 distinctive fluted points that characterize these complexes. Clovis and Folsom
34 hunters appear to have specialized in hunting large animals, including mammoth
35 and bison. Two stratified Paleoindian sites have been excavated in the South
36 Texas region, Berger Bluff (41GD30) in Goliad County, and Buckner Ranch
37 (41BE2) in Bee County (TARL Archives).
38 The long Archaic period in southern Texas is divided into the early, middle, and
39 late periods. The Archaic period is marked by the continuation of hunting and
40 gathering, but also by the utilization of a greater range of plant and animal
41 resources and geographic settings. The Archaic period is also characterized by

3-34
FME005603
1 changes in climate. Specifically, the Early and Middle Archaic periods overlap
2 with the Altithermal (ca. 6000–2000 B.C.), a warm and dry climate episode.
3 The Early Archaic period is poorly documented in the southern Texas region,
4 especially on the Rio Grande Delta, thanks to deep sediment deposition. The
5 available evidence suggests that population density was unchanged from the
6 Paleoindian period, and that Early Archaic hunters continued to live in small,
7 highly mobile groups. Middle Archaic sites appear to be more common than Early
8 Archaic sites, and are found in upland, alluvial, and tributary settings and estuary
9 bays. The Middle Archaic in southern Texas is also distinguished by the
10 appearance of ground stone artifacts (MIN1) and other signs of expanded plant
11 use, including an increase in the number of burned rock middens. Exploitation of
12 coastal resources also appears to have increased. The increasing diet breadth is
13 accompanied by an increase in site size and artifact abundance, suggesting an
14 increase in population (MIN1). Sites from the later Middle Archaic also contain
15 evidence of trade between the Rio Grande plain and the coastal delta. Late
16 Archaic sites are relatively common in the project area, suggesting increasing
17 population density (MIN1). Along with increasing site density, the period is
18 marked by a continued expansion in diet breadth, with rodents and rabbits
19 becoming more common in the archaeological record and with an increase in
20 specialized plant resource extraction features such as hearths. Sites also appear
21 to have been used repeatedly, suggesting a more sedentary settlement pattern
22 or an increasingly scheduled subsistence regime. Regional trade of items such
23 as marine shell pendants is also present, as are the cemeteries that appeared in
24 the Middle Archaic.
25 The Late Prehistoric period (A.D. 700–historic times) is well-documented in this

26 region due to the abundance and careful preservation of sites. It is characterized
27 by the appearance of pottery and the bow and arrow, although point typologies
28 have not been formalized (Hester et al. 1989). In much of southern Texas, the
29 Late Prehistoric period has two distinct horizons: the Austin (A.D. 800-1350) and
30 the Toyah (A.D. 1350-1600) (Black 1986). Bone-tempered pottery with incised
31 designs appears by A.D. 1000. The Toyah horizon is the best documented and
32 is associated with Perdiz points, small end scrappers, flake knives, beveled
33 knives, Leon Plain bone-tempered pottery, ceramic figurines and pipes, and shell
34 and bone ornaments and beads. Toyah sites are generally found near streams.
35 Along the coast, the Late Prehistoric period begins around A.D. 1200 with the
36 Rockport complex. In the delta, the Late Prehistoric begins around A.D. 1200
37 with the Brownsville complex. These complexes are similar to the Austin and
38 Toyah horizons, and are characterized in large part by bone-tempered ceramics
39 virtually identical to inland types. The Brownsville complex is also associated
40 with a well-developed shell-working industry.
41 In the nearly 500 years since initial Spanish exploration, the area has been
42 claimed and influenced by four nations: Spain, Mexico, Republic of Texas, and
43 the United States. Each has pursued its own interests and left its mark as historic
44 landmarks or patterns of land uses. Missions were the focus during the Spanish
3-35
FME005604
1 colonial period (ca. 1519–1822) (MIN2). Spanish-speaking peoples established

2 ranches in support of the missions. During the Early Anglo-European period
3 (1822–1845), the missions of northern Mexico and Texas were secularized and
4 became less important. Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Europeans began rapidly
5 settling in Texas, bringing with them their own customs, traditions, and
6 influences. Some were of Irish and Mexican descent, and practiced small-scale
7 farming and ranching. These Empresarios had been granted lands in exchange
8 for settling in the area and becoming Mexican citizens. Still large-scale
9 Mexican/Spanish ranching interests continued in the area. Roma became an
10 important port town in this period because of its favored location where river
11 boats met overland routes. In 1836, the Anglo colonists revolted against Mexico
12 and won their independence within the same year by defeating Santa Anna at
13 San Jacinto.
14 During the Texas Republic period (1836–1846), the lower Rio Grande was
15 central to the border tensions between the newly independent Texan republic
16 and the government of Mexico, culminating in the Mexican-American War (1846–
17 1848). On behalf of the Texans, U.S. troops under General Zachary Taylor
18 landed their forces at Port Isabel and established Fort Brown on the Rio Grande
19 across from Matamoros. The presence of the troops provoked the Mexican
20 government to attack, starting the Mexican-American War. Besides military
21 action at Fort Brown, significant battles occurred at Palo Alto and Resaca de los
22 Palmas in the lower Rio Grande. During the American period (1848–present),
23 Anglo-European farmers and ranchers settled the lower Rio Grande area and
24 continued large-scale, export cattle ranching started by the Mexicans. To protect
25 the U.S. border, the U.S. Army constructed a line of forts from north-central
26 Texas to the Rio Grande. A second line of forts was established, including Fort
27 Ringgold. As Anglo-American and Anglo-European settlers moved in, towns
28 grew at road and river crossings. Potteries, brick kilns, and local commercial
29 centers were established.
30 The lower Rio Grande valley played an important role during the Civil War as
31 local supporters used the river to transport cotton and war materials to support
32 the Confederate effort. Roma and Brownsville, in particular, prospered during the
33 period. The last battle of the Civil War occurred at Fort Brown, ironically a month
34 after the war’s official end at Appomattox.
35 The following decades were the years of the large cattle drives north on Chisolm
36 Trail, which began at Brownsville. Railroads, drought, and the use of barbed wire
37 contributed to the eventual breakup of large ranches into smaller farms owned by
38 immigrants from the mid western states and the end of open range ranching and
39 the large cattle drives. New irrigation systems enabled large-scale agriculture,
40 and the lower Rio Grande became noted for its rich croplands and citrus groves.
41 In recognition of the important-contribution of the lower Rio Grande to Texas and

42 American history, the Texas Historical Commission designated the 200-mile area
43 from Laredo to Brownsville as Los Rios del Camino Heritage Trail (MIN3). The

3-36
FME005605
1 binational Los Caminos del Rio Heritage Project was created to support the
2 understanding and appreciation of the history of the area (ACHP 1997; ACHP
3 1994).
4 The location of the Proposed Action along the lower Rio Grande places it in an
5 area rich in archaeological, historical, and cultural resources. Alternatives 2 and
6 3 will cross within two historic districts that are designated NHLs: the Roma
7 Historic District and Fort Brown. It will extend adjacent to or within the bounds of
8 three additional NRHP-listed historic districts: Fort Ringgold Historic District,
9 Louisiana-Rio Grande Canal Company Irrigation System Historic District
10 (including Hidalgo Pumphouse), Old Brulay Plantation. It will be in the general
11 vicinity of many other NRHP-listed properties, such as the Rancho Toluca
12 Historic District, La Lomita Historic District, Neale House, and Stillman House. It
13 is known that additional architectural resources eligible for the NRHP but not
14 formally nominated for listing are also in the vicinity of the Proposed Action.
15 Others that meet the NRHP eligibility criteria but have not been inventoried or
16 evaluated are expected. Historic-era property in the lower Rio Grande area
17 include historic residential, commercial, and institutional buildings both in settled
18 communities and in rural contexts, military forts, transportation resources (ferry
19 crossing and ferry, suspension bridge), cemeteries, religious complexes,
20 industrial resources (irrigation systems and associated water lift pumphouses),
21 farmsteads and plantations, and ranch complexes. Historic archaeological sites
22 include shipwrecks, forts, homesteads, and trash scatters. One site is listed on
23 the NRHP (Fort Brown).
24 Specific Historic Property Discussion

25 In the following discussion, historic districts and individual properties listed in the
26 NRHP have been described near Alternatives 2 and 3. Previously identified
27 archaeological resources are identified also. This is based on information
28 contained in the THC Texas Historic Sites Atlas and Texas Archaeological Sites
29 Atlas. It is acknowledged that there are additional properties eligible for listing in
30 the NRHP and others not yet surveyed or evaluated for NRHP eligibility.
31 Roma Historic District. The Roma Historic District was designated an NHL by
32 the Secretary of the Interior in 1993. The 15-block historic district includes 35
33 contributing buildings, such as the Nestor Sáenz Store (1884) and Manuel
34 Guerra House and Store (1878–84). The Roma-San Pedro International Bridge
35 (1928) is a contributing property of the historic district. It is anticipated that there
36 are additional buildings that are individually eligible for listing in the NRHP that
37 are both within and outside of historic district.
38 The 19th-century town of Roma was an important shipping point for steamboats
39 along the Rio Grande. The site was first settled in 1760 by Spanish colonists
40 from the colonial settlement, Mier, located on the south bank of the Rio Grande.
41 With the development of steamboat river commerce in the middle of the 19th
42 century, Roma prospered as the western port for flatbed ships carrying cotton

3-37
FME005606
1 down the Rio Grande and supplies upriver. It also was a connection point for
2 overland trade into western Texas and the eastern interior of Mexico.
3 The Roma Historic District represents an outstanding example of the building

4 techniques of the Lower Rio Grande. These techniques, derived from the 18th-
5 century traditions of northern Mexico, are best exemplified by the finely detailed
6 brick commercial and residential buildings designed and constructed by German
7 emigrant mason Heinrich Portscheller. Influenced by the architecture of its sister
8 city of Mier across the river and by the architecture of Guerrero Viejo, Mexico,
9 Roma possesses buildings of river sandstone, caliche limestone, and molded
10 brick. Masons used both rejoneado and sillar techniques in Roma. The
11 International Bridge linking Roma to Mexico is the last suspension bridge on the
12 Rio Grande and a contributing element of the historic district (MIN6).
13 Fort Ringgold Historic District. Fort Ringgold was one of four military posts
14 the Federal government organized along the Lower Rio Grande following the
15 Mexican-American War. Its location on the Rio Grande made the post an
16 important supplier of goods and materials to military installations further upriver.
17 Troops stationed at Fort Ringgold helped quell numerous border conflicts that
18 erupted from 1849 to 1917. The troops ultimately helped bring stability that
19 contributed to the economic development on both sides of the Rio Grande. The
20 fort was deactivated by the Army in 1944 and sold to the Rio Grande City school
21 system (MIN3).
22 The Fort Ringgold Historic District encompasses much of this U.S. Army
23 installation established in 1848 and closed in 1944. The Fort Ringgold Historic
24 District was listed in the NRHP in 1993 under Criteria A and C at the state level
25 of significance. The district, which includes approximately 75 acres, has 41
26 contributing properties. Most of the buildings are at the northern end of the
27 historic district surrounding the parade ground. They are associated with the
28 later post-1869 development of the older fort. During the earlier phase (1848–
29 1869), frame buildings were constructed to the south on two hills overlooking the
30 Rio Grande and a steamboat dock. A small settlement grew called Davis
31 Landing or Davis Rancho. The 1848 buildings included a hospital, storehouses,
32 barracks, Commandant’s house, stables, mess hall and fort store, and cemetery.
33 When new buildings were constructed to the north in 1969, these earlier
34 structures were given new uses. The Commandant’s house became the
35 quartermaster’s office.
36 Archaeological site 41SR142 is the archaeological component of the earlier fort,

37 and is larger than the historic district. The Commandant’s house, also known as
38 the Lee House or Robert E. Lee House, is a contributing element of the historic
39 district (MIN3).
40 Los Ebanos Crossing, Ferry, and Community of Los Ebanos. The Los
41 Ebanos ferry crossing is located on an ancient ford site with the first historic use
42 during the 1740s by the Spanish colonist, Jose de Escandón. Historically, a salt

3-38
FME005607
1 trail led from the ford crossing to La Sal del Rey, an inland salt lake 40 miles
2 northeast that produced the first export from the region. The ford also was used
3 over several centuries, notably by troops of the Mexican-American War, 1846; by
4 Texas Rangers chasing cattle rustlers, 1874; and by smugglers in many eras,
5 especially during the American prohibition years, 1920–33 (MIN3). A ferry and
6 inspection station are located at the crossing today. Los Ebanos Ferry,
7 established in 1950, is notable as the only government-licensed, hand-pulled
8 ferry on any boundary of the United States. The ferry has capacity for 3
9 automobiles and approximately 12 persons. The ferry cable is connected to an
10 estimated 250-year old Texas ebony tree that is included in the Texas Forest
11 Service’s Famous Trees of Texas (ACHP 2005). It is possible that the Los
12 Ebanos Ferry is eligible for listing in the NRHP and that the area including the
13 ferry is a historic landscape. The community of Los Ebanos is an historic town,
14 and has a cemetery where veterans of many wars are buried.
15 La Lomita Historic District. La Lomita Historic District, listed in the NRHP in

16 1975, comprises three contributing properties. The earliest remaining property is
17 the stucco and stone mission chapel with a bell tower constructed in 1899. On
18 the small hill is the mission-style St. Peter's Novitiate erected in 1912 that served
19 as a novitiate training center for student priests. Together the Mission chapel,
20 122 acres of farm and ranch lands, and novitiate are tangible reminders of the
21 important role of the Catholic Church in the lower Rio Grande Valley. They also
22 document the contribution of the Oblate Fathers in settling this southern tip of
23 Texas. The community of Granjenos is immediately north of Segment O-5. The
24 historic Granjenos cemetery is at the north end of the community.
25 Louisiana-Rio Grande Canal Company Irrigation System Historic District.

26 The Louisiana-Rio Grande Canal Company Irrigation System Historic District was
27 listed in the NRHP in 1995. The 31,200-acre historic district comprises the first-
28 lift and second-lift pumphouses and the associated historic irrigation canal
29 network. The first-lift pumphouse, known as the Hidalgo Pumphouse, is
30 significant for its historical associations and engineering and retains original
31 equipment. The historic canal system extends for approximately 500 miles, and
32 includes border-to-border earthen canals, concrete-lined facilities, and canals in
33 pipes on original alignments.
34 The historic district is significant at the state level under Criterion A with a period
35 of significance from 1904 to 1949. The system contributed to the early 20th
36 century agricultural revolution in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Private
37 irrigation systems, like the Louisiana-Rio Grande system constructed by the
38 Louisiana-Rio Grande Canal Company, transformed the arid brush land of the
39 Lower Rio Grande Valley into a vast patchwork of 20- to 80-acre irrigated farms
40 within two decades following the 1904 arrival of the first railroad to the isolated
41 area. Once established, the successful produce of those farms defined South
42 Texas as one of the nation's three largest winter agricultural regions until a freeze
43 in 1949. Today the irrigation system, except the Hidalgo Pumphouse, is owned
44 by the Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 2. (ACHP 2007C). Segment O-6, as
3-39
FME005608
1 proposed, will extend north/south along the west boundary of the historic district,
2 immediately adjacent to the Hidalgo Pumphouse on both sides and easterly
3 within the southern portion of the district for a distance of about 1.5 miles. In its
4 easterly extension Segment O-6 would cross canals that contribute to the historic
5 district. As proposed the corridor would break for the Hidalgo Pumphouse and its
6 parcel.
7 Toluca Ranch. The Toluca Ranch, listed in the NRHP in 1983 as a historic
8 district, is one of the few intact ranch ensembles in the Rio Grande Valley.
9 Originally the ranch land holdings included 5,900 acres. The four contributing
10 properties constituting Toluca Ranch are the Church of St. Joseph of the Worker,
11 a two-story house, store, and a schoolhouse. Constructed in 1899 by Florencio
12 Saenz, the Gothic Revival church with a tower served the Saenz family and local
13 community. The two-story Italianate-style house was constructed in 1906 by
14 Saenz. The schoolhouse was built in 1903 and operated for the children of the
15 local community and Saenz family until 1911. Saenz was a progressive farmer.
16 Four hundred acres of Saenz’s croplands were irrigated to grow beans, corn,
17 melons, and sugar cane for ranch consumption. On pasturelands further north of
18 the river he raised horses, sheep, goats, and cattle (ACHP 2007c).
19 Sabas Cavazos Cemetery. The Sabas Cavazos Cemetery was established in

20 1878 with the burial of a rancher and businessman, Sabas Cavazos. Cavazos
21 was great grandson to Jose Salvador de la Garza, recipient of the Espiritu Santo
22 royal land grant of approximately 250,000 acres encompassing present-day
23 Brownsville (ACHP 2007C). It is located approximately 0.25 miles north of the
24 Segment O-17 corridor (ACHP 2007c).
25 Brownsville and Fort Brown Historic District. Brownsville is rich in historic

26 buildings and sites, many of which are listed in the NRHP. Fort Brown, a historic
27 district designated an NHL, was established in April 1846 by Brigadier General
28 Zachary Taylor and became the first U.S. military post in Texas. The fort was
29 important in some of the earliest battles of the Mexican-American War, the
30 Battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma. The early fort was earthworks with
31 six bastions in the form of a six-pointed star with 15-foot thick walls. During the
32 Civil War, Brownsville became an important Confederate port town. Boats
33 transported cotton bound for Europe and inbound war material for the
34 Confederacy. Union troops fought for control of Fort Brown, which was held by
35 the Confederate army until the end of the war. Troops from Fort Brown engaged
36 in the last battle of Civil War, the Battle of Palmetto Hill, nearly a month after
37 Appomattox (MIN 8).
38 After the Civil War, the fort was re-occupied by the U.S. Army and expanded.
39 Under the efforts of Lieutenant William Gorgas (later U.S. Army Surgeon
40 General), Fort Brown had a major role in the medical research related to the
41 control of yellow fever. Fort Brown also contributed to efforts to control the
42 Mexican bandit trouble of 1913–1917. In 1948, the fort was transferred to the
43 city of Brownsville. Today the former hospital building is part of the Texas

3-40
FME005609
1 Southmost College (ACHP 2007A). The former barracks, medical lab, and
2 guardhouse are extant. Archaeological site 41CF96 is south of the later fort
3 complex and is the remnants of the earthworks of the original Fort Brown (ACHP
4 2001).
5 Brownsville has many other NRHP-listed historic buildings and sites. Near Fort
6 Brown is the Neale House (ca. 1850). Although relocated, the Neale House is
7 one of the oldest houses in Brownsville. The Stillman House, constructed in
8 1850 and listed in the NRHP in 1979, is one of the earliest Greek Revival-style
9 brick structures in the region (ACHP 2007b). The house was originally built for
10 and occupied by Charles Stillman, who hired a surveyor to lay out the town lots
11 adjacent to Fort Brown before Brownsville was founded. The house was later
12 occupied by Thomas Carson, Brownsville mayor from 1879 to 1892 and judge of
13 the Cameron County Commissioners Court. There are a number of historic
14 shipwrecks that are reported west of Fort Brown including archaeological site
15 41CF177, a steamboat shipwreck site, and others. (ACHP 2007C)
16 Old Brulay Plantation Historic District. The Old Brulay Plantation, listed in the
17 NRHP in 1975, is composed of the two-story brick house of French emigrant
18 George N. Brulay, and nine buildings associated with his sugar cane plantation.
19 The Brulay plantation was purchased in 1870 by Brulay. In 1872, he built the first
20 commercial sugar mill in the area to produce piloncillo (a dark brown sugar) on
21 his 300-acre plantation and began irrigating his fields, thereby revolutionalizing
22 agricultural practices in the lower Rio Grande Valley. Cultivated fields are north
23 of the structures (ACHP 2007c). The Brulay Cemetery is north and east of the
24 plantation complex.
25 Archaeological Resources. There are previously reported prehistoric

26 archaeological resources within the corridor and within a mile of the area of the
27 Proposed Action. They are primarily open air campsites and lithic scatters.
28 Temporal and cultural affiliations are unclear, and few sites are very extensive.
29 The recorders did not evaluate the NRHP eligibility of most of them. Historic
30 archaeological sites include forts, shipwrecks, homesteads, and historic trash
31 scatters. There may be additional types of historic archaeological sites. Should
32 any sites be found through archaeological surveys, they will be considered for
33 various treatment options such as redesigning the project or data recovery.
34 Historic Property Surveys

35 To date discussion of archaeological resources of the project area is based on
36 existing information about previously recorded sites acquired from the THC
37 Texas Historic Sites Atlas and Texas Archaeological Sites Atlas, supplemented
38 by additional sources. Information about previously recorded archaeological,
39 historical, and architectural sites within the 150-foot survey corridor and within a
40 1-mile radius of the corridor was compiled and plotted on project maps. It is
41 acknowledged that this data set has limitations: much of the survey data is not
42 recent and might not be complete. Not all of the area of the 150-foot corridor has

3-41
FME005610
1 had recent archaeological surveys, and the information from past surveys is
2 quite fragmentary. In addition, information about architectural resources from the
3 Texas Historic Sites Atlas is limited to buildings and historic districts listed in the
4 NRHP. Many additional buildings and resources are eligible for listing in the
5 NRHP but have not been formally listed. There are many additional resources
6 that have not been surveyed or evaluated for eligibility for listing in the NRHP.
7 Acknowledging these data shortcomings, additional information about historic

8 properties in the general area or that might be affected by the Proposed Action is
9 being gathered and analyzed. Field-based cultural resources surveys of both
10 archaeological, historic, and architectural resources are being conducted.
11 Efforts are being undertaken to identify historic properties within the Area
12 Potentially Effected (APE), the geographical area within which effects on historic
13 properties can be expected. This APE needs to account for direct construction
14 impacts, as well as indirect effects such as the intrusion of contrasting visual
15 elements, noise, and vibration. Section 4.8.1 provides further discussion
16 regarding the delineation of the APE. Construction of Alternative 3 of the
17 Proposed Action (Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative) as currently proposed
18 would directly affect a 130-foot-wide corridor. Alternative 2 as currently proposed
19 would affect only a 50-foot-wide corridor. In addition, there are ancillary areas
20 outside the corridor such as construction staging areas. Thus, for direct
21 construction purposes, the APE considers a 150-foot-wide corridor plus ancillary
22 areas outside that corridor. A second APE is being determined to account for
23 visual impacts and other indirect effects of the Preferred Action on historic
24 properties. This APE is being determined based on consideration of a variety of
25 factors such as topography, vegetation, and surrounding development, in
26 consultation with the THC.
27 The 150-foot-wide APE is being subject to an archaeological survey conducted in

28 accordance with the THC requirements and standards identified in
29 Archaeological Survey Standards of Texas and the approved Texas Antiquities
30 Permit. The survey also will be conducted in accordance with the Secretary of
31 the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines Archaeology and Historic Preservation
32 Projects (including the Standards and Guidelines for Identification, Evaluation,
33 and Archaeological Documentation). Professional archaeologists meeting the
34 Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards will carry out the
35 survey (NPS). In conjunction with the survey, consultation will be undertaken with
36 the THC, federally recognized Indian tribes that attach religious and cultural
37 significance to cultural resources in the APE or that are culturally affiliated with
38 the lands contained within the APE, and others.
39 An architectural and historic resources survey will be undertaken within the 150-
40 wide corridor, areas of ancillary project elements, and areas beyond the corridor
41 to account for visual and other indirect effects. Buildings, structures, sites,
42 objects, and districts (including landscapes) will be surveyed and evaluated for
43 NRHP eligibility. Information about past surveys of nonarchaeological resources

3-42
FME005611
1 (e.g., buildings and historic sites) will be evaluated for completeness, level of
2 effort, conformance to current standards and survey results. This information will
3 help to focus survey efforts so that all resources are considered. Architectural
4 and historic resources 40 years of age or older will be surveyed and evaluated
5 for NRHP eligibility according to THC architectural survey standards (ACHP
6 2005).
7 All surveyed archaeological, architectural, and historic resources will be

8 evaluated for their NRHP eligibility using the National Register Criteria (36 CFR
9 60.4) and relevant guidance of the NPS such as National Register Bulletins 15
10 and 22. USBP will request the Texas SHPO’s concurrence regarding
11 determination of a property’s NRHP eligibility; a determination of eligibility from
12 the Keeper of the National Register (NPS) will be sought if the SHPO does not
13 concur with USBP’s evaluation. The historical and architectural survey will be
14 conducted in accordance with both the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and
15 Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the THC’s Historic
16 Resources Survey Form and survey guidance. Professionals who meet the
17 Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for architectural
18 historian, historian, and other appropriate discipline will conduct the survey
19 (ACHP 2007a, DOI 1983).
20 A proposed Programmatic Agreement for compliance with Section 106 of the

21 NHPA will guide the completion of the efforts to identify historic properties and
22 evaluate them for NRHP eligibility, as well as to assess effects and to resolve
23 adverse effects on historic properties. This is discussed further in Section 4.8.3.
24 3.9 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

26 Review of current methodologies for analysis and assessment of visual impacts,
27 particularly those associated with linear corridor projects, resulted in the selection
28 of the methology outlined in Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Publication
29 No. FHWA-HI-88-054: Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (STG1).
30 These methodologies were chosen for analysis of visual impacts for this EIS.
31 Under the FHWA approach, the major components of the visual analysis process
32 include establishing the visual environment of the project, assessing the visual
33 resources of the project area, and identifying viewer response to those
34 resources.
35 Establishing a Visual Environment. To characterize the visual environment,

36 one must perform two related steps: (1) develop a framework for visual
37 assessment that will help compare project alternatives and (2) define the physical
38 limits of the visual environment that each alternative may affect. The concept of
39 landscape classification enables us to establish the general visual environment of
40 a project and its place in the regional landscape. The starting point for the
41 classification is an understanding of the landscape components that make up the
3-43
FME005612
1 regional landscape, which then allows comparisons between landscapes. The

2 components of the regional landscape are its landforms (or topography) and
3 landcover. It should be noted that landcover is not equivalent to land use, as that
4 latter term is defined and used in Section 3.4 of this PDEIS. Landcover is
5 essentially that – identification of what features (e.g., water, vegetation, type of
6 manmade development) dominate the land within a given parcel. Examples of
7 landcover would include agricultural field, housing development, airport, forest,
8 grassland, or resevoir. While there is some overlap with land use, landcover
9 doesn’t distinguish function or ownership of parcels. Relatively homogenous
10 combinations of landforms and landcover that recur throughout a region can be
11 considered to be landscape types. To provide a framework for comparing the
12 visual effects of the project alternatives, regional landscape are divided into
13 distinct landscape units; these are usually enclosed by clear landform or
14 landcover boundaries and many of the views within the unit are inward-looking.
15 Landscape units are usually characterized by diverse visual resources, and it is
16 not uncommon for several landscape types may be in view at any one time.
17 Assessing the Visual Resources. An assessment of the visual resources

18 within a project area involves characterization of the character and quality of
19 those resources. Descriptions of visual character can distinguish at least two
20 levels of attributes: pattern elements and pattern character. Visual pattern
21 elements are primary visual attributes of objects; they include form, line, color,
22 and texture. Our awareness of these pattern elements varies with distance. The
23 visual contrast between a project and its visual environment can frequently be
24 traced to four aspects of pattern character: dominance, scale, diversity, and
25 continuity.
26 Visual quality is somewhat more subjective, as it relies on the viewer’s enjoyment

27 or interpretation of experience. For example, there is a clear public agreement
28 that the visual resources of certain landscapes have high visual quality and that
29 plans for projects in those areas should be subject to careful examination.
30 Approaches to assessing visual quality include identifying landscapes already
31 recognized at the national, regional, or local level for their visual excellence (e.g.,
32 National Landmarks, National Scenic Rivers); asking viewers to identify quality
33 visual resources; or looking to the regional landscape for specific resource
34 indicators of visual quality. One set of evaluative approach that has proven
35 useful includes three criteria: vividness (the visual power or memorability of the
36 landscape), intactness (the visual integrity of the natural and manmade
37 landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements), and unity (the visual
38 coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole).
39 A high value for all three criteria equates to a high visual quality; combinations of
40 lesser values indicate moderate or low visual quality. It should be noted that low
41 visual quality does not necessarily mean that there will be no concern over the
42 visual effects of a project. In instances, such as urban settings, communities
43 might ask that projects help improve existing visual quality. Improvements to the
44 visual quality of everyday environments deserve consideration just because
45 these environments are experienced so frequently by so many people. A fence
3-44
FME005613
1 that stretches for miles on the edge of a community is a major public investment,
2 and attention to its design can do much to raise visual quality around it.
3 Identifying Viewer Response. To understand and predict viewer response to

4 the appearance of a project, one must know something about the viewers who
5 might see the project and the aspects of the visual environment to which they are
6 likely to respond. Vision is an active sense; we usually have some reason for
7 looking at the landscape and what we see is unconsciously conditioned by what
8 we are looking for. How we feel about what we see is conditioned by other
9 human factors and can be shared by large groups of people, or be an individual
10 response.
11 The receptivity of different viewer groups to the visual environment and its
12 elements is not equal. Viewer sensitivity is strongly related to visual preference; it
13 modifies visual experience directly by means of viewer activity and awareness,
14 and indirectly by means of values, opinions, and preconceptions. Because
15 viewers in some settings are more likely to share common distractions, activities,
16 and awareness of their visual environment, it might be practical to distinguish
17 among project viewers located in residential, recreational, and industrial areas.
18 Visual awareness is the extent to which the receptivity of viewers is heightened

19 by the immediate experience of visual resource characteristics. Visual change
20 heightens awareness: a landscape transition, such as entering a mountain range
21 or a major city, can heighten viewer awareness within that particular viewshed.
22 Measures that modify viewer exposure, such as selective clearing or screening,
23 can also be deliberately employed to modify viewer awareness. Viewers also
24 tend to notice and value the unusual, so they may see more value in preserving
25 the view towards a particularly dramatic stand of trees than the view towards
26 more ubiquitous landscape features.
27 Local values and goals operate indirectly on viewer experience by shaping view
28 expectations, aspirations, and appreciations. For example, at a regional or
29 national level, viewers might be particularly sensitive to the visual resources and
30 appearance of a particular landscape due to its cultural significance, and any
31 visual evidence of change might be seen as a threat to these values or
32 resources. Concern over the appearance of the Proposed Action often might be
33 based on how it will affect the visual character of an area rather than on the
34 particular visual resources it will displace.

36 Visual Environment. Based on the Physiographic Map of Texas (STG2), the Rio
37 Grande Valley crosses portions of the Coastal Prairies and Interior Coastal
38 Plains subprovinces of the Gulf Coast Plains physiographic province. Within the
39 Coastal Prairies subprovince (Segments O-7 through O-21), young deltaic sands,
40 silts, and clays erode to nearly flat grasslands that form almost imperceptible
41 slopes to the southeast. Minor steep slopes, from 1 foot to as much as 9 feet

3-45
FME005614
1 high, result from subsidence of deltaic sediments along faults. The Interior
2 Coastal Plains subprovince (Segments O-1 through O-6) comprises alternating
3 belts of resistant uncemented sands among weaker shales that erode into long,
4 sandy ridges.
5 Primary landform types present within the APEs include the Rio Grande channel,
6 its active floodplain and terraces, the man-made levee and floodway system,
7 arroyos feeding into the Rio Grande River, low to moderate height cliffs formed
8 through subsidence, soil erosion, downcutting of arroyos into the soft sediments,
9 various irrigation canals and ditches, vegetation-covered dunes, small ponds,
10 and low sand ridges. Within the relict floodplain are a number of abandoned
11 meander loops, some containing water (ponds) and some only visible as traces
12 on aerial photographs. The terraces and floodplain of the Rio Grande, which are
13 parallel or adjacent to the river, range from extremely narrow landforms to broad
14 level expanses as much as 3 miles wide in places. Flooding on the nearly level
15 terraces along the Rio Grande is controlled by seven watershed structures built
16 under P.L. 566.
17 Land cover types overlying these landforms include agricultural fields, range
18 lands, rural farmsteads or ranches, transportation features (e.g., highways,
19 paved and unpaved roads, bridges), suburban housing developments, towns and
20 cities, commercial and industrial areas (e.g., some urban, some isolated),
21 floodways, parks, and wildlife refuges.
22 At the macro level of analysis, the Rio Grande Valley is a distinct land unit. Within
23 that larger land unit, combinations of landform types with the range of land cover
24 types form smaller land units:
25 • Park/refuge land unit – Includes portions of the Rio Grande floodplain and
26 terraces that have been subject to minimal development or land use, so
27 that the natural vegetation and topography dominate. Typical features
28 include vegetated dune ridges, arroyos, cliffs, unpaved access roads, trail
29 networks, and occasional interpretive buildings and signage. Primary
30 examples are the discontiguous sections of the LRGVNWR (see Figure
31 3.9-1). This land unit is present within Segments O-1, O-2, O-11, O-13,
32 O-16, O-18, O-20, and O-21.
33 • Rural land unit – Includes the terraces of the Rio Grande where they are
34 overlain by agricultural and range land uses; however, the character of the
35 underlying landforms are still clearly visible and play a role in the locations
36 of overlying features (see Figure 3.9-2). Typical features include field
37 breaks, irrigation features, unpaved roads, occasional farmsteads or
38 ranches typically located in clusters of trees, occasional water towers, and
39 larger metal utility towers. This land unit is present within Segments O-1,
40 O-2, O-3, O-4, O-5, O-7, O-8, O-9, O-10, O-11, O-12, O-13, O-14, O-15,
41 O-16, O-17, O-18, and O-20.

3-46
FME005615
Figure 3.9-1. Photograph View of Arroyo within Wildlife Refuge

(Segment O-1)
Figure 3.9-2. Photograph View of Typical Rural Land Unit

(Segment O-17)
2 • Town/Suburban Development land unit – includes the terraces of the Rio

3 Grande where they are overlain by clusters of houses or businesses, often
4 connected with gridded road networks (paved and unpaved). The
5 underlying landforms are visible in places but, except for water sources
6 (e.g., ponds, reservoirs, or lakes), the topography and form of the land do
7 not play a significant role in the layout or location of overlying features.
8 Typical features include houses, small outbuildings, driveways, planned
9 landscaping, clumps or lines of trees, small commercial buildings, water
10 towers, and overhead power lines on poles rather than towers. Examples
11 would be the town of Los Ebanos in Segment O-3 (see Figure 3.9-3), the
12 town of Granjeno in Segment O-5, and the subdivisions of Joann and
13 Galaxia in Segment O-18. This land unit is present within Segments O-1,
14 O-3, O-4, O-5, O-6, O-9, O-14, O-15, O-16, O-17, O-18, O-19, O-20, and
15 O-21.

3-47
FME005616
Figure 3.9-3. Town of Los Ebanos Photograph, Segment O-3
1 • Urban/Industrial land unit – includes the terraces of the Rio Grande where
2 they are overlain by moderate to high density mixed use development.
3 The underlying landforms are almost completely masked by man-made
4 features and play little or no role in the layout or location of overlying
5 features. Typical features include buildings of varying heights, sizes, and
6 materials, a mixture of gridded and more organic road networks (primarily
7 paved), planned park areas (often near water sources), open paved areas
8 (e.g., parking areas), the larger POEs, industrial and commercial areas,
9 overhead utility lines on poles, elevated roadways and overpasses, and
10 elevated signage. Examples include the City of Roma in Segment O-1,
11 Rio Grande City in Segment O-2 (see Figure 3.9-4), and Hidalgo in
12 Segment O-6. This land unit is present within segments O-2, O-4, O-6, O-
13 10, O-14, O-17, O-19, O-20, and O-21.
14
Figure 3.9-4. Photograph View of Rio Grande City POE, Segment O-2

3-48
FME005617
1 Character and Quality of Visual Resources. Tables 3.9-1 and 3.9-2 provide
2 summaries of the visual character and quality, respectively, of visual resources
3 observed within the land units within the Rio Grande Valley Sector. Values reflect
4 visual character and visual quality of resources visible from distances of 50 feet
5 to 2,000 feet. It should also be noted that, at these distances, direct views of the
6 Rio Grande and active floodplain are typically seen only from the vantage of
7 riverfront parks, refuge trails, bridges across the river (POEs), tall office or
8 residential buildings, or from the top of the levee. For viewers not occupying one
9 of these vantage points, typical views toward the proposed fence(s) are
10 obstructed by the levees.
11 In terms of visual quality, the analysis presumed that any view that included the
12 Rio Grande constituted a high-quality view, except for views dominated by
13 industrial or commercial elements (e.g., views of the POEs). Similarly, given that
14 quality of view can be somewhat subjective, it was considered possible to find at
15 least one low- and one high-quality view within any land unit type. For example,
16 someone with an interest in old railroad bridges might find the view of the bridge
17 in Segment O-17 to be memorable, while other viewers might only see a large
18 rusted metal structure blocking an otherwise natural view. Rather than simply
19 provide a range of ratings of low to high for each, the quality of the most common
20 views within a given land unit type was used.
21 In addition to these averaged assessments of visual character and quality of

22 resources within each land unit type, there are a number of specific visual
23 resources considered to be of particular importance because of their natural or
24 cultural value [[Preparer’s Note: this list will increase once cultural
25 resources surveys are completed]]:
26 • LRGVNWR (Segments O-1, O-2, O-11, O-13, O-16, O-18, O-20, and O-
27 21)
28 • Roma World Birding Center and Overlook (Segment O-1)
29 • Roma Historic District and National Historic Landmark (Segment O-1)
30 • Fort Ringgold Historic District/Site 41SR142 (earthworks) (Segment O-2)
31 • Los Ebanos Ferry Crossing (Segment O-3)
32 • Penitas Cemetery (Segment O-4)
33 • La Lomita Historic District (Segment O-5)
34 • Town of Granjeno and Granjeno Cemetery (Segment O-5)
35 • Hidalgo Pumphouse Nature Park (Segment O-6)
36 • Louisiana-Rio Grande Canal Company Irrigation System Historic District
37 (Segment O-6)
38 • Toluca Ranch Historic District (Segment O-10)

3-49
FME005618
1 Table 3.9-1. Character of Visual Resources

2 within Typical Rio Grande Valley Land Units
3 (Current Conditions)
Line Color Form Texture

mostly earthy mostly curved, low to
horizontal and (browns, organic shapes moderate
gentle curves greens) variety
punctuated by depending on
Park/Refuge seasonal mix of
brightness vegetation and
inclusion of
water
elements
primarily earthy colors mixture of relatively
horizontal lines (bare earth angled and subtle
(fields, roads, and crops) curved forms variations in
canals), with (roads and texture
occasional buildings vs (mostly bare
Rural
vertical rolling hills and earth or crops)
elements (silos, meandering
utility towers, river)
tree lines,
buildings)
mixed vertical variety of variety of forms variety of
(trees, utility colors due to due to mixture textures due to
poles, water mix of man- of man-made mix of man-
towers, made and and natural made and
buildings) and natural elements natural
Town/Suburban
horizontal elements elements
Development
(similar heights
of buildings,
lines of trees or
shrubs, roads,
lawns) lines
vertical lines often a high primarily variety of
more prominent variety of rectilinear textures
than horizontal colors forms but can related to
associated be punctuated different
with buildings, by curves from building
Urban/Industrial
signs, green more elaborate materials
spaces architecture or against natural
organic shapes textures in
of natural green spaces
elements
4

3-50
FME005619
1 Table 3.9-2. Quality of Visual Resources within Typical Rio Grande Valley
2 Land Units (Current Conditions)
Vividness Intactness Unity Rating

Park/Refuge Moderate/High Moderate/High Moderate/High Moderate/High
Rural Moderate Moderate/High Moderate/High Moderate/High
Town/Suburban
Moderate Low/Moderate Low/Moderate Low/moderate
Development
Urban/Industrial Low to high Moderate Low to high Moderate
3
4 • Sabas Cavazos Cemetery (Segment O-13)

5 • Hope Park (Segment O-19)
6 • Neale House (Segment O-19)
7 • Fort Brown Historic District and National Historic Landmark (Segment
8 O-19)
9 • City of Brownsville Lincoln Park (Segment O-20)
10 • Stillman House (Segment O-20)
11 • Santa Rosalina Cemetery (Segment O-21)
12 • Sabal Palm Sanctuary (Segment O-21)
13 • Berry Farms Cemetery (Segment O-21)
14 • Old Brulay Plantation Historic District and Brulay Cemetery (Segment
15 O-21).
16 Viewer Response. The pool of viewers making up the affected environment
17 include single individuals, such as rural landowners on whose property the fence
18 will be constructed, and groups of individuals such as residents of the Towns of
19 Los Ebanos or Granjeno, business owners within the City of Hidalgo, or
20 recreational users of the LRGVNWR. Viewers could also include avocational
21 groups such as local historical societies or local chapters of the Audubon society
22 that have interests in preserving the settings of cultural or natural resources.
23 These viewers are likely to have both individual responses to specific resources
24 related to their experiences and emotional connection to those resources, as well
25 as collective responses to visual resources considered to be important on a
26 regional, state, or national level. Although individual viewer responses will be
27 captured where possible from viewer comments, for the purposes of this
28 analysis, the pool of affected viewers will be grouped into the following general
29 categories:
30 • Residential viewers
31 o Rural landowners, primarily farmers and ranchers

3-51
FME005620
1 o Town lots and suburban developments

2 o Urban residents
3 • Commercial viewers
4 o Rural farms, ranches, and isolated businesses
5 o Town-based businesses
6 o Urban businesses
7 • Industrial viewers
8 o Rural industries (e.g., pump stations, pipeline monitors)
9 o Town and urban
10 • Recreational viewers
11 o Visitors to parks and wildlife refuges
12 o Tourists visiting towns and cities
13 • Special interest viewers
14 o Native American tribes
15 o Local historical societies
16 o Local chapters of conservation societies (e.g., Audubon Society)
17 o Park commissions
18 o Regulatory agencies (e.g., USFWS, THC)
19 • Intermittent viewers (view primarily from transportation corridors)
20 o Commuters
21 o Commercial (e.g., truck drivers, railroad operators, ferry operator).
22 Within each of these categories, viewer response will also vary depending on the
23 typical duration of exposure to visual resources and the typical distance from
24 which they view those resources. For example, a residential viewer who
25 currently has an unobstructed view of a high-quality resource from their backyard
26 will be impacted differently than a residential viewer who lives several streets
27 away and already has an obstructed view of those resources. Similarly, a viewer
28 who only views a resource such as the LRGVNWR from the highway as they
29 pass through the region will have a different viewer response relative to that
30 resource than a viewer that regularly hikes the trails within the LRGVNWR.
31 3.10 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND

32 SAFETY
34 Socioeconomic Resources. Socioeconomics is defined as the basic attributes
35 and resources associated with the human environment, particularly
36 characteristics of population and economic activity.

3-52
FME005621
1 Socioeconomic data shown in this chapter are presented at the community and
2 county levels to characterize baseline socioeconomic conditions in the context of
3 regional and state trends. Data have been collected from previously published
4 documents issued by Federal, state, and local agencies; and from state and
5 national databases (e.g., U.S. Census Bureau).
6 Environmental Justice, Protection of Children, and Safety. There are no

7 Federal regulations specifically addressing socioeconomics; however there is
8 one EO that pertains to environmental justice issues. This EO is included in the
9 socioeconomics section because it relates to various socioeconomic groups and
10 the health effects that could be imposed on them. On February 11, 1994,
11 President Clinton issued EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental
12 Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. This EO requires
13 that Federal agencies’ actions substantially affecting human health or the
14 environment do not exclude persons, deny persons benefits, or subject persons
15 to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin. The EO was
16 created to ensure the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people
17 regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the
18 development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
19 regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no groups of people,
20 including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportionate
21 share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial,
22 municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of Federal, state, tribal,
23 and local programs and policies. Consideration of environmental justice
24 concerns includes race, ethnicity, and the poverty status of populations in the
25 vicinity of a proposed action. Such information aids in evaluating whether a
26 proposed action would render vulnerable any of the groups targeted for
27 protection in the EO.
28 EO 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety

29 Risks, protects of children from exposure to disproportionate environmental
30 health and safety risks. This EO established that each agency has a
31 responsibility to ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards
32 address risk to children that result from environmental health risks or safety risks.

34 USBC proposes to construct, maintain, and operate tactical infrastructure in the
35 southern portions of Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties in Texas. Therefore,
36 these counties constitute the study area for the Region of Influence (ROI).
37 Tactical infrastructure would cross multiple land use types, including rural, urban,
38 suburban, and agricultural.
39 Population Growth and Characteristics

40 Cameron, Hidalgo, and Starr counties, Texas have a total population of 1.15
41 million. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Cameron County has a

3-53
FME005622
1 population of 387,717, and is home to Brownsville, the city with the largest
2 population in the three-county area (SD 16). Hidalgo County has the largest
3 county population of 700,634 in 2006. Starr County at the western end of the
4 ROI is the least populated of the three counties, with an estimated population of
5 61,780 in 2006 (SD 16).
6 The population in the three county area has grown rapidly since 1980, increasing
7 by 31 percent in the 1980s and 39 percent in the 1990s (BEA 2007). Over the
8 past 6 years, some portions of the three-county area have been among the
9 fastest growing areas in the United States. Both Hidalgo County and Borwnsville
10 in Cameron County had a 23 percent increase in population between 2000 and
11 2006 (SD 16). Brownsville has had the 24th highest growth rate of any city with
12 more than 100,000 residents in the United States. Table 3.10-1 compares
13 population trends in the ROI with the state of Texas between 1980 and 2006.
14 Table 3.10-2 extrapolates continued trends in the ROI as compared to the rest of
15 Texas through the year 2020.
16 Table 3.10-1. State and County Population Trends Comparison in the ROI
17 1980 to 2006
State of Cameron Hidalgo Starr

Year
Texas County County County
1980 14,338,208 211,944 286,540 27,666
1985 16,272,722 245,894 341,145 34,274
1990 17,056,755 261,728 387,200 40,805
1995 18,958,751 304,928 487,593 49,598
2000 20,851,820 335,227 569,463 53,597
2006 23,507,783 387,717 700,634 61,780
Change 1980 to 1990 19.0 percent 23.5 percent 35.1 percent 47.5 percent
18 Source: BEA 2007
19 Table 3.10-2: County Population Trends, 2000 to 2020
State of Cameron Hidalgo Starr

Year
Texas County County County
2000 20,851,820 335,227 569,463 53,597
2005 22,928,508 378,905 678,652 60,479
2010 24,330,612 415,307 752,909 67,528
2015 26,156,715 457,255 854,936 74,905
2020 28,005,788 499,380 959,669 82,205

3-54
FME005623
Projected Change
16.7% 23.9% 32.2% 26.0%
2000 to 2010
Projected Change
15.1% 20.2% 27.5% 21.7%
2010 to 2020
Sources:
1. BEA 2007.
2. U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 and 2007.
3. Texas State Data Center and Office of the State Demographer, 2006 (BEA 2007), (SD7) (SD
13) (SD 15)
1 Cameron County has more than 40 miles of beaches along its eastern side,
2 including the southernmost section of Padre Island. Brownsville, with a 2006
3 population of 172,437, is the southernmost city in Texas, and is across the Rio
4 Grande from the City of Matamoros, Mexico (SD 16). Other large cities in the
5 county include Harlingen and San Benito; however, these cities are farther away
6 from the project corridor. Together these three cities account for 68 percent of
7 the county’s population. Cameron County also comprises the Brownsville-
8 Harlingen-San Benito Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Five other cities and
9 nine towns, including La Feria, South Padre Island, and Bayview, account for
10 another 10 percent of the county population. The remaining county population
11 (86,303 residents) lives outside of these cities and towns. The county is home to
12 the University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College (SD 16).
13 In Hidalgo County, the McAllen-Edinburg-Mission MSA includes the entire county

14 area and is made up of the three principal cities of McAllen, Edinburg and
15 Mission. McAllen and Mission do not border Mexico, but are less than 10 miles
16 from the Mexican city of Reynosa. Other larger cities in the county include Pharr,
17 San Juan, and Weslaco. Sixteen other cities have population ranging from 311
18 (Granjeno) to 16,287 (Alamo) and make up another 15 percent of the county
19 population. The remaining county population (214,209 persons) lives in outlying
20 rural areas or unincorporated communities and make up 31 percent of the
21 county’s population (SD 16). The bulk of the county’s population is in the
22 southern half of the county within 20 miles of the Mexican border. The county is
23 home to the University of Texas - Pan America (SD 16).
24 The largest cities in Starr County are Rio Grande City and Roma. These cities,
25 plus the smaller La Grulla, are at or near the Mexican border, with the Mexican
26 cities of Camargo and Miguel Aleman just a short distance away. Outside of
27 these three cities, the population of 34,945, represents 57 percent of the county
28 population (SD 16). The largest employer in the county is Starr Produce with
29 1,500 to 2,000 employees, followed by the county, school districts and Wal-Mart.
30 Rio Grande City is home to the South Texas Community College, and the
31 University of Texas – Pan American has a campus there.
32 Population projections through 2010 from the Texas state demography office
33 show a 29 percent growth rate and continued growth of 25 percent through the
34 following decade (SD 7). Key factors contributing to the rapid growth include

3-55
FME005624
1 both domestic and international migration related to the expanding availability of

2 job opportunities, an influx of retirees, and an increasing number of children
3 related to the many younger households that have migrated into the area,
4 particularly in Hidalgo County.
5 While the areas population growth has more than doubled since 1980, the area’s
6 racial and ethnic characteristic remains predominantly Hispanic (SD 15) (see
7 Table 3.10-3). While the non-Hispanic population has increased 8 percent in
8 past 6 years, the Hispanic population has grown by more than 20 percent over
9 the same period (SD 15). The proportion of Hispanics in the three-county area is
10 88.7 percent, about 2.5 times the proportion of Hispanics in the state of Texas.
11 Estimates for 2006 indicate that the three-county area is 9.9 percent non-
12 Hispanic whites, and only 1.3 percent other races (SD 15).
13 Table 3.10-3. Racial and Ethnic Characteristics in the ROI 2000 to 2006
Portion of
Change
2000 2006 Total
2000 to
Census* Estimate Population:
2006
2006 Estimate
State of Texas 20,851,820 23,507,783 12.7% 100.0%
Hispanic 6,669,666 8,385,139 25.7% 35.7%
Non-Hispanic Population by Race:
White Alone 10,986,965 11,351,060 3.3% 48.3%
Black Alone 2,378,444 2,687,401 13.0% 11.4%
Asian 567,528 763,381 34.5% 3.2%
Other Races 249,217 320,802 28.7% 1.4%
Cameron County 335,227 387,717 15.7% 100.0%
Hispanic 282,736 333,733 18.0% 86.1%
White Alone 49,133 49,460 0.7% 12.8%
Black Alone 923 1,311 42.0% 0.3%
Asian 1,568 1,996 27.3% 0.5%
Other Races 867 1,217 40.4% 0.3%
Hidalgo County 569,463 700,634 23.0% 100.0%
Hispanic 503,100 626,742 24.6% 89.5%
White Alone 60,033 63,641 6.0% 9.1%
Black Alone 1,976 3,133 58.6% 0.4%
Asian 3,261 5,126 57.2% 0.7%
Other Races 1,093 1,992 82.3% 0.3%
Starr County 53,597 61,780 15.3% 100.0%
Hispanic 52,278 60,193 15.1% 97.4%

3-56
FME005625

White Alone 1,111 1,294 16.5% 2.1%
Black Alone 8 26 225.0% 0.0%
Asian 141 202 43.3% 0.3%
Other Races 59 65 10.2% 0.1%
Source: Census Estimates Program, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 (SD 15)
Note: Census 2000 population differs slightly in the estimates file as compared to the Census
2000 data.
1 Employment and Income

2 Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties have seen great improvement in the
3 economy in the past two decades. The total number of jobs in the ROI has
4 increased by 236 percent since 1980 (BEA 2007).
5 As a result, the unemployment rate has dropped more than 20 percent, to 7.3
6 percent (BLS 2007). Per capita income (adjusted for inflation) has increased 18
7 percent in Starr County, 19 percent in Hidalgo County, and 18 percent in
8 Cameron County. Figure 3.10-1 shows county employment trends between
9 1980 and 2005.
10
11 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS, 2007 (BEA 2007)
12 Figure 3.10-1. Total County Employment, 1980 to 2005
13 Several industries have seen substantial growth thus creating local jobs in the
14 ROI. The biggest employers include the private industry, health care, retail and
15 tourism, and local manufacturing. Table 3.10-4 details employment by industrial
16 sector.
17 Private employment has increased by 17 percent across the three-county area

18 from 2001 to 2005 (as compared to 6 percent for the state of Texas) (BEA 2007).
3-57
FME005626
1 The health care industry has been a key economic driver in terms of job growth.
2 With the population 65 years and older increasing by 17 percent from 2000 to
3 2006 and other increases in demands for health services, this sector has grown
4 by nearly 40 percent in the three-county area and now makes up 18 percent of
5 the areas jobs (SD 14 and BEA 2007).

3-58
FME005627
Table 3.10-4. Employment by Industrial Sector in the ROI, 2005
% of
% of Three-
Cameron Hidalgo Starr Three-
Sector or Summary Level Texas Texas County
County County County County
Total Total
Total 2005
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 13,088,946 100.0% 156,193 267,366 20,365 403,194 100%
Wage and salary employment 10,269,066 78% 127,700 215,817 13,768 329,749 82%
Proprietors employment 2,819,880 22% 28,493 51,549 6,597 73,445 18%
Farm employment 281,727 2% 1,714 3,057 1,217 3,554 1%

Nonfarm employment 12,807,219 98% 154,479 264,309 19,148 399,640 99%
Private employment 10,979,216 84% 126,595 215,653 13,832 328,416 81%
3-59
Forestry, fishing, related

68,253 1% 2,897 6,925 (D) (D) n/a
activities, and other
Mining 244,837 2% 216 2,282 114 2,384 1%
Utilities 51,045 0% 322 783 45 1,060 0%
Construction 899,172 7% 8,748 18,234 1,777 25,205 6%
Manufacturing 951,778 7% 7,808 9,355 211 16,952 4%
Wholesale trade 530,192 4% 4,167 8,417 239 12,345 3%
Retail Trade 1,417,748 11% 19,205 35,027 2,217 52,015 13%

Transportation and warehousing 469,746 4% 5,628 8,638 491 13,775 3%
Information 262,195 2% 1,489 3,252 46 4,695 1%
October 2007
Finance and insurance 631,849 5% 4,204 8,171 284 12,091 3%

Real estate, rental, leasing 524,931 4% 4,958 6,574 199 11,333 3%
Professional and technical 828,786 6% 4,601 7,678 346 11,933 3%

3-59
FME005628
% of
% of Three-
Cameron Hidalgo Starr Three-
Sector or Summary Level Texas Texas County
County County County County
Total Total
Total 2005
services
Management of companies and
69,896 1% 323 472 40 755 0%
enterprises
Administrative and waste
843,486 6% 8,327 13,823 626 21,524 5%
services
Educational services 178,321 1% 1,479 1,946 103 3,322 1%
Health care and social assistance 1,168,205 9% 28,803 46,870 4,243 71,430 18%
Arts, entertainment, and
200,551 2% 1,895 2,225 (D) (D) n/a
recreation
Accommodation and food
3-60
879,593 7% 11,406 17,687 (D) (D) n/a

services
Other services, except public
758,632 6% 10,119 17,294 1,733 25,680 6%
administration
Government & government
1,828,003 14% 27,884 48,656 5,316 71,224 18%
enterprises
Federal, civilian 181,107 1% 2,352 2,710 396 4,666 1%
Military 161,205 1% 984 1,530 136 2,378 1%
State government 337,769 3% 4,021 5,265 132 9,154 2%

Local government 1,147,922 9% 20,527 39,151 4,652 55,026 14%
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS, 2007 (BEA 2007)
October 2007

3-60
FME005629
1 Retail trade accounts for 13 percent of the areas jobs in 2005, a 12 percent
2 increase in jobs since 2001. This expansion has also been important to the
3 regional economy and is due in part to retirees coming into the area in the winter
4 and shopping in the border areas. Mexican nationals also cross the border
5 legally to enjoy the broad selection of products at retail outlets in the three-county
6 area (BEA 2007 and SD 3).
7 The local manufacturing sector has declined by nearly 30 percent from 2001 to
8 2005 in terms of employment (BEA 2007). Manufacturing jobs now make up 4
9 percent of the area’s economy. However, the border economy benefits from
10 maquiladoras, manufacturing and assembly establishments located in Mexico
11 that use U.S. inputs, which then import finished products and sub-assemblies via
12 POE crossings in these counties for further distribution. Related to this are jobs
13 in the wholesale trade, transportation, and warehousing industries, which make
14 up another 6 percent of the area’s jobs and which have increased by 9 percent
15 since 2001 (BEA 2007).
16 Other growth sectors are related to the general boom in housing and population.
17 Construction jobs make up 7 percent of the jobs in the 2005 economy in the
18 three-county area, increasing in number by 9 percent since 2001 (BEA 2007).
19 Large increases have also been seen in finance and insurance (22 percent
20 growth) and real estate (28 percent growth) (BEA 2007).
21 Tourism cannot be overlooked. Cameron County is the home of South Padre

22 Island, which attracts many tourists over the winter and early spring. Besides
23 vacationers at the beach, the area is home to nine World Bird Centers
24 (developed by the Texas Department of Parks and Recreation to boost tourism in
25 the area) and the National Audubon Society’s Sabal Palms Sanctuary in
26 Brownsville. Tourism-related businesses have experienced an expansion in the
27 past 5 years with growth in the arts, entertainment, and recreation industries at 9
28 percent and growth in accommodation and food services at 11 percent. These
29 industries now make up about 7 percent of the area’s jobs (BEA 2007).
30 Large increases in jobs have also been seen in information industry, professional
31 and technical services, management companies and enterprises, and
32 administrative and waste services. These four industries have had growth rates
33 of more than 20 percent and together make up 9 percent of the jobs in the area
34 (BEA 2007).
35 Government employment has increased by 8 percent in the three-county area.

36 Federal civilian employment has increased by 7 percent, and these jobs now
37 make up 1 percent of the area’s employment (BEA 2007). State employment
38 over the period has increased by only 1 percent while local government
39 employment has seen the largest increase by 10, percent (BEA 2007). As a
40 portion of total jobs, local government makes up 14 percent of the total economy,
41 and local school districts and other local government entities are among the
42 biggest employers in these counties (BEA 2007).

3-61
FME005630
1 Although the economy has improved in the ROI, the area remains relatively poor.
2 The unemployment rate in the ROI is high (7.3 percent) when compared to the
3 Texas unemployment rate of 4.9 percent (BLS 2007). Table 3.10-5 shows how
4 the unemployment rate in the ROI compares with the state. As shown in Figure
5 3.10-2, the 2005 per capita income for the three-county area of $16,490 is about
6 half of the per capita income of the rest of the state of Texas ($32,460) (BEA
7 2007).
8 Table 3.10-5. State and ROI Labor Force and Unemployment Rate Averages
2000 2003 2004 2005 2006

State of Texas
Labor Force 10,347,847 10,999,132 11,127,293 11,282,845 11,487,496
Unemployment
4.4% 6.7% 6.0% 5.4% 4.9%
Rate
Cameron County
Labor Force 127,011 143,231 143,439 142,204 144,709
Unemployment
7.0% 9.6% 8.8% 7.6% 6.6%
Rate
Hidalgo County
Labor Force 210,984 247,486 257,511 264,251 269,586
Unemployment
9.2% 10.4% 9.1% 7.9% 7.4%
Rate
Starr County
Labor Force 17,722 21,308 21,625 21,471 21,758
Unemployment
16.8% 15.9% 14.5% 13.0% 11.7%
Rate
Source: BLS 2007
$40,000
Texas Cameron
$35,000
Hidalgo Starr
$30,000
$25,000
[$ 2006]
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
9
10 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS, 2007 (BEA 2007)
11 Figure 3.10-2. Per Capita Income, 1970 to 2005 (Real $2006)

3-62
FME005631
1 According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty
2 Estimates program, the poverty rate among all individuals has dropped in the
3 area from 44.8 percent in 1989 to 30.3 percent in 2004. However, Table 3.10-6
4 shows the area’s poverty rate is still almost twice the 16.2 percent poverty rate
5 for the state of Texas (SD 9).
6 Table 3.10-6. Poverty Rates and Median Income
Overall Child Poverty Rate Median Income

Geographic Area
Poverty Rate (Under 18) (2004 dollars)
State of Texas 16.2 percent 22.7 percent $41,645
Cameron County 29.4 percent 40.4 percent $26,719
Hidalgo County 30.5 percent 41.2 percent $26,375
Starr County 34.8 percent 46.6 percent $19,775
Source: Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, Census Bureau, 2006 (SD 9)
7 Agriculture
8 Low poverty rates and per capita income are mainly attributed to the local
9 agricultural industry. Although nonfarm private sector employment has increased
10 by nearly 17 percent, farm employment has declined by 12 percent from 2001 to
11 2005 across these three counties, now accounting for just over 1 percent of the
12 area’s 2005 jobs (BEA 2007). Though Texas might be famous for cattle, farm
13 income from crops far outweighs income from livestock in Cameron and Hidalgo
14 counties. In the three-county area, crops made up 73 percent of the 2005 farm
15 income as compared to 12 percent for livestock and related products (BEA
16 2007). In the 2002 Agricultural Census, 41 percent of the farms raised cattle in
17 the three-county area, and 56 percent of the land was identified as cropland.
18 Sugar cane is a major crop in the project corridor (SD 18). Figure 3.10-3
19 compares local distribution of agricultural income with the state. Table 3.10-7
20 characterizes local farms.
21 Selected Public Services

22 Public Education. School enrollment and the demographics of school
23 enrollment generally match those of the population of the three counties. In
24 Cameron County, 10 school districts provided educational services to 98,010
25 students in 130 schools in school year 2007 (SD 5). In Hidalgo County, 20
26 school districts, including five charter school districts, provided educational
27 services to 190,501 students in school year 2007. In Starr County, three school
28 districts provided educational services to 16,645 students in 23 schools in school
29 year 2007 (SD 5). Similar to demographics of the area, the demographic
30 characteristics of the students enrolled in these schools are predominantly
31 Hispanic and predominantly low income (SD 6). Table 3.10-8 provides detailed
32 ethnic information by county and school district in the ROI.

3-63
FME005632
Distribution of Farm Income, by Type - 2005

100%
$45.8 $8.7
$3,648.0
90% $42.3
O her Income
80% Souces
70% $5,637.6 $28.5

Cash Recieipts:
Crops
60%
50% $310.5 Cash Reciipts:

Livestock/Products
40% $116.9
30% $12,557.8
$39.3
20%
10%
$10.8 $23.7
0%
State of Texas Cameron Hidalgo Starr
1
2 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS, 2007 (SD 18)
3 Figure 3.10-3. Distribution of Farm Income by Type, 2005
4 Law Enforcement. Law enforcement and other community services are

5 provided by 40 law enforcement agencies in the three-county area. Cameron
6 County is served by 16 different agencies with 628 commissioned officers.
7 Hidalgo County is served by 21 different agencies with 1,052 commissioned
8 officers. Starr County is served by 3 different agencies with 77 commissioned
9 officers (SD 4). Table 3.10-9 shows the breakdown of law enforcement by
10 county and agency.
11 Environmental Justice
12 Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all
13 people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the
14 development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
15 regulations, and policies (EPA 1999). EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address
16 Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,
17 tasks “each Federal agency [to] make achieving environmental justice part of its
18 mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
19 adverse human health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
20 activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” Federal agencies
21 must provide minority and low-income communities with access to information on
22 matters relating to human health or the environment and opportunities for input in
23 the NEPA process, including input on potential effects and mitigation measures.
24

3-64
FME005633
1 Table 3.10-7. Characteristics of Local Agriculture, 2002
Texas Counties Total for

Description Three
Cameron Hidalgo Starr Counties
Number of Farms 1,120 2,104 870 4,094
Acres in Farms 350,437 593,158 570,430 1,514,025
Total Cropland (acres) 253,571 405,094 193,688 852,353
Harvested Cropland (acres) 151,923 277,406 41,759 471,088
Farms by Size, 2002
1 to 9 Acres 191 393 5 589
10 to 49 Acres 470 866 50 1,386
50 to 179 Acres 184 401 281 866
180 Acres or more 275 444 534 1253
Farms by Value of Sales, 2002
Less than $5,000 603 958 573 2,134
$5,000 to $49,999 294 814 263 1,371
$50,000 or more 223 332 34 589
Principal Occupation, 2002
Farming 666 1,115 492 2,273
Other 454 989 378 1,821
Hired Farm Labor
Farms with hired workers 337 671 341 1,349
Farms with 1 worker 201 295 103 599
Farms with 2 or more workers 136 376 238 750
Select Livestock for 2002
Farms with Cattle/Calves 402 614 671 1,687
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture for 2002 (SD 18)
2 The CEQ oversees the Federal government’s compliance with EO 12898 and the
3 NEPA process. Based on CEQ guidance, this EIS uses the following three-step
4 methodology to evaluate potential environmental justice impacts:
5 • Identify potential environmental justice populations located in the project

6 area or that could otherwise be affected by the Proposed Action
7 • Identify the potential human health and environmental effects of the
8 proposed alternatives
9 • Assess whether there are potential significant adverse effects on minority
10 and low-income populations that would be disproportionately high and
11 adverse.
3-65
FME005634
1 Table 3.10-8. Ethnic and Racial Distribution by county and School District
2 in the ROI
Hispanic 2004
Percent White
Percent Other
Total Schools
Disadvantage
Economically
School Year
Races 2004
Enrollment
School District
Percent
Percent
d 2004
2007
2004
Cameron County
Brownsville ISD 48,334 49 98.0% 2.0% 0.0% 93.1%
Harlingen CISD 17,684 24 88.0% 11.0% 1.0% 71.8%
La Feria ISD 3,186 8 91.0% 9.0% 0.0% 79.2%
Los Fresnos CISD 8,935 10 93.0% 6.0% 1.0% 85.5%
Point Isabel ISD 2,597 4 85.0% 15.0% 0.0% 88.3%
Rio Hondo ISD 2,292 5 95.0% 5.0% 0.0% 81.9%
San Benito CISD 10,694 18 98.0% 2.0% 0.0% 83.9%
Santa Maria ISD 633 5 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 97.8%
Santa Rosa ISD 1,195 3 97.0% 3.0% 0.0% 96.8%
South Texas ISD 2,460 4 76.0% 16.0% 8.0% 53.1%
Hidalgo County
Donna ISD 13,363 17 99.0% 1.0% 0.0% 91.3%
Edcouch-Elsa ISD 5,598 9 99.0% 0.0% 1.0% 90.6%
Edinburg CISD 28,772 36 97.0% 3.0% 0.0% 85.2%
Hidalgo ISD 3,331 6 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 92.2%
Idea Academy 2,073 1 94.0% 6.0% 0.0% 82.2%
La Joya ISD 25,130 27 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 90.5%
La Villa ISD 615 4 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 89.8%
McAllen ISD 24,570 32 89.0% 8.0% 3.0% 69.5%
Mercedes ISD 5,279 10 99.0% 1.0% 0.0% 92.1%
Mid-Valley Academy 252 2 94.0% 6.0% 0.0% 84.2%
Mission CISD 15,462 20 98.0% 2.0% 0.0% 84.3%
Monte Alto ISD 603 2 96.0% 3.0% 1.0% 88.6%
One Stop Multiservice Charter
School 5,536 3 97.0% 3.0% 0.0% 92.8%
Pharr-San Juan-Alamo ISD 28,868 36 99.0% 1.0% 0.0% 90.0%
Progreso ISD 1,989 5 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.2%
Sharyland ISD 8,208 9 85.0% 13.0% 2.0% 52.6%
Technology Education Charter High 451 1 97.0% 3.0% 0.0% 85.8%
Valley View ISD 4,099 5 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.1%
Vanguard Academy 369 1 93.0% 7.0% 0.0% 87.4%
Weslaco ISD 15,933 20 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 86.5%
Starr County
Rio Grande City CISD 9,969 11 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 84.5%
Roma ISD 6,417 10 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 89.2%
San Isidro ISD 259 2 95.0% 5.0% 0.0% 81.1%
Source: Texas Education Agency, 2006 and 2007 (SD 5, SD 6)

3-66
FME005635
1 Table 3.10-9. Law Enforcement Agencies and Personnel in the ROI
Commissioned Civilian Total

Cameron County
Cameron County Sheriff's Office 94 258 352
Local Police Departments (15) 534 234 768
Total 628 492 1,120
Hidalgo County
Hidalgo County Sheriff's Office 217 435 652
Local Police Departments (20) 835 346 1,181
Total 1,052 781 1,833
Starr County
Starr County Sheriff's Office 33 57 90
Local Police Departments (2) 34 14 58
Total 77 71 148
Source: 2004 Crime in Texas, Texas Department of Public Safety, 2006 (SD 4)
2 A demographic analysis assessed the presence of a potential environmental

3 justice prescribed population living near the project area. Census 2000
4 information is available for racial, ethnic, and economic characteristics at the
5 census tract level. The census tracts in which the portions of the project would
6 be located were identified (see Figure 2.2-1 through Figure 2.2-3). All are
7 located just north of the Rio Grande. Some of these census tracts have a
8 substantial amount of land and population away from the project area; however,
9 these census tracts have demographic characteristics similar to those of the
10 persons living at or near project construction activity. In some cases, the
11 population in the census tract closest to the project area would seem to be lower
12 in income than the population in the same census tract farther away from the
13 river. Table 3.10-10 identifies the minority populations associated with the
14 project area and its associated infrastructure.
15 As shown in Table 3.10-11, each census tract has a potential environmental

16 justice community based upon its racial and ethnic characteristic of being more
17 than 50 percent minority and also a substantially higher percentage than the
18 general population in both Texas and the United States. Each census tract has a
19 potential environmental justice community based upon the presence of a large
20 proportion of persons with incomes at or below the poverty level and based upon
21 this proportion being meaningfully greater than the proportion of persons with
22 incomes at or below the poverty rate for the general populations in both Texas
23 and the United States. Based upon Census 2000 information, the population
24 living in each of these census tracts meet these two criteria as a potential
25 environmental justice population.

3-67
FME005636
Table 3.10-10. Racial and Ethnic Population Composition in Geographic Comparison Areas
Percentage of Total Population
Geographic Black or Other Races, Total Racial Difference in

Area by White and Asian and African Two or More and Ethnic Percent Minority
Census Tract not not American and Races, and Hispanic Minorities Population
Hispanic Hispanic not Hispanic not Hispanic or Latino (B) + (C) + Above/Below the
or Latino or Latino or Latino or Latino Ethnicity (D) + (E) State Average
United States 69.1% 3.6% 12.0% 2.8% 12.5% 30.9% -16.7%
Texas 52.4% 2.6% 11.3% 1.7% 32.0% 47.6% --
Cameron
County 14.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 84.5% 85.5% 37.9%
Census Tracts
Included in
3-68
Project Area 7.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 92.2% 92.4% 44.8%

Census Tracts
Not Included in
Project 15.3% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 83.5% 84.7% 37.1%
Hidalgo
County 10.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 88.4% 89.6% 42.0%
Census Tracts
Included in
Project Area 6.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 93.5% 93.7% 46.1%

Census Tracts
Not Included in
Project 10.7% 0.6% 0.4% 0.3% 88.1% 89.3% 41.8%
October 2007
FME005637
Percentage of Total Population
Geographic Black or Other Races, Total Racial Difference in

Area by White and Asian and African Two or More and Ethnic Percent Minority
Census Tract not not American and Races, and Hispanic Minorities Population
Hispanic Hispanic not Hispanic not Hispanic or Latino (B) + (C) + Above/Below the
or Latino or Latino or Latino or Latino Ethnicity (D) + (E) State Average
Starr County 1.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 98.1% 98.4% 50.8%
Census Tracts
Included in
Project Area 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 98.0% 98.0% 50.4%
Census Tracts
Not Included in
Project 1.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 98.2% 98.6% 51.0%
Three-County
3-69
Area 11.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 87.6% 88.7% 41.1%

Source: 2000 US Census, U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 (SD 11)

October 2007
FME005638
1 Table 3.10-11. Census Tract Detail of Demographic Characteristics

2 Relevant to Environmental Justice
Proportion of Difference in Difference in

Proportion of
Total Proportion of the Proportion
Total
Geographic Population: Minority of Low Income
Population:
Area Racial and Population Population
Below Poverty
Ethnic above the State above the State
Level
Minorities Proportion Proportion
Cameron County Census Tracts Included in Project Area
119.03 98.0% 50.4% 46.5% 31.2%
121 79.1% 31.5% 35.4% 20.1%
125.05 95.4% 47.8% 34.5% 19.2%
125.07 96.4% 48.8% 42.0% 26.6%
125.08 89.3% 41.7% 29.8% 14.4%
128 97.4% 49.8% 33.5% 18.2%
133.07 100.0% 52.4% 55.2% 39.8%
140.01 93.4% 45.8% 57.6% 42.2%
141 96.9% 49.3% 32.4% 17.1%
Hidalgo County Census Tracts Included in Project Area
213.01 98.1% 50.5% 43.8% 28.4%
228 96.2% 48.6% 45.6% 30.2%
242.01 98.6% 51.0% 52.1% 36.7%
242.02 87.3% 39.7% 37.1% 21.7%
Starr County Census Tracts Included in Project Area
9501.02 97.8% 50.2% 42.3% 26.9%
9501.03 97.9% 50.3% 53.9% 38.6%
9502.02 98.4% 50.8% 45.7% 30.4%
Source: 2000 US Census, U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 and 3 (SD 11, SD 12)
3 3.11 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

5 Infrastructure consists of the systems and physical structures that enable a
6 population in a specified area to function. Infrastructure is wholly human-made,
7 with a high correlation between the type and extent of infrastructure and the
8 degree to which an area is characterized as “urban” or developed. The
9 availability of infrastructure and its capacity to support growth are generally
10 regarded as essential to the economic growth of an area. Below is a brief
11 overview of each infrastructure component that could be affected by the
12 Proposed Action. The infrastructure components to be discussed in this section
3-70
FME005639
1 include flood control and levee systems, irrigation and drainage systems,
2 municipal water systems, sanitary sewer systems, storm water drainage
3 systems, solid waste management, transportation systems, and utilities, including
4 electrical and natural gas systems.
5 Solid waste management primarily relates to the availability of landfills to support

6 a population’s residential, commercial, and industrial needs. Alternative means
7 of waste disposal might involve waste-to-energy programs or incineration. In
8 some localities, landfills are designed specifically for, and limited to, disposal of
9 construction and demolition debris. Recycling programs for various waste
10 categories (e.g., glass, metals, papers, asphalt, and concrete) reduce reliance on
11 landfills for disposal. Transportation systems and utilities are self-explanatory.

13 Agricultural Irrigation and Drainage Systems. The principal source of water
14 for irrigation in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (which is composed of Starr,
15 Hidalgo, Cameron, and Willacy counties) is the Rio Grande. Approximately
16 74,000 acres of agricultural lands are irrigated in the Lower Rio Grande Valley
17 (VW.013). The irrigation system is characterized by approximately 642 miles of
18 canals, 10 miles of pipelines, and 45 miles of resacas (i.e., former channels or
19 oxbows of the Rio Grande) (VW.013). Irrigation runoff is collected in drainage
20 ditches and resacas that eventually discharge into the Laguna Madre (VW.012).
21 Pumps and pump houses are also part of the irrigation system. Irrigation and
22 drainage infrastructure within the impact corridor is presented in Table 3.11-1.
23 Municipal Water Systems. The Rio Grande is a source of water for many
24 communities and cities in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Municipal water
25 infrastructure within the proposed impact corridor includes pumps and canals
26 (see Table 3.11-1).
27 Municipal Sanitary Sewer Systems. Some municipal sanitary sewer systems

28 in the Lower Rio Grande Valley discharge into the Rio Grande. Municipal
29 sanitary sewer infrastructure within the proposed impact corridor includes outfall
30 pipes (see Table 3.11-2).
31 Storm Water Drainage Systems. Storm water systems convey precipitation

32 away from developed sites to appropriate receiving surface waters. Storm water
33 systems provide the benefit of reducing amounts of sediments and other
34 contaminants that would otherwise flow directly into surface waters. Failure to
35 appropriately size storm water systems to either hold or delay conveyance of the
36 largest predicted precipitation event will often lead to downstream flooding and
37 the environmental and economic damages associated with flooding. As a
38 general rule, higher densities of development such as urban areas require
39 greater degrees of storm water management because of the higher proportions
40 of impervious surfaces that occur in urban centers.

3-71
FME005640
1 Numerous storm water drainages occur within the ROI. The number of storm
2 water drainage systems along the proposed construction route has not been
3 inventoried.
4 Table 3.11-1. Water Intake and Outfall Pipes

5 Within the Impact Corridor by Fence Segment
Fence Segment Water Intake and Outfall Pipes

Roma municipal water intake pipes
O-1 Roma municipal sewer outfall pipes
One private water pump
O-2 7 private water pumps
O-4 Peñitas municipal water pump house
Old Hidalgo municipal water pump house intakes
O-6 Mac Pump intakes
McAllen pump house intakes
8 irrigation stand pipes
O-9 Donna municipal water pump station
2 irrigation pumps
Santa Maria municipal water canal
La Feria municipal water pump house
O-11
La Feria municipal water canal
Irrigation pump and stand pipe
O-12 Harlingen municipal water canal
O-13 San Benito municipal water canal
O-14 IBWC pump
Cameron County irrigation pump
O-16
Private irrigation pumps
Irrigation stand pipes
O-17
Irrigation pumps
O-18 Overhead electrical power lines
Pump houses
O-19
Pumps
O-21 El Jardin water pump for Brownsville municipal water
6
7 Solid Waste Management. As of 2005, there were three active municipal

8 landfills in Starr County, three active municipal landfills in Hidalgo County, and
9 one active municipal landfill in Cameron County. The remaining capacity in
10 terms of years for these landfills was determined in 2005, based on compaction
11 rate and the amount disposed in 2005 (VW 03). The remaining capacity of these
12 landfills as of 2005 is reported in Table 3.11-2.

3-72
FME005641
1 Table 3.11-2. Remaining Capacity of Municipal Landfills as of 2005
Remaining Capacitya
Landfill Name County
(Years)
City of Roma Starr 30
City of La Grulla Starr 109.67
Starr County Landfill Starr 0.70
Edinburg Regional
Hidalgo 21.70
Sanitary Landfill
Peñitas Landfill Hidalgo 3.58
BFI Rio Grande Landfill Hidalgo 5.30
Brownsville Cameron 80.20
Note: Based on rate of compaction and amount disposed in 2005. (VW 03)
2 Transportation Systems. The Texas Department of Transportation (TDOT), in

3 cooperation with local and regional officials, is responsible for planning,
4 designing, building, operating and maintaining the state's transportation system.
5 Numerous roadways are within the ROI. Highway systems in the ROI inlcude
6 U.S. Highway 83, State Highway 374, U.S. Highway 281, State Highway 415,
7 Business U.S. Highway 77, State Highway 48, and State Highway 4. In addition
8 to the above highways, there are numerous municipal city roads, farm roads,
9 county roads, levee roads, and unpaved roads.
10 Electrical and Natural Gas Systems. Electrical transmission lines and natural
11 gas distribution lines that are part of the electrical and natural gas systems for the
12 Lower Rio Grande Valley are within ROI. The segments in which these utilities
13 infrastructure occur are presented in Table 3.11-3. The impact corridor for
14 Alternative 3 is larger. Therefore, a greater number of utility lines could be
15 affected under Alternative 3.
16 Table 3.11-3. Location of Utility Infrastructure Within

17 the Impact Corridor by Fence Segment
Fence Segment Infrastructure

O-4 1 Electric Transmission Line; 1 Gas Distribution Line
O-6 1 Electric Transmission Line; 3 Gas Distribution Lines
O-7 1 Electric Transmission Line; 1 Gas Distribution Line
O-8 1 Electric Transmission Line; 2 Gas Distribution Lines
O-18 1 Electric Transmission Line

3-73
FME005642
1 3.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE

3 Hazardous materials are defined by 49 CFR 171.8 as “hazardous substances,
4 hazardous wastes, marine pollutants, elevated temperature materials, materials
5 designated as hazardous in the Hazardous Materials Table (49 CFR 172.101),
6 and materials that meet the defining criteria for hazard classes and divisions” in
7 49 CFR 173. Transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the U.S.
8 Department of Transportation regulations within 49 CFR.
9 Hazardous substances are defined by the Comprehensive Environmental

10 Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) at 42 U.S.C. §9601(14),
11 as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA),
12 and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The definition of hazardous
13 substance includes (1) any substance designated pursuant to 33 U.S.C §1321
14 (b)(2)(A); (2) any element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated
15 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §9602; (3) any hazardous waste; (4) any toxic pollutant
16 listed under 33 U.S.C. §1317(a); (5) any hazardous air pollutant listed under
17 section 112 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. §7412); and (6) any imminently hazardous
18 chemical substance or mixture with respect to which the Administrator of USEPA
19 has taken action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §2606. The term hazardous substance
20 does not include petroleum products and natural gas.
21 Hazardous wastes are defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
22 (RCRA) at 42 U.S.C. §6903(5), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
23 Amendments, as: “a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because
24 of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics
25 may (A) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an
26 increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (B) pose a
27 substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when
28 improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.”
29 Certain types of hazardous wastes are subject to special management provisions
30 intended to ease the management burden and facilitate the recycling of such
31 materials. These are called universal wastes. and their associated regulatory
32 requirements are specified in 40 CFR 273. Four types of waste are currently
33 covered under the universal waste regulations: hazardous waste batteries,
34 hazardous waste pesticides that are either recalled or collected in waste
35 pesticide collection programs, hazardous waste thermostats, and hazardous
36 waste lamps.
37 Toxic substances are regulated under TSCA (15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq.), which
38 was enacted by Congress to give USEPA the ability to track the approximately
39 75,000 industrial chemicals currently produced or imported into the United
40 States. USEPA screens these chemicals and can require reporting or testing of
41 those that might pose an environmental or human-health hazard. USEPA can
42 ban the manufacture and import of those chemicals that pose an unreasonable
3-74
FME005643
1 risk. Asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are among the chemicals
2 regulated by TSCA.
3 In general, hazardous materials, hazardous substances, and hazardous wastes

4 include elements, compounds, mixtures, solutions, and substances which, when
5 released into the environment or otherwise improperly managed, could present
6 substantial danger to the public health, welfare, or the environment.
7 Evaluation of hazardous materials and wastes focuses on underground storage

8 tanks (USTs); aboveground storage tanks (ASTs); and the storage, transport,
9 handling, and use of pesticides, herbicides, fuels, solvents, oils, lubricants,
10 asbestos containing materials (ACM), and lead-based paint (LBP). Evaluation
11 might also extend to generation, storage, transportation, and disposal of
12 hazardous wastes when such activity occurs at or near the project site of a
13 proposed action. In addition to being a threat to humans, the improper release of
14 hazardous materials and wastes can threaten the health and well-being of wildlife
15 species, botanical habitats, soil systems, and water resources. In the event of
16 release of hazardous materials or wastes, the extent of contamination varies
17 based on the type of soil, topography, and water resources.

19 The ROI is predominantly used for agriculture. Therefore, pesticides and
20 herbicides are currently used in the ROI. It is assumed that all such substances
21 are applied according to Federal, state, and local standards and regulations.
22 There are no known waste storage or disposal sites within the proposed 150-foot
23 construction corridor (VW.001). Waste storage or disposal sites include
24 superfund sites, toxic release sites, and hazardous waste sites (under RCRA).
25 ASTs have been observed in Segment O-2 of the proposed construction corridor.
26 There are also private buildings in the ROI. Depending on the construction date,
27 these buildings could contain ACM or LBP.
28 [[Preparer’s Note: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment would be

29 conducted prior to any real estate transactions to determine and quantify
30 amounts of ACM or LBP.]]
31 The TCEQ is authorized by USEPA to regulate and enforce the provisions of

32 RCRA. As such, TCEQ regulates the treatment, storage, transport, and disposal
33 of hazardous waste. TCEQ also administers some site cleanup programs.
34 There are no known hazardous waste sites within the proposed construction
35 corridor.
36

3-75
FME005644

3-76
FME005645
1 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
2 4.1 INTRODUCTION
3 This chapter presents an analysis of the potential direct and indirect impacts each
4 alternative would have on the affected environment as characterized in Section 3.
5 Each alternative was evaluated for its potential to harm or destroy plant and animal
6 species, as well as the habitats they utilize.
7 The following discussion elaborates on the nature of the characteristics that might relate
8 to various impacts:
9 • Short-term or long-term. These characteristics are determined on a case-by-

10 case basis and do not refer to any rigid time period. In general, short-term
11 impacts are those that would occur only with respect to a particular activity or for
12 a finite period or only during the time required for construction or installation
13 activities. Long-term impacts are those that are more likely to be persistent and
14 chronic.
15 • Direct or indirect. A direct impact is caused by a Proposed Action and occurs
16 contemporaneously at or near the location of the action. An indirect impact is
17 caused by a Proposed Action and might occur later in time or be farther removed
18 in distance but still be a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the action. For
19 example, a direct impact of erosion on a stream might include sediment-laden
20 waters in the vicinity of the action, whereas an indirect impact of the same
21 erosion might lead to lack of spawning and result in lowered reproduction rates of
22 indigenous fish downstream.
23 • Negligible, minor, moderate, or major. These relative terms are used to
24 characterize the magnitude or intensity of an impact. Negligible impacts are
25 generally those that might be perceptible but are at the lower level of detection.
26 A minor impact is slight, but detectable. A moderate impact is readily apparent.
27 A major impact is one that is severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial.
28 • Significance. Significant impacts are those that, in their context and due to their
29 intensity (severity), meet the thresholds for significance set forth in CEQ
30 regulations (40 CFR 1508.27). This EIS meets the agencies’ requirements to
31 prepare a detailed statement on major Federal actions significantly affecting the
32 quality of the human environment (42 U.S.C. 102.2(c)).
33 • Adverse or beneficial. An adverse impact is one having adverse, unfavorable, or
34 undesirable outcomes on the man-made or natural environment. A beneficial
35 impact is one having positive outcomes on the man-made or natural
36 environment. A single act might result in adverse impacts on one environmental
37 resource and beneficial impacts on another resource.
38 • Context. The context of an impact can be localized or more widespread (e.g.,
39 regional).

4-1
FME005646
1 • Intensity. The intensity of an impact is determined through consideration of

2 several factors, including whether the Proposed Action might have an adverse
3 impact on the unique characteristics of an area (e.g., historical resources,
4 ecologically critical areas), public health or safety, or endangered or threatened
5 species or designated critical habitat. Impacts are also considered in terms of
6 their potential for violation of Federal, state, or local environmental law; their
7 controversial nature; the degree of uncertainty or unknown effects, or unique or
8 unknown risks; if there are precedent-setting effects; and their cumulative impact
9 (see Section 5).
10 4.2 AIR QUALITY

12 Under the No Action Alternative, USBP would not construct or maintain new tactical
13 infrastructure along the 21 segments in the Rio Grande Valley sector and operational
14 activities would remain unchanged. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no
15 impact on air quality.

17 The air quality impacts associated with the Proposed Action would be expected to be
18 the same along either routing depicted as Route A or Route B because the overall
19 length of the proposed construction corridors for Route A and Route B would be similar.
20 Therefore, the analysis presented below is applicable to both route alternatives.
21 Regulated pollutant emissions from the Proposed Action would not contribute to or
22 affect local or regional attainment status with the NAAQS. The Proposed Action would
23 generate air pollutant emissions from the proposed construction projects, maintenance
24 activities, and the operation of generators to supply power to construction equipment.
25 Proposed Construction Projects. Minor, short-term adverse effects would be

26 expected from construction emissions and land disturbance as a result of implementing
27 the Proposed Action. The proposed project would result in impacts on regional air
28 quality during construction activities, primarily from site-disturbing activities and
29 operation of construction equipment.
30 The construction projects would generate total suspended particulate and PM10
31 emissions as fugitive dust from ground-disturbing activities (e.g., grading, trenching, soil
32 piles) and from combustion of fuels in construction equipment. Fugitive dust emissions
33 would be greatest during the initial site preparation activities and would vary from day to
34 day depending on the construction phase, level of activity, and prevailing weather
35 conditions. The quantity of uncontrolled fugitive dust emissions from a construction site
36 is proportional to the area of land being worked and the level of construction activity.
37 [[Preparer’s Note: More information on actual amount of ground disturbance/grading

38 from alternative is requested. For planning purposes, it was assumed that ground

4-2
FME005647
1 disturbance for the fence would be approximately 69.89 miles long by 10 feet
2 wide and for the access road disturbance would be approximately 69.89 miles
3 long by 12 feet wide for a total of 186.37 acres of land.]]
4 Construction operations would also result in emissions of criteria pollutants as

5 combustion products from construction equipment. These emissions would be of a
6 temporary nature. The emissions factors and estimates were generated based on
7 guidance provided in USEPA AP-42, Volume II, Mobile Sources. Fugitive dust
8 emissions for various construction activities were calculated using emissions factors
9 and assumptions published in USEPA’s AP-42 Section 11.9. Therefore, the General
10 Conformity Rule does not apply to the Proposed Action (SM#4).
11 For purposes of this analysis, the project duration and affected project site area that
12 would be disturbed (presented in Section 2) were used to estimate fugitive dust and all
13 other criteria pollutant emissions. The construction emissions presented in Table 4.2-1
14 include the estimated annual construction PM10 emissions associated with the Proposed
15 Action. These emissions would produce slightly elevated short-term PM10 ambient air
16 concentrations. However, the effects would be temporary, and would fall off rapidly with
17 distance from the proposed construction sites.
18 Table 4.2-1. Estimates of Total Proposed Construction Emissions

19 from the Proposed Action
NOx VOC CO SOx PM10

Description
(tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy)
Construction Emissions 149.990 22.358 175.224 3.000 242.089
Maintenance Emissions 0.042 0.005 0.021 0.010 0.005
Generator Emissions 22.777 1.859 4.907 1.498 1.601
Total Proposed Action Emissions 172.810 24.223 180.152 4.508 243.696
Federal de minimis Threshold NA NA NA NA NA
BLIAQCR Regional Emissions 44,137 73,577 317,422 2,940 132,788
Percent of BLIAQCR Regional
0.392% 0.033% 0.057% 0.153% 0.184%
Emissions
Note: NA = Not applicable (criteria pollutant is in attainment/unclassified)
20 Specific information describing the types of construction equipment required for a

21 specific task, the hours the equipment would be operated, and the operating conditions
22 vary widely from project to project. For purposes of analysis, these parameters were
23 estimated using established methodologies for construction and experience with similar
24 types of construction projects. Combustion by-product emissions from construction
25 equipment exhausts were estimated using USEPA’s AP-42 emissions factors for heavy-
26 duty, diesel-powered construction equipment.
27 The construction emissions presented in Table 4.2-1 include the estimated annual
28 emissions from construction equipment exhaust associated with the Proposed Action in

4-3
FME005648
1 Calendar Year (CY) 2008 and operation of the diesel-powered generators. As with
2 fugitive dust emissions, combustion emissions would produce slightly elevated air
3 pollutant concentrations. Early phases of construction projects involve heavier diesel
4 equipment and earthmoving, resulting in higher NOx and PM10 emissions. Later phases
5 of construction projects involve more light gasoline equipment and surface coating,
6 resulting in more CO and VOC emissions. However, the effects would be temporary,
7 fall off rapidly with distance from the proposed construction site, and would not result in
8 any long-term impacts.
9 Maintenance Activities. [[Preparer’s Note: More information on maintenance

10 activities such as mowing the project area is requested. Please provide
11 information on types of potential non-road vehicles planned (e.g., agricultural
12 mowers) and number of days per year.]]
13 Generators. Six diesel powered generators would be required to power construction

14 equipment. It is assumed that these generators would be approximately 75 hp and
15 operated approximately 8 hours per day for 190 working days.
16 Summary. Since the BLIAQCR is within an area classified as being in attainment for all
17 criteria pollutants, General Conformity Rule requirements are not applicable to the
18 Proposed Action. Table 4.2-1 illustrates that the emissions from the Proposed Action
19 would be much less than 10 percent of the emissions inventory for BLIAQCR (SM#3).
20 Therefore, no adverse impacts on regional or local air quality are anticipated from
21 implementation of the Proposed Action.
22 According to 40 CFR Part 81, there are no Class I areas in the vicinity of the Proposed
23 Action. Therefore, Federal PSD regulations would not apply.
24 In summary, no adverse impacts on regional or local air quality are anticipated from
25 implementation of the Proposed Action. A conformity determination in accordance with
26 40 CFR 93-153(1) is not required, as the total of direct and indirect emissions from the
27 Proposed Action would not be regionally significant (e.g., the emissions are not greater
28 than 10 percent of the BLIAQCR emissions inventory). Emissions factors, calculations,
29 and estimates of emissions for the Proposed Action are shown in detail in Appendix K.

31 As discussed earlier, the Proposed Action would be within the BLIAQCR, which is in
32 attainment/unclassified for all criteria pollutants. Regulated pollutant emissions from
33 Alternative 3 would not contribute to or affect local or regional attainment status with the
34 NAAQS. Alternative 3 would generate air pollutant emissions from the proposed
35 construction projects, maintenance activities, and the operation of generators to supply
36 power to construction equipment.
37 Proposed Construction Projects. Alternative 3 would have similar impacts as the

38 Proposed Action. Minor short-term adverse effects would be expected from
39 construction emissions and land disturbance as a result of implementing Alternative 3.

4-4
FME005649
1 The proposed project would result in impacts on regional air quality during construction
2 activities, primarily from site-disturbing activities and operation of construction
3 equipment.
4 The construction projects would generate total suspended particulate and PM10
5 emissions as fugitive dust from ground-disturbing activities (e.g., grading, trenching, soil
6 piles) and from combustion of fuels in construction equipment. Fugitive dust emissions
7 would be greatest during the initial site preparation activities and would vary from day to
8 day depending on the construction phase, level of activity, and prevailing weather
9 conditions. The quantity of uncontrolled fugitive dust emissions from a construction site
10 is proportional to the area of land being worked and the level of construction activity.
11 [[Preparer’s Note: More information on actual amount of ground

12 disturbance/grading from alternative. For planning purposes, it was assumed
13 that ground disturbance for the primary and secondary fences would be
14 approximately 69.89 miles long by 20 feet wide and for the access road and
15 staging areas disturbance would be approximately 69.89 miles long by 12 feet
16 wide for a total of 279.09 acres of land.]]
17 Construction operations would also result in emissions of criteria pollutants as

18 combustion products from construction equipment. These emissions would be of a
19 temporary nature. The emissions factors and estimates were generated based on
20 guidance provided in USEPA AP-42, Volume II, Mobile Sources. Fugitive dust
21 emissions for various construction activities were calculated using emissions factors
22 and assumptions published in USEPA’s AP-42 Section 11.9.
23 For purposes of this analysis, the project duration and affected project site area that
24 would be disturbed (presented in Section 2) was used to estimate fugitive dust and all
25 other criteria pollutant emissions. The construction emissions presented in Table 4.2-2
26 include the estimated annual construction PM10 emissions associated with Alternative 3.
27 These emissions would produce slightly elevated short-term PM10 ambient air
28 concentrations. However, the effects would be temporary, and would fall off rapidly with
29 distance from the proposed construction sites.
30 Specific information describing the types of construction equipment required for a

31 specific task, the hours the equipment is operated, and the operating conditions vary
32 widely from project to project. For purposes of analysis, these parameters were
33 estimated using established methodologies for construction and experience with similar
34 types of construction projects. Combustion by-product emissions from construction
35 equipment exhausts were estimated using USEPA’s AP-42 emissions factors for heavy-
36 duty, diesel-powered construction equipment.
37

4-5
FME005650
1 Table 4.2-2. Estimates of Total Proposed Construction Emissions

2 from Alternative 3
NOx VOC CO SOx PM10

Description
(tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy)
Construction Emissions 321.510 47.926 375.600 6.430 355.597
Maintenance Emissions 0.042 0.005 0.021 0.010 0.005
Generator Emissions 22.777 1.859 4.907 1.498 1.601
Total Alternative 3 Emissions 344.330 49.791 380.528 7.938 357.203
Federal de minimis Threshold NA NA NA NA NA
BLIAQCR Regional Emissions 44,137 73,577 317,422 2,940 132,788
Percent of BLIAQCR Regional
0.078% 0.068% 0.120% 0.270% 0.269%
Emissions
Note: NA = Not applicable (criteria pollutant is in attainment/unclassified)
3 The construction emissions presented in Table 4.2-2 include the estimated annual
4 emissions from construction equipment exhaust associated with Alternative 3 in CY
5 2008 and operation of the diesel-powered generators. As with fugitive dust emissions,
6 combustion emissions would produce slightly elevated air pollutant concentrations.
7 Early phases of construction projects involve heavier diesel equipment and
8 earthmoving, resulting in higher NOx and PM10 emissions. Later phases of construction
9 projects involve more light gasoline equipment and surface coating, resulting in more
10 CO and VOC emissions. However, the effects would be temporary, fall off rapidly with
11 distance from the proposed construction site, and would not result in any long-term
12 effects.
13 Maintenance Activities. [[Preparer’s note: More information on maintenance

14 activities such as mowing the project area. Please provide information on types
15 of potential non-road vehicles planned (e.g., agricultural mowers) and number of
16 days per year.]]
17 Generators. Alternative 3 would require six diesel powered generators to power

18 construction equipment. It is assumed that these generators would be approximately 75
19 hp and operated approximately 8 hours per day for 190 working days.
20 Operational emissions associated with Alternative 3 would not result in an adverse

21 impact to air quality. The emission factors and estimates were generated based on
22 guidance provided in USEPA AP-42, Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources.
23 According to TAC Title 30, internal combustion engines greater than 500 brake
24 horsepower require an operating permit (SM#1). Therefore, the generators under
25 Alternative 3 are exempt from requiring an operating permit from the TCEQ.
26 Summary. Since the BLIAQCR is within an area classified as being in attainment for all
27 criteria pollutants, General Conformity Rule requirements are not applicable to
28 Alternative 3. Table 4.2-2 illustrates that the emissions from Alternative 3 would be

4-6
FME005651
1 much less than 10 percent of the emissions inventory for BLIAQCR (SM#3). Therefore,
2 no adverse impacts on regional or local air quality would be expected.
3 According to 40 CFR Part 81, there are no Class I areas in the vicinity of Alternative 3.
4 Therefore, Federal PSD regulations would not apply.
5 In summary, no adverse impacts on regional or local air quality would be anticipated

6 from implementation of Alternative 3. A conformity determination in accordance with 40
7 CFR 93-153(1) is not required, as the total of direct and indirect emissions from
8 Alternative 3 are not regionally significant (e.g., the emissions are not greater than 10
9 percent of the BLIAQCR emissions inventory). Emissions factors, calculations, and
10 estimates of emissions for Alternative 3 are shown in detail in Appendix K.
11 4.3 NOISE
13 Under the No Action Alternative, current activities would be the dominant source of
14 noise and there would be no short- or long-term changes to the noise environment.

16 The noise impacts associated with the Proposed Action would be expected to be the
17 same along either routing depicted as Route A or Route B because the overall length of
18 the proposed construction corridors and duration of construction activities for Route A
19 and Route B would be similar. Therefore, the analysis presented below is applicable to
20 both route alternatives.
21 Short-term moderate adverse impacts would be expected under Alternative 2. Sources

22 of noise from the implementation of Alternative 2 would include blasting, operation of
23 construction equipment, and noise from construction vehicles. Noise from construction
24 activities and vehicle traffic can impact wildlife as well as humans. Impacts on nesting,
25 feeding and migration could all occur on various species due to construction noise. For
26 specific information regarding impacts to wildlife from noise, see Section 4.7.2.
27 Construction Noise. The construction of the fence segments and related tactical
28 infrastructure, such as the patrol and access roads and construction staging areas,
29 would result in noise impacts on populations in the vicinity of the proposed sites.
30 Construction of the fence segments and the patrol roads adjacent to the fence would
31 result in grading and construction noise. Populations that could be impacted by
32 construction noise include adjacent residents, personnel visiting one of the wildlife
33 refuges or recreation areas, or employees in nearby office or retail buildings. Noise
34 levels for the construction of the Proposed Action were calculated using equipment
35 typical of construction projects. Noise from construction assumes several different
36 pieces of construction equipment operating simultaneously (see Table 3.3-1). Because
37 noise attenuates over distance, a gradual decrease in noise level occurs the further a
38 receptor is away from the source of noise. Based on these calculations, construction

4-7
FME005652
1 noise levels at a distance of 50 feet to 5,280 feet from the source are shown in Table
2 4.3-1.
3 Table 4.3-1. Estimated Noise from Proposed Construction Activities
Distance
50 feet 100 feet 300 feet 1,000 feet 5,280 feet
Noise Level 85 dBA 79 dBA 70 dBA 59 dBA 45 dBA
4
5 Implementation of the Proposed Action would have temporary effects on the noise
6 environment from the use of heavy equipment during construction activities. However,
7 noise generation would last only for the duration of construction activities and would be
8 isolated to normal working hours (i.e., between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.). Therefore, it
9 is anticipated that implementation of the Proposed Action would have negligible impacts
10 as a result of the construction activities.
11 Alternative 2 would impact residential areas as well as recreational facilities and

12 wilderness areas. In general, users of recreational facilities and sites anticipate a quiet
13 environment. Noise from construction would impact the ambient acoustical environment
14 around these sites. While construction would be a temporary source of noise, and no
15 significant impacts would be anticipated at recreational sites or wilderness areas, noise
16 from construction would reach areas that are anticipated to have low levels of ambient
17 noise.
18 Vehicular Noise. Noise impacts from increased construction traffic would be temporary
19 in nature. These impacts would also be confined to normal working hours (i.e., between
20 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.) and would last only as long as the construction activities were
21 ongoing. Most of the major roadways in the vicinity pass by residential areas.
22 Therefore, it is anticipated that the Proposed Action would have short-term minor
23 adverse noise impacts as a result of the increase in traffic, most notably in the areas
24 around Brownsville, McAllen, Progreso, Santa Maria, and Relampago.

26 Short-term moderate adverse impacts would be expected under Alternative 3. Under
27 Alternative 3, primary and secondary fences would be constructed 130 feet apart along
28 the same route as Alternative 2, Route B. Noise impacts from Alternative 3 would be
29 similar to those discussed under Alternative 2 and shown in Table 4.3-1. However,
30 residences would be closer to the secondary fence; therefore, noise impacts from
31 construction equipment would be slightly higher than under Alternative 2.

4-8
FME005653
1 4.4 LAND USE

3 In some locations, land use and land values are currently adversely affected by illegal
4 border crossings. Under the No Action Alternative, current land uses and values would
5 not change.

7 Constructing the proposed fence segments and access roads could result in long-term
8 minor adverse impacts on land use. The severity of the impact would vary depending
9 on the need for rezoning to accommodate the fence segments and access roads.
10 USBP might be required to obtain a permit or zoning variance based on local
11 restrictions and ordinances. Short-term minor adverse impacts would occur from
12 construction and use of staging areas during the construction. Impacts on land use
13 would vary depending on potential changes in land use and the land use of adjacent
14 properties.
15 USBP would adhere to local zoning laws and ordinances to lessen impacts on land use
16 conditions of areas affected.
17 The proposed fence, access roads, and patrol roads would traverse both public and
18 private lands. Therefore, USBP would have to acquire the land within the project area.
19 There are three ways for USBP to acquire these lands: lease/easements, purchase,
20 and eminent domain (CBP-REF.033).
21 USBP could obtain a lease/easement from landowners to construct the proposed

22 fenceline and access road. The lease/easement between the landowner and USBP
23 typically specifies compensation for the loss of use during construction, loss of
24 renewable or other resources, and restrictions on the permanent ROW after
25 construction. The acquisition of a lease/easement is a negotiable process that would be
26 carried out between USBP and individual landowners on a case-by-case basis.
27 Construction along the border usually requires the government to acquire some interest
28 in the land. Current law authorizes the Secretary of the DHS to contract for and buy any
29 interest in land adjacent to or in the vicinity of the international land border when the
30 Secretary deems the land essential to control and guard the border against any violation
31 of immigration law. The acquisition of land is a negotiable process that would be carried
32 out between USBP and individual landowners on a case-by-case basis.
33 Congress has granted USBP the power of eminent domain to facilitate the construction
34 of the Proposed Action. Eminent domain is used as a last resort if a landowner and the
35 project proponent cannot reach agreement on compensation for use or purchase of
36 property required for the Proposed Action. The project proponent is still required to
37 compensate the landowner for the use of the property and for any damages incurred
38 during construction. However, the level of compensation would be determined by a

4-9
FME005654
1 court according to applicable laws and procedures for such proceedings. If USBP is
2 unable to negotiate easements with the landowners, then eminent domain would be
3 used as a last resort measure to aquire the land as long as the property owner is justly
4 compensated as established by law.
5 The Proposed Action would traverse park/refuge lands, agricultural lands, residential
6 areas, municipalities, undeveloped lands, and industrial/commercial lands. The
7 Proposed Action would affect landowners whose property would be traversed or
8 adjacent to the proposed alignment. USBP would be required to purchase or obtain a
9 lease/easement from each landowner or land-managing agency allowing them to
10 construct, operate, and maintain the fenceline and access road. USBP would be
11 required to compensate the landowner or land-managing agency for the loss of use and
12 construction-related property damage, even in cases where eminent domain is
13 exercised. Special permits might be required to traverse railroads, roadways, streams,
14 and state and federal lands.
15 Agricultural lands within 60 feet of the Proposed Action would not be available for future
16 crop production. In addition, residential, industrial, commercial, and undeveloped lands
17 within 60 feet of the Proposed Action would not be available for future development.
18 Gates would be located within the fence that would allow landowners access to portions
19 of their property on both sides of the fence to reduce potential impacts to landowners.
20 Minor indirect adverse impacts on recreation would occur during construction of the
21 Proposed Action. However, impacts would be localized and short-term. No adverse
22 impacts on recreation would be expected after construction because access to
23 recreational areas along the fence would remain open to users. Long-term indirect
24 beneficial impacts on access to recreational areas could occur as a result of decreased
25 illegal traffic coming into these recreational areas. In addition, by reducing the amount
26 of illegal traffic within and adjacent to the project areas, disturbance to lands north of the
27 project areas would be reduced.
28 The figures in Appendix F show the location of the proposed fence segments and
29 access roads and the proximity of adjacent and intersecting land uses. The current land
30 uses traversed by Alternative 2, Routes A and B is described in Table 4-4.1. Land uses
31 were identified by using aerial photograph interpretation and the GIS data showing the
32 proposed project.

34 Alternative 3 would have similar impacts to the Proposed Action. The figures in
35 Appendix F show the location of the proposed fence segments and access roads and
36 the proximity of adjacent and intersecting land uses. The current land uses traversed
37 by Alternative 3 is described in Table 4-4.1. Table 4.4-2 outlines by fence segment the
38 existing communities within or adjacent to Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. Land uses
39 were identified by using aerial photograph interpretation and the GIS data showing the
40 proposed project.

4-10
FME005655
FME005656
FME005657
FME005658
FME005659

2 Physiography and Topography. Short- and long-term minor adverse impacts
3 on the natural topography would be expected. Grading, contouring, and
4 trenching associated with the installation of the fence, patrol roads, access roads,
5 and other tactical infrastructure would impact approximately 186.37 acres, which
6 would alter the existing topography. However, the existing topography of much
7 of the proposed project corridor was previously altered to construct the levees,
8 provide access roads, and to level agricultural fields for irrigation.
9 Geology. Short- and long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts on geologic

10 resources could occur at locations if bedrock is at the surface and blasting would
11 be necessary to grade for fence placement or patrol and access road
12 development. Geologic resources could affect the placement of the fence or
13 patrol and access roads due to the occurrence of bedrock at the surface, or as a
14 result of structural instability. In most cases, it is expected that project design
15 and engineering practices could be implemented to mitigate geologic limitations
16 to site development.
17 Soils. Short-term minor direct adverse impacts on soils in the Lower Rio Grande
18 Valley would be expected as a result of implementing the Proposed Action. Soil
19 disturbance and compaction due to grading, contouring, and trenching
20 associated with the installation of the fence, patrol roads, access roads, and
21 other tactical infrastructure would impact approximately 186.37 acres.
22 The proposed construction activities would be expected to result in an increase in

23 soil erosion, especially in the western portion of the project area (in Segments O-
24 1, O-2, and O-3). This area is characterized by low ridges with moderately
25 steep-sided bluffs with narrow arroyos. Soil disturbance on steep slopes has the
26 potential to result in excessive erosion due to instability of the disturbed soils and
27 high runoff energy and velocity. Sediments washed from construction sites
28 would be carried to and deposited in the Rio Grande. In addition, wind erosion
29 has the potential to impact disturbed soils where vegetation has been removed
30 due to the semiarid climate of the region. Construction activities would be
31 expected to directly impact the existing soils as a result of grading, excavating,
32 placement of fill, compaction, and mixing or augmentation necessary to prepare
33 the site for development of the fence, patrol and access roads and associated
34 utility lines. Following construction activities, the areas disturbed should be
35 revegetated with native species to the maximum extent practicable to reestablish
36 native plant communities and help stabilize soils.
37 Because proposed construction would result in a soil disturbance of greater than

38 5 acres, authorization under TCEQ Construction General Permit (TXR150000)
39 would be required. Construction activities subject to this permit include clearing,
40 grading and disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling or excavation, but do
41 not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line,
42 grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the
4-15
FME005660
1 development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

2 (SWPPP).
3 The SWPPP should contain one or more site map(s), which show the
4 construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways,
5 storm water collection and discharge points, general topography both before and
6 after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must
7 list best management practices (BMPs) the discharger will use to protect storm
8 water runoff along with the locations of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP
9 must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for
10 “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a
11 sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on
12 the 303(d) list for sediment. Part III.F of the Construction General Permit
13 describes the elements that must be contained in a SWPPP.
14 Additional soil disturbance could occur during and following construction as a

15 result of scheduled patrols. Compaction and erosion of soil would be expected
16 as a result of patrol operations and possible off-road vehicle use that could
17 decrease vegetation cover and soil permeability.
18 Long-term minor direct adverse impacts on prime farmland soils in Hidalgo and
19 Cameron Counties would occur as a result of construction activities.
20 [[Preparer’s Note: A letter to the NRCS at the state office will be submitted
21 to determine acreage of prime farmland soils potentially impacted by
22 Alternative 2 and 3.]]
23 No soils associated with farmland of local, unique, or statewide importance are

24 identified for Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron Counties. In areas not currently being
25 used for agriculture, the proposed project corridor would be linear and limited in
26 extent, therefore any impacts to the areas considered prime farmland would be
27 considered minor. In the areas where crops, such as sorghum and sugar cane,
28 were observed being grown in the proposed project corridor during the site
29 survey, construction of the Proposed Action would result in the permanent loss of
30 existing cropland. Coordination should occur with NRCS to determine the extent
31 of prime farmland to be impacted.

33 The Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative would result in similar
34 environmental impacts on geologic and soils resources as described above for
35 the Proposed Action. However, the magnitude of the impacts would affect a
36 larger area, due to the additional fence and overall wider corridor. Approximately
37 279.09 acres would be impacted.

4-16
FME005661
1 4.6 WATER RESOURCES

3 Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented.
4 As a result, there would be no change from baseline conditions as described in
5 Section 3.5. Effects on water resources could occur as a result of regional
6 drought locally and/or within the drainage basin or other natural events affecting
7 precipitation patterns.

9 The impacts on water resources associated with the Proposed Action would be
10 expected to be the same along either routing depicted as Route A or Route B
11 because the overall length and general area of the proposed construction
12 corridors for Route A and Route B would be similar. Therefore, the analysis
13 presented below is applicable to both route alternatives.
14 Hydrology and Groundwater. Short-and long-term negligible direct adverse

15 impacts on hydrology of the Rio Grande would be expected to occur as a result
16 of implementing the Proposed Action in Segments O-1, O-2, and O-3. Under the
17 Proposed Alternative, grading and contouring would be expected to alter the
18 topography and remove vegetation within the floodplain of the Rio Grande, which
19 could in turn increase erosion potential and increase runoff during heavy
20 precipitation events. Revegetating the area with native vegetation following
21 construction along with other best management practices to abate runoff and
22 wind erosion could reduce the impacts of erosion and runoff due to the changes
23 in hydrological potential. Additionally, the small increase in impervious surface
24 within the floodplain would result in negligible increases in the quantity and
25 velocity of storm water flows to the Rio Grande. As require by the Texas
26 Construction General Permit (TXR150000), BMPs would be developed as part of
27 the required SWPPP to manage storm water both during and after construction.
28 Therefore, effects are expected to be negligible.
29 No impacts on hydrology are expected in Segments O-4 through O-21. These

30 fence segments would be constructed and operated behind the IBWC levee
31 system, outside the Rio Grande floodplain.
32 Short-term minor direct adverse impacts on groundwater resources in Starr,

33 Hidalgo, and Cameron Counties would be expected as a result of implementing
34 the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, water would be required for
35 pouring concrete, watering of road and ground surfaces for dust suppression
36 during construction, and to wash construction vehicles. Water use for
37 construction would be temporary, and the volume of water used for construction
38 would be minor when compared to the amount used annually in the area for
39 municipal, agricultural, and industrial purposes.

4-17
FME005662
1 Implementation of storm water and spill prevention BMPs developed consistent

2 with the SWPPP and other applicable plans and regulations would minimize
3 potential runoff or spill-related impacts on groundwater quality during
4 construction.
5 Surface Water and Waters of the U.S. Long-term and short-term negligible
6 adverse effects on water quality would be expected as a result of the Proposed
7 Action. The Proposed Action would increase impervious surface area and runoff
8 potential in the project area. Approximately 186 acres of soil disturbance would
9 occur during construction activities. Additional disturbance could occur as a
10 result of staging areas and the placement of temporary structures and equipment
11 to support construction activities. The soil disturbance associated with the
12 Proposed Action would disturb more than 5 acres of soil, and therefore would
13 require authorization under the Texas Construction General Permit
14 (TXR1500000). The Construction General Permit would require an SWPPP.
15 The SWPPP would include erosion and sediment control and storm water BMPS
16 for activities resulting during and after construction. Based on these
17 requirements, adverse effects associated with storm water runoff on surface
18 water quality would be reduced to negligible.
19 Impacts on surface water and wetlands that are potentially jurisdictional waters of
20 the U.S. would be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts that
21 cannot be avoided would be minimized and BMPs enacted that would comply
22 with all applicable Federal, state, and local regulations. Potential impacts include
23 filling wetlands and moving the alignment of irrigation canals and drainage
24 ditches. Currently, wetland vegetation is routinely removed mechanically from
25 canal banks as a maintenance action to improve flow and reduce water loss to
26 evapotranspiration.
27 If wetland impacts cannot be avoided, the USACE Fort Worth District on behalf of
28 USBP would obtain a CWA Section 404 Permit and a RHA Section 10 Permit, as
29 applicable, from the USACE Galveston District. As part of the permitting
30 process, the USACE Fort Worth District would develop, submit, and implement a
31 wetlands identification, mitigation, and restoration plan to reduce impacts and
32 compensate for unavoidable impacts. The plan would be developed in
33 accordance with USACE guidelines and in cooperation with USEPA. The plan
34 would outline BMPs from preconstruction to post-construction activities to reduce
35 impact on wetlands and waterbodies. The USACE Fort Worth District would also
36 obtain a Section 401 (a) CWA Permit from TCEQ, to ensure that action would
37 comply with state water quality standard.
38 [[Preparer’s Note: Impacts on surface waters and waters of the U.S. will be
39 analyzed in greater detail, once the fence alignment in relation to the
40 arroyos, canals, resacas, and drainages ditches is known and jurisdictional
41 wetlands are delineated.]]

4-18
FME005663
1 Floodplains. Impacts on floodplains would be avoided to the maximum extent

2 practicable; however, short- and long-term minor adverse impacts on the Rio
3 Grande floodplain would occur as a result of construction in the short-term and a
4 long-term increase in impervious surface associated with Segments O-1 through
5 O-3. These segments, as currently designed, parallel the Rio Grande floodplain.
6 In accordance with FEMA Document, Further Advice on EO 11988, Floodplain
7 Management, USBP has determined that Segment O-1 through O-3 cannot be
8 practicably located outside the floodplain. The current floodplain extends past
9 local communities and roads strategic to the operations of USBP. In order to
10 operate outside the existing floodplain, USBP would have to move all operations
11 northward several miles in some areas. This would not meet USBP mission
12 needs. The increase in impervious surface associated with Segments O-1, O-2,
13 and O-3 would have no effect on the IBWC international drainage, which starts in
14 Peñitas, Texas, in Hidalgo County. USBP would mitigate unavoidable impacts
15 on floodplains using planning guidance developed by the USACE.
16 [[Preparer’s Note: Government to provide information on modeling efforts

17 and mitigation plans for construction and operation in areas including
18 arroyos, washes, and intermittent streams located within floodplains when
19 that information becomes available.]]
20 No impacts on floodplains or IBWC international floodways are expected in

21 Segments O-4 through O-21. These fence segments would be constructed and
22 operated behind the IBWC levee system, outside the Rio Grande floodplain.

24 Hydrology and Groundwater. Impacts on hydrology in Segments O-1, O-2,
25 and O-3 under Alternative 3 would be similar, but slightly greater than the
26 impacts described under Alternative 2. The primary and secondary fence
27 segments proposed under Alternative 3 would result in a larger increase in
28 impervious surface under this alternative.
29 Impacts on groundwater under Alternative 3 would be similar, but not significantly

30 greater than the impacts under Alternative 2 because the area of surface
31 disturbance would be greater under this alternative. Disturbance at the ground
32 surface would not affect ground water aquifers directly, and post-construction
33 runoff patterns could result in minor groundwater recharge.
34 Surface Waters and Waters of the U.S. Alternative 3 would result in impacts
35 on surface waters and waters of the U.S. similar to those described in Alternative
36 2. However, the magnitude of the impacts would affect a larger area due to the
37 additional fence and wider corridor. Approximately 279 acres of soils would be
38 disturbed under Alternative 3. As described in Section 3.5.2, the Texas
39 Construction General Permit would be required to address the development and
40 implementation of a SWPPP with BMPs to reduce the effects of storm water
41 runoff. Additionally, CWA Section 404, Section 401a, and RHA Section 10

4-19
FME005664
1 permits would be obtained prior to all unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional

2 waters of the U.S. A wetlands mitigation and restoration plan to lessen
3 unavoidable impacts would be developed, submitted, and implemented. The
4 plan would outline BMPs from preconstruction to post-construction activities to
5 reduce impact on wetlands and waterbodies.
6 Floodplains. Impacts on floodplains in Segments O-1, O-2, and O-3 under

7 Alternative 3 would be similar, but slightly greater than the impacts described
8 under Alternative 2. The primary and secondary fence segments proposed
9 under Alternative 3 would result in an increase in impervious surface, contributing
10 slightly more surface runoff to the Rio Grande and its associated floodplain.
11 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

12 Vegetation.

14 Under the No Action Alternative, vegetation would continue to be influenced by
15 Federal, state, and non-profit resource agency and private land management
16 plans, development, agricultural crop production, wildfires, drought, floods,
17 recreationists, and illegal aliens crossing the international border individually or
18 with illegal contraband and being monitored/pursued by USBP agents. Native
19 vegetation stands would continue to be adversely affected due to trampling by
20 recreationists (primarily hunters), illegal aliens, and agents in pursuit of aliens,
21 including crushing vegetation by vehicles used off-trail during apprehension.

23 Route A. Under the proposed action, Route A, a 60-foot-wide corridor
24 containing the proposed new pedestrian and hybrid fence and access/patrol
25 roads on either side would be cleared during construction and a portion
26 maintained following construction to support long-term maintenance, sight
27 distance, and patrol activities. For the period of construction, lay-down areas for
28 materials and equipment would be identified within the disturbed corridor. For
29 the proposed length of approximately 70 miles, this cleared corridor totals
30 approximately 508 acres. Existing land use and vegetation comprising
31 approximately 508 acres includes: urban land, private residences, and
32 agricultural land (approximately 25 percent of the corridor), non-native
33 grasslands and herbaceous vegetation (approximately 40 percent of the
34 corridor), disturbed thornscrub shrublands and woodlands (approximately 25
35 percent of the corridor), and disturbed floodplain shrublands, woodlands, and
36 forests (approximately 10 percent of the corridor). Following construction,
37 approximately one-half this area, or about 250 acres, would be allowed to
38 revegetate to native and non-native vegetation and wildlife habitat or be used for
39 urban, residential, or agricultural crop production. Approximately 190 acres
40 would be available for vegetation and wildlife habitat following construction.
4-20
FME005665
1 The loss of vegetation from approximately 125 acres of urban and agricultural
2 land would result in short- and long-term insignificant to minor adverse effects
3 due to the disturbed land becoming a nursery for non-native plant species to
4 propagate and invade surrounding plant communities. Removal of individual
5 large mature native trees of Texas ebony, sabal palm, eastern cottonwood,
6 sugarberry, and honey mesquite would result in long-term moderate to major
7 adverse effects, because they are irreplaceable due to age and size. Avoidance
8 of these large trees would require protection of the soil and root zone at least to
9 the canopy drip-line, a zone up to 50-75 feet wide.
10 The loss of approximately 200 acres of herbaceous vegetation, more than half of
11 this area dominated by non-native buffelgrass, Bermuda grass, and windmill
12 grass, would result in short- and long-term, low to moderate adverse effects due
13 to habitat conversion. Following construction, approximately 100 acres would be
14 allowed to revegetate and would likely become a dense herbaceous plant
15 community of composition similar to adjacent, existing stands.
16 The loss of approximately 125 acres of disturbed thornscrub shrubland and

17 woodland habitat, predominantly honey mesquite and retama, would result in
18 short- and long-term moderate adverse effects due to habitat conversion. On
19 National Wildlife Refuges, a portion of this acreage represents stands that were
20 previously revegetated by the USFWS around 2002 and 2003. Following
21 construction, approximately 65 acres would be allowed to revegetate and would
22 likely become a shrub herbaceous or shrubland plant community of composition
23 similar to adjacent, existing stands.
24 In the first one-mile of proposed Segment O-1, approximately 4.0 acres of

25 Tamaulipan thornscrub that has become established on gravel substrate of hills
26 and ridges would be removed, resulting in long-term high adverse effects due to
27 habitat conversion by disruption of the substrate. The first 0.85 acres of this
28 habitat has been root plowed, resulting in an invasion of the non-native
29 buffelgrass and loss of native vegetation cover, diversity and community
30 structure. Restoration of this root plowed habitat with its loss of gravel veneer
31 and need to eliminate invasive grass species would likely not occur.
32 In the first 0.5 miles of proposed Segment O-1, sedimentary rock outcrops on
33 south-facing slopes have been avoided through construction planning and
34 design, resulting in short- and long-term moderate to high beneficial effects, due
35 to preservation of a unique habitat that in other sites supports federally listed
36 plant species (e.g., the Zapata bladderpod). Loss of these unique sedimentary
37 rock outcrops would be irreplaceable.
38 The loss of approximately 50 acres of disturbed floodplain shrubland, woodland,

39 and forest habitat, predominantly honey mesquite and sugarberry and to a lesser
40 extent sabal palm, would result in short- and long term, moderate to high adverse
41 effects due to habitat conversion and the size and age of mature floodplain trees.
42 Following construction, approximately 25 acres would be allowed to revegetate

4-21
FME005666
1 and would likely become a wooded herbaceous or woodland plant community of

2 composition similar to adjacent, existing stands.
3 During and following construction of these primary fence segments as proposed,

4 the effects of fire, drought, flooding, etc. as described in the No Action
5 Alternative, would occur over time, resulting in short- and long-term low to
6 moderate adverse effects to remaining native and non-native plant communities.
7 Route B. [[Preparer’s Note: The differences between Route A and B

8 impacts will be detailed after the Phase I Surveys are complete.]]

10 Under the Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative, a 150-foot-wide corridor
11 containing the proposed new pedestrian and hybrid fence and access/patrol
12 roads on either side would be cleared during construction and would remain
13 cleared following construction to support long-term maintenance, sight distance,
14 and patrol activities. For the period of construction, lay-down areas for materials
15 and equipment would be identified within the disturbed corridor. The cleared
16 area totals approximately 1,103 acres over the 70-mile length of the proposed
17 corridor. Existing land use and vegetation in this 1,103 acres include: urban
18 land, private residences, and agricultural land (approximately 275 acres), non-
19 native grasslands and herbaceous vegetation (approximately 445 acres),
20 disturbed thornscrub shrublands and woodlands (approximately 275 acres), and
21 disturbed floodplain shrublands, woodlands, and forests (approximately 110
22 acres).
23 The loss of vegetation from approximately 275 acres of urban and agricultural
24 land would result in short- and long-term insignificant to low adverse effects due
25 to the disturbed land becoming a nursery for non-native plant species to
26 propagate and invade surrounding plant communities. Removal of individual
27 large mature native trees of Texas ebony, sabal palm, eastern cottonwood,
28 sugarberry, and honey mesquite would result in long-term moderate to high
29 adverse effects, because they are irreplaceable due to age and size. Avoidance
30 of these large trees would not be possible under this alternative.
31 The loss of approximately 445 acres of herbaceous vegetation, more than half of
32 this area dominated by non-native buffelgrass, Bermuda grass, and windmill
33 grass, would result in short- and long-term moderate adverse effects due to
34 permanent habitat conversion. The loss of approximately 275 acres of disturbed
35 thornscrub shrubland and woodland habitat, predominantly honey mesquite and
36 retama, would result in short- and long-term moderate to high adverse effects
37 due to permanent habitat conversion. On National Wildlife Refuges, a portion of
38 this acreage represents stands that were previously revegetated by the USFWS
39 during 2002 and 2003.

4-22
FME005667
1 In the first 1-mile of proposed Segment O-1, approximately 9.0 acres of

2 thornscrub that has become established on gravel substrate of hills and ridges
3 would be permanently removed, resulting in long-term high adverse effects due
4 to habitat conversion by disruption of the substrate and elimination of vegetation
5 cover. In the first 0.5 miles of proposed Segment O-1, sedimentary rock
6 outcrops on south-facing slopes have been avoided through construction
7 planning and design, resulting in short- and long-term, moderate to high
8 beneficial effects due to preservation of a unique habitat that in other sites
9 supports federally listed plant species (e.g., the Zapata bladderpod). Loss of
10 these unique sedimentary rock outcrops would be irreplaceable.
11 The loss of approximately 110 acres of disturbed floodplain shrubland, woodland,

12 and forest habitat, predominantly honey mesquite and sugarberry and to a lesser
13 extent sabal palm, would result in short- and long-term, moderate to high adverse
14 effects due to permanent habitat conversion, the size and age of mature
15 floodplain trees, and the endemicity of the sabal palm.
16 During and following construction of these primary fence segments as proposed,

17 the effects of fire, drought, flooding, etc. as described in the No Action
18 Alternative, would occur over time, resulting in short- and long-term low to
19 moderate adverse effects to the remaining native and non-native plant
20 communities.
21 Aquatic and Wildlife Resources

22 No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, new tactical
23 infrastructure would not be built and there would be no change in fencing, access
24 roads, or other facilities along the U.S./Mexico international border in the
25 proposed project locations within the Rio Grande Valley Sector. Wildlife and
26 aquatic resources in the project area would continue as described for the
27 baseline condition. Therefore, there would be no change to the wildlife and no
28 wildlife impacts.
29 Alternative 2: Proposed Action. Routes A and B would follow the IBWC levee
30 system for the majority of its length; however, under both Route Alternatives,
31 some proposed fence segments would encroach on portions of unique or
32 protected habitats. The proposed fence alignment would cross several Texas
33 state parks and Wildlife Management Areas in the Rio Grande Valley and would
34 intersect LRGVNWR at several locations (see Table 2 in Appendix F). Potential
35 threats to wildlife in these areas include: barrier to movement, interruption of
36 corridors, increased human activity, loss of habitat, and increased traffic
37 mortality.
38 Noise created during construction would be anticipated to result in short-term,

39 minor to moderate, adverse effects on wildlife. These effects would include
40 subtle, widespread effects from the overall elevation of ambient noise levels
41 during construction. Noise levels after construction are anticipated to return to

4-23
FME005668
1 close to current ambient levels. Elevated noise levels during construction could
2 result in reduced communication ranges, interference with predator/prey
3 detection, or habitat avoidance. More intense effects would include behavioral
4 change, disorientation, or hearing loss. Predictors of wildlife response to noise
5 include noise type (i.e., continuous or intermittent), prior experience with noise,
6 proximity to a noise source, stage in the breeding cycle, activity, and age. Prior
7 experience with noise is the most important factor in the response of wildlife to
8 noise, because wildlife can become accustomed (or habituate) to the noise. The
9 rate of habituation to short-term construction is not known, but it is anticipated
10 that wildlife would be permanently displaced from the areas where the habitat is
11 cleared and the fence and associated TI constructed, and temporarily dispersed
12 from areas adjacent to the project areas during construction periods. See
13 Section 4.3.2 for additional details on expected noise levels associated with the
14 Proposed Action.
15 The area temporarily impacted within the 21 segments (both route alternatives)
16 would total approximately 508 acres. Following construction, approximately one-
17 half this area, or 250 acres, would be allowed to revegetate to vegetation and
18 wildlife habitat if it does not occur in urban, residential, or agricultural lands.
19 Previous disturbances (i.e., agriculture and grazing) in the area around the site
20 reduce the significance of potential impacts to the local wildlife community.
21 Unique or rare habitats would be avoided to the extent practicable. Riparian
22 areas within the LRGVNWR and arroyos would be avoided and therefore would
23 not be impacted. Therefore, no significant impacts to wildlife would occur under
24 the proposed action.
25 Removal of vegetation and grading during construction could temporarily

26 increase siltation in the river and therefore have short-term minor adverse
27 impacts on fishes within the Rio Grande River. Under Route A, tactical
28 infrastructure would be adjacent to the river bank, and could result in increased
29 siltation in the Rio Grande River. There is one state-listed fish species known to
30 overlap with a proposed fence segment in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. The Rio
31 Grande silvery minnow could potentially occur in the Rio Grande River in three
32 proposed segments (O18, O19, and O21). However, implementation of stand
33 BMPs such as use of silt fences, such as use of silt fences, should reduce this
34 potential impact to negligible.
35 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative. Impacts of

36 Alternative 3 will be similar to those of Alternative 2; however, the area impacted
37 would be greater. Alternative 3 would be constructed as a continuous fence and
38 therefore the area temporarily impacted by the 230-mile alignment would total
39 approximately 1,673 acres. Increased threats to wildlife in these areas include:
40 barrier to movement, interruption of corridors, increased human activity, loss of
41 habitat, and increased traffic mortality.

4-24
FME005669
1 Special Status Species

2 [[Preparer’s Note: Anticipated impacts for federally listed species will be
3 developed when the Phase I surveys are complete, and those data as well
4 as the dataset from NatureServe have been incorporated into the analysis.
5 These impacts will be for NEPA analysis only. Impacts estimated through
6 NEPA analysis will be independent of determinations of impacts made by
7 the USFWS through the Section 7 Consultation process.]]
8 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, new

9 tactical infrastructure would not be built and there would be no change in fencing,
10 access roads, or other facilities along the U.S./Mexico international border in the
11 proposed project locations within the Rio Grande Valley Sector. Federal and
12 state threatened and endangered species in the project area would continue as
13 described for the baseline condition. Therefore, there would be no change to the
14 existing impacts on Federal or state-listed species or migratory birds.
15 Alternative 2: Proposed Action. Under the proposed action, anticipated

16 impacts on Federal or state-listed species that might result from the construction,
17 maintenance, and operation of the fence and associated tactical infrastructure
18 include increased noise levels during construction, direct and indirect loss of
19 habitat and habitat quality, and increased mortality.
20 For both Routes A and B, moderate, short-term, adverse impacts would be

21 anticipated for state-listed animals and migratory birds due to elevated noise
22 levels during construction. These elevated noise levels could interfere with
23 important communications during breeding and nesting periods, affect
24 predator/prey interactions, and result in habitat avoidance.
25 Impacts on federally listed species will be evaluated in the Biological

26 Assessment, and addressed in the Biological Opinion, both of which are currently
27 being developed by the USFWS.
28 Impacts due to habitat loss or alteration and increase mortality for state-listed
29 species in segments O-1, O-2, O-8, and O-10 could approach minor in intensity,
30 being small, localized and of little consequence to state-wide viability of the
31 species anticipated to occur in these segments (Mexican treefrog, Mexican
32 burrowing toad, Texas horned lizard, white-lipped lizard). BMPs to avoid and
33 minimize impacts, such as pre-construction clearance surveys, are anticipated to
34 reduce potential impacts to minor or lower in intensity. Impacts resulting from
35 construction would be short-term, minor, and adverse, while impacts from
36 maintenance and operation would be long-term, minor, and adverse due to
37 potential mortality on associated roads. However, long-term minor beneficial
38 impacts may result from reduced foot traffic in areas north of the fence corridor.
39 Impacts on state-listed species in all other segments are anticipated to be

40 negligible in both the short and long terms. These segments did not present high

4-25
FME005670
1 quality habitat for state-listed species, and no species were observed in these
2 segments during the surveys.
3 Impacts on migratory birds other than noise (described above) could be

4 substantial, given the potential timing of fence construction. However,
5 implementation of BMPs to avoid or minimize adverse impacts could markedly
6 reduce their intensity. The following is a list of BMPs recommended for reduction
7 or avoidance of impacts to migratory birds:
8 • Any groundbreaking construction activities should be performed before

9 migratory birds return to the area (approximately 1 March) or after all
10 young have fledged (approximately 31 July) to avoid incidental take.
11 • If construction is scheduled to start during the period in which migratory
12 bird species are present, steps should be taken to prevent migratory birds
13 from establishing nests in the potential impact area. These steps could
14 include covering equipment and structures, and use of various excluders
15 (e.g. noise). Birds can be harassed to prevent them from nesting on the
16 site. Once a nest is established, they cannot be harassed until all young
17 have fledged and left the nest site.
18 • If construction is scheduled to start during the period when migratory birds
19 are present, a supplemental site-specific survey for nesting migratory birds
20 should be performed immediately prior to site clearing.
21 • If nesting birds are found during the supplemental survey, construction
22 should be deferred until the birds have left the nest. Confirmation that all
23 young have fledged should be made by a competent biologist.
24 If the above BMPs cannot be fully implemented, a Migratory Bird Depredation

25 Permit must be obtained from USFWS.
26 Assuming implementation of the above BMPs, impacts of the proposed action on

27 migratory birds is anticipated to be short- and long-term, minor, and adverse due
28 to construction disturbance and associated loss of habitat, and long-term, minor,
29 and beneficial due to reduction of foot traffic through migratory bird habitat north
30 of the impact corridor.
31 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative. Under this

32 alternative, the impact corridor would increase to 130 feet (slightly more than
33 double that of the proposed action (60 feet)). Impacts to state-listed species
34 would be similar to those described for the proposed action, but more extensive
35 in nature. However, given the paucity of habitat in most sections and the
36 apparently low populations densities of the populations occupying the corridor,
37 the impacts of this alternative on state-listed species are anticipated to remain
38 below moderate intensity.
39 Impacts to migratory birds from implementation of Alternative 3 would be similar

40 in nature to those described for the proposed action. However, given the
4-26
FME005671
1 extensive habitat disturbance and loss associated with the larger footprint of this
2 alternative, moderate short- and long-term adverse impacts would be anticipated.
3 Long-term beneficial impacts due to reduction of foot traffic through habitat north
4 of the corridor would remain minor.
5 [[Preparer’s Note: Impacts will be updated when surveys on Refuge lands

6 are allowed and completed, and when species location data from
7 NatureServe are delivered.]]

11 built and there will be no change in fencing, access roads, or other facilities along
12 the prescribed border segments in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. Since there
13 would be no tactical infrastructure built, there would be no change to cultural,
14 historical, and archaeological resources. No historic properties would be
15 impacted.

17 Under the Proposed Action Alternative, impacts on historic properties from
18 Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action) would be long-term, negative, and major.
19 Routes A and B both follow a nearly identical route through the Rio Grande
20 Valley Sector. Construction staging areas are at the same locations on the two
21 routes. However, the small differences in their routes will impact historic
22 properties differently.
23 Segment O-1 of both Routes A and B, as currently proposed, will extend along
24 the southern boundary of the Roma Historic District and parallel the river. The
25 segment would break for Bravo Boulevard. so that it is both north and south of
26 the Roma-San Pedro International Bridge. The NHL-designated Roma Historic
27 District will incur major long-term negative impacts from the Proposed Action
28 Alternative. The infrastructure will constitute an element out of character with the
29 historic district and cause an alteration to its historic setting and relationship to
30 the river. The historic relationship of district to the river will be altered.
31 Segment O-2, as currently proposed, will cross the southern tip of the Fort
32 Ringgold Historic District. The impact needs to be more closely examined
33 relative to contributing buildings of the historic district. The alternative could
34 present long-term negative visual impacts on the historic district. In addition, the
35 location proposed for the construction of the infrastructure might have
36 archaeological remains related to the early fort. Archaeological remains could
37 occur under a staging area proposed to be located adjacent to the east boundary
38 of the historic district. This is within an area that might have archaeological
39 significance related to the early fort. Its archaeological integrity is unknown. The

4-27
FME005672
1 use of the area for construction staging will be short-term; however, it is possible
2 that this use will impact any intact archaeological remains that might exist. An
3 archaeological survey with subsurface testing is needed to determine if there are
4 intact archaeological remains that might be affected by the construction of the
5 infrastructure.
6 Segment O-3 of Routes A and B, as currently proposed, lies in close proximity to

7 the Los Ebanos crossing, ferry, and the community of Los Ebanos. The
8 alignment will break for the road leading to the crossing. It is likely that the
9 crossing, ferry, Las Cuervas ebony, and surrounding area are eligible for listing in
10 the NRHP as a historic landscape. The ferry likely is eligible for the NRHP for its
11 historical and engineering significance. Route A as proposed is approximately
12 500 feet north of the ferry crossing, and would present less visual impacts on the
13 ferry and crossing. Route B will be closer to the ferry and crossing, an estimated
14 distance of about 250 feet. Both routes would enclose the area of the ferry and
15 crossing, presenting visual impacts as one approaches the crossing and ferry
16 from the road to the river. The alternative will be very close to the community of
17 Los Ebanos, which needs to be surveyed and evaluated for properties that might
18 be eligible for listing in the NRHP. Route A will surround the community of Los
19 Ebanos to its south and east more closely than Route B. Los Ebanos has a
20 community cemetery. Impacts on Los Ebanos crossing, ferry, and community
21 would be long-term, major, and negative.
22 Segment O-5, as currently proposed, is about .25 miles south of La Lomita

23 Historic District. This could result in visual effects on this historic district.
24 Impacts would be long-term and major.
25 Segment O-6, as proposed, will extend north/south along the western boundary
26 of the Lousiana-Rio Grande Canal Company Irrigation System Historic District. It
27 would be constructed adjacent to the Hidalgo Pumphouse on both sides and
28 continue easterly within the southern portion of the district for a distance of
29 approximately 1.5 miles. In its easterly extension Segment O-6 would cross
30 canals that contribute to the historic district. As currently proposed, the corridor
31 would break for the Hidalgo Pumphouse and its parcel. The Proposed Action
32 alternative would impact the Lousiana-Rio Grande Canal Company Irrigation
33 System Historic District. The relationship of the pumphouse to the river is
34 fundamental. The visual impacts of the Proposed Action on the historic district
35 would be long-term major and negative. The extension of the infrastructure into
36 the canal system would constitute a long-term major negative impact. The
37 Proposed Action would damage or destroy historic canals.
38 Segment 0-10, as currently proposed, will pass to the south of and approximately
39 0.3 miles from Toluca Ranch. Visual impacts on the historic district from the
40 construction of the infrastructure are probable.

4-28
FME005673
1 The Sabas Cavazos Cemetery was established in 1878 with the burial of a
2 rancher and businessman, Sabas Cavazos. It is approximately 0.25 miles north
3 of the Segment O-17 corridor (MIN3).
4 In Segment O-19, Route B parallels the Rio Grande, while Route A curves
5 northward close to the developed portion of Brownsville. Route B of Segment O-
6 19 presents a route further away from many historic properties in Brownsville
7 such as the Stillman house. The two routes meet and continue southerly along
8 the western side of the Fort Brown Historic District, a designated National
9 Historic Landmark. They continue easterly along the northern boundary of the
10 southern portion of the historic district going along the levee through the golf
11 course area with the remnant earthworks of the original Fort Brown. A staging
12 area is proposed for this location which would most likely impact the
13 archaeological site. Contributing properties to the district such as the former
14 hospital buildings might be impacted visually from the Proposed Action. This
15 alternative would separate Brownsville and Fort Brown from the river. Impacts
16 would be long-term, major, and negative. The impact on the archaeological site
17 would be long-term, negative, and major, although use of the area as a staging
18 area would be short-term.
19 Segment O-21 would parallel the southern boundary of the Old Brulay Plantation
20 at a distance of approximately 100 feet from the historic district complex.
21 Construction of the infrastructure likely would impact the complex, and would
22 likely encounter historical archaeological materials. Visual impacts also would be
23 extensive. The historic complex could be damaged from construction activities.
24 The Brulay Cemetery is about 1,000 feet to the north of the alignment and east of
25 a proposed staging area.

27 Under Alternative 3 of the Proposed Action, additional visual impacts on historic
28 properties would occur because the infrastructure would consist of a double-
29 layered fence with the patrol road in the median. A full 130-foot-wide corridor
30 would be needed as currently proposed. This larger corridor would present
31 greater impacts on historic properties due to a greater possibility of damage to or
32 destruction of archaeological resources. It would present greater visual impacts
33 on historic properties, and would separate properties from the river to a greater
34 degree. There appear to be no advantages for historic properties over
35 Alternative 2 and many relative disadvantages. Impacts on historic properties
36 from Alternative 3 would be long-term, negative, and major.
37 Treatment of Historic Properties

38 USBP anticipates development and implementation of a Programmatic
39 Agreement to guide the identification of historic properties and evaluation of their
40 eligibility for listing in the NRHP, assessment of effects including adverse effects,
41 and consultations to resolve adverse effects. A programmatic approach would

4-29
FME005674
1 encompass all phases of the Proposed Action, design, construction, operation,

2 and maintenance. USBP would consult with the Texas SHPO and the ACHP to
3 develop the Programmatic Agreement. Other consulting parties would be
4 involved in the project.
5 The document would provide for the identification of historic properties,

6 evaluation of their NRHP eligibility, finding of the project effects on historic
7 properties and assessment of adverse effects, and resolution of adverse effects
8 to historic properties. This will be done in consultation with the Texas SHPO,
9 federally recognized Indian tribes that might attach religious and cultural
10 significance to historic properties affected by the project, representatives of local
11 governments, landowners, and historic preservation groups and individuals. The
12 Programmatic Agreement would provide a formal process for involving consulting
13 parties in the development of treatment options to avoid, minimize, or mitigate
14 adverse effects of the Proposed Action on historic properties. Treatment options
15 might include such approaches as re-routing limited lengths of the Proposed
16 Action to avoid or minimize effects on historic properties, relocating staging areas
17 away (such as those proposed near Fort Brown and Fort Ringgold), and
18 screening historic properties with vegetation if the property is located sufficiently
19 away from the tactical infrastructure and will not interrupt its operation. Similarly,
20 other approaches would be locating the tactical infrastructure behind existing
21 development to minimize visual effects on historic properties, recording
22 properties to the level of Historic American Building Survey (HABS) or Historic
23 American Engineering Record (HAER), or recovering archaeological data
24 through a data recovery effort. Additionally, there are other treatment options
25 that will be investigated.
26 4.9 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

27 Aesthetics is the science or philosophy concerned with the quality of visual
28 experience. One cannot meaningfully assess the impacts of an action on visual
29 experience unless one considers both the stimulus (visual resources) and the
30 response (viewers) aspects of that experience.
31 The Proposed Action has the potential to impact visual resources both directly
32 and indirectly. Construction of tactical infrastructure would result in the
33 introduction of both temporary (e.g., heavy equipment, supplies) and permanent
34 (e.g., fencing and patrol roads) new visual elements into existing viewsheds.
35 Clearing and grading of the landscape during construction, as well as demolition
36 of buildings and structures within the permanent construction corridor, would
37 result in the removal of visual elements from existing viewsheds. Finally, the
38 fence segments would create a physical barrier potentially prohibiting viewers
39 access to some visual resources.
40 Impacts on aesthetic and visual resources would include short-term impacts

41 associated with the construction phase of the project and use of staging areas,
42 recurring impacts associated with monitoring and maintenance, and long-term

4-30
FME005675
1 impacts associated with the completed action. Impacts can range from minor,
2 such as the impacts on visual resources adjacent to the construction corridor
3 when seen from a distance or when views of fences are obstructed by
4 intervening elements (e.g., trees, buildings) to major, such as the intrusion of
5 fence segments into high-quality views within the LRGVNWR or the setting of an
6 NHL. The nature of the impacts would range from neutral for those land units
7 containing lower quality views or few regular viewers, to negative, for those land
8 units containing high-quality views, important cultural or natural resources, or
9 viewers who would have constant exposure to the fence at close distances.
10 Beneficial impacts are also possible (e.g., addition of the fence increases the
11 unity or dramatic impact of a view, removal of visual clutter within the
12 construction corridor clarifies a view, or a viewer positively associates the fence
13 with a feeling of greater security), but are considered to be less common.

18 within the Rio Grande Valley Sector.

20 Under the Proposed Action, a single line of fence and an associated patrol road
21 would be constructed along either the routing depicted as Route A or Route B
22 (see Appendix F). Although the choice of routing might alter the impacts on
23 specific visual resources within the APE (i.e., avoidance of section of park/refuge
24 or culturally significant resource), the broader visual impacts associated with the
25 two routes are comparable.
26 Project characteristics. The primary introduced visual elements associated with

27 the Proposed Action are the single line of fencing, gates, the patrol road, access
28 roads, staging areas, and construction clutter (stockpiles of supplies and heavy
29 equipment during construction). The Proposed Action would also potentially
30 remove existing visual elements, such as buildings, vegetation, and subtle
31 landforms (through grading or filling) that occur within the 60-foot permanent
32 construction corridor. Finally, the fence would act as a physical barrier between
33 viewers and those views that can only be viewed from vantage points on the
34 other side of the fence (e.g., views from the top of levees).
35 Of these, addition of the line of fencing and the associated patrol road, removal
36 of existing elements from the construction corridor, and the loss of access to
37 specific visual resources due to the fact that the fence is a barrier would have
38 long-term impacts on visual resources, while the remaining elements would have
39 temporary or short-term impacts limited to the period of construction. The nature
40 (negative or beneficial) and degree (minor to major) of the long-term impacts can
41 be affected by the appearance of the fencing (width, height, materials, color,

4-31
FME005676
1 lighting), the patrol road (paved or unpaved, width), and the access roads
2 (number, paved or unpaved, width). The height and basic parameters of the
3 fencing have already been established under the Secure Fence Act; however,
4 the type of fence (transparent, aesthetic) and color choices could mitigate the
5 visual impact of the fence, particularly from a distance. Similarly, the choice to
6 pave the patrol road and access roads could affect the degree to which they
7 blend with a given landscape (paved roads in urban or commercial land units,
8 unpaved roads in rural or park/refuge land units). Finally, limiting the number of
9 new access roads would reduce the number of new visual elements introduced
10 into the landscape.
11 Removal of existing visual elements would also constitute a long-term impact.

12 Where the existing element adds to the visual character and quality of the
13 resource, the impact of its removal would be negative. On the other hand, where
14 the existing element detracts from the visual character and quality of the
15 resource (e.g., rusted equipment or dead trees), the impact of removal could be
16 beneficial. Whether the impact of removal is minor or major depends in large part
17 on how many elements are removed from a particular viewshed. For example,
18 removal of a large number of detracting elements from the construction corridor
19 could have a major beneficial impact, whereas removal of only a few such
20 elements would have a minor beneficial impact. In all cases, removal of existing
21 elements would have the net result of exposing more of the fence, patrol road,
22 and other tactical appurtenances; in settings where the addition of the fence is
23 considered to have a major negative impact on visual resources, any benefit
24 accruing from removal of existing elements would be outweighed by the more
25 dominant negative visual impact of the fence.
26 The impacts associated with the loss of access to specific visual resources can
27 be affected primarily by the placement of the fence relative to those resources
28 and inclusion of gates that allow access to those resources. Route B is being
29 designed to decrease the extent to which the fence would physically impact
30 certain cultural and natural resources, selection of this route thus reduces or
31 removes some of the impacts related to access compared to Route A. Similarly,
32 USBP has already included provisions for a number of gates to allow access to
33 agricultural fields, businesses, and cemeteries; these gates also allow access to
34 some of the visual resources that would otherwise be blocked. Proposed gate
35 locations are described in Appendix D.
36 The nature of the short-term impacts can be affected primarily by duration of use
37 of staging areas, the placement of these areas on the landscape, and the
38 number of such areas. Clearly, reduction of the duration of use and number of
39 staging areas, in conjunction with selection of locations for these areas away
40 from high-quality views or cultural significant resources, have the potential for
41 reducing the degree of the impacts on visual resources from short-term major
42 effects to short-term minor effects. The nature of the impacts associated with
43 construction activities is considered to be negative in all instances.

4-32
FME005677
1 Visual Resource Concerns. In Section 3.8.2, Tables 3.8-1 and 3.8-2 provided
2 a summary of the character and quality of visual resources currently present
3 within the APE for the Proposed Action. Tables 4.9-1 and 4.9-2 show how
4 implementation of Route B would likely alter the character and quality of existing
5 visual resources within each land unit. Figures 4.9-1 through 4.9-4 provide
6 examples of typical impacts; these images show the effects associated with the
7 addition of a fence constructed using hybrid vehicle-pedestrian fence design
8 currently being considered by USBP for the Rio Grande Valley Sector. These
9 photographs provide approximations of the degree of alteration that would result
10 from introduction of the fence and patrol road to these viewsheds; the photos can
11 be altered to include scaled versions of the fence and patrol road, but cannot
12 readily be altered to remove existing elements from the construction corridor.
13 In general, within park/refuge land units, the introduction of the fence and
14 removal of vegetation from the construction corridor would likely constitute a
15 negative effect on the character and quality of visual resources. The degree of
16 the impact would vary depending on the height of surrounding vegetation and the
17 presence of any other visually intrusive elements. For example, where the fence
18 is shorter than the levee and the levee has thick vegetation, the fence would
19 have less of a visual impact than in those areas where clearings or shorter
20 vegetation make the fence more visible.
21 In rural land units, the fence might blend with other linear features (levee, field
22 breaks) to the point where the impact is neutral. The degree to which the fence
23 contrasts with its surroundings would vary by season, as mature crops would
24 provide a greater variety of forms and textures, as well as greater screening, of
25 the fence compared to fallow fields. Inclusion of a larger number of other
26 intrusive elements (visual clutter), such as utility poles or towers, water towers,
27 and remote video surveillance system, can also reduce the overall impact on
28 visual resources within this land unit. For this land unit, therefore, impacts could
29 range from minor to major and neutral to negative.

4-33
FME005678
Table 4.9-1. Character of Visual Resources within Typical Rio Grande Valley Land Units (Alternative 2, Route B)

The fence and patrol road also The current fence design The fence and patrol As man-made, synthetic
represent horizontal lines, but parameters call for fencing road are rectilinear in elements, the fence and
might disrupt existing layers and to be black. Although the form and would contrast patrol road would
gentle curves, particularly where vertical posts in the fence with existing forms in contrast with the
the fence would be taller than may blend with tree trunks this land unit dominant texture of this
Park/Refuge
surrounding vegetation. Clearing and the transparent mesh land unit
and grading would introduce a “disappear” with distance,
visual break in the vegetation choice of a color scheme
pattern. that matches the vegetation
would reduce the impact.
At short distances the fence The current fence design The fence and patrol As a man-made,
would introduce a primarily parameters call for fencing road are rectilinear in synthetic element, the
horizontal line that might blend to be black. Although the form and might result in fence would contrast with
4-34
with other dominant horizontal vertical posts in the fence greater domination of the dominant textures of
lines like the levee and field might blend with tree trunks rectilinear forms this land unit. The patrol
breaks. The patrol road and and the transparent mesh compared to organic roads and access roads
access roads also should blend, “disappear” with distance, forms when viewed at a would not significantly
both at short and longer choice of a color scheme distance. alter the viewshed for
distances. With greater distance, that matches the dominant most rural landscapes, as
the mesh of the fence would vegetation would reduce the a number of roads and
Rural “disappear,” making the vertical impact. field breaks are already
bollards of the fence the present in this land unit.
dominant line. These vertical
lines might blend where other

vertical elements are present
(power poles, silos, remote video
surveillance system) depending
October 2007
on the height of those elements

in each area. The regularity of
the lines could contrast with less
regular lines.
FME005679

Because this land unit already The current fence design Because this land unit Because this land unit
includes a mixture of horizontal parameters call for fencing contains a larger contains a variety of
and vertical lines, the to be black. This coloration number of rectilinear textures, the textures of
introduction of additional vertical might blend or contrast with forms than the previous the fence and associated
lines would be consistent with its surroundings depending land units, the rectilinear roads are more likely to
the existing landscape from a on the colors in the forms of the fence and blend with the textures of
distance. In closer proximity, foreground and background. associated roads are this land unit at least at a
Town/Suburban
however, the height and Again, it might be possible more likely to blend with distance. Up close, the
Development
regularity of the fence line will to match coloration of the the forms of this land fence would contrast
likely contrast with existing lines. fence to match the dominant unit. The massing of the against natural textures
colors in the land unit, but fence (height and and be more prone to
this would be less important length) would likely blend with man-made
for this land unit than others. contrast with most other elements.
rectilinear forms,
however.
4-35
Because this land unit already The current fence design Because this land unit Because this land unit
includes a mixture of horizontal parameters call for fencing contains a larger contains a variety of
and vertical lines, the to be black. This coloration number of rectilinear textures, the textures of
introduction of additional vertical might blend or contrast with forms than the previous the fence and associated
lines would be consistent with its surroundings depending land units, the rectilinear roads are more likely to
the existing landscape from a on the colors in the forms of the fence and blend with the textures of
distance. In closer proximity, foreground and background. associated roads are this land unit at least at a
however, the height and Again, it might be possible more likely to blend with distance. Up close, the
Urban/Industrial
regularity of the fence line would to match coloration of the the forms of this land fence would contrast
likely contrast with existing lines. fence to match the dominant unit. Depending on the against natural textures
colors in the land unit, but forms in the immediate and be more prone to

this would be less important area, though, the blend with man-made
for this land unit than others. massing of the fence elements.
(height and length)
October 2007
could blend or contrast

with existing forms.
FME005680
1 Table 4.9-2. Quality of Visual Resources Within Typical Rio Grande Valley
2 Land Units (Alternative 2, Route B)
3
Vividness Intactness Unity Rating
Park/Refuge Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Rural Moderate Moderate/High Moderate Moderate
Town/Suburban
Low/Moderate Low/Moderate Low/Moderate Low/moderate
Development
Urban/Industrial Low to high Low/Moderate Low to high Moderate
4
6 Figure 4.9-1. Typical Views towards Proposed Construction Corridor,

7 Showing How the Park/Refuge Land Unit would Appear with a Fence and
8 Patrol Road
10

12 Showing How the Rural Land Unit would Appear with a Fence and Patrol
13 Road

4-36
FME005681

3 Showing How the Town/Suburban Land Unit would Appear with a Fence
4 and Patrol Road

8 Showing How the Urban/Industrial Land Unit would Appear with a Fence
9 and Patrol Road
10 In Town/Suburban Development land units, there would likely be greater

11 screening of the fence due to the greater variety of lines, colors, forms, and
12 textures present; however, an 18-foot tall fence would likely be one of the tallest
13 manmade visual elements in this setting, reducing its ability to blend. As with the
14 visual resources in other land units, the impact of the Preferred Alternative would
15 vary depending on its immediate setting; the more exposed the fence is and the
16 greater the contrast between it and surrounding elements, the greater the visual
17 impact. For this land unit, therefore, impacts could range from minor to major,
18 but would typically be negative.

4-37
FME005682
1 In Urban/Industrial land units, there would likely be greater screening of the fence
2 due to the greater variety of lines, colors, forms, and textures present, and an
3 increase in the use of other fences and more common occurrence of tall or
4 massive forms would increase the ability of the fence to blend with its
5 surroundings. As with the visual resources in other land units, the impact of the
6 Preferred Alternative would vary depending on its immediate setting; the more
7 exposed the fence is and the greater the contrast between it and surrounding
8 elements, the greater the visual impact. For this land unit, therefore, impacts
9 would range from minor to major, and neutral to negative. The FHWA guidance
10 (STG1) cites examples where addition of a consistent aesthetic element to an
11 urban setting helps create greater unity to the views within the land unit, thus
12 resulting in a beneficial impact. Although this outcome is possible within this land
13 unit type, a review of the settings along the fence corridor suggests that the best-
14 case scenario would be a neutral or minor negative impact.
15 Finally, with respect to the impacts on the specific visual resources listed in
16 Section 3.14.2, implementation of the Route B would likely have short- or long-
17 term negative impacts on the settings of those resources. The greater the
18 distance between the resource and the intrusive visual elements (primarily the
19 fence), and the more intervening visual elements between them, the less the
20 degree of the impact. For example, construction of the fence at a distance of 60
21 feet from a historic building would typically constitute a major negative impact,
22 while construction of the fence several hundred feet from the resource with
23 intervening vegetation or buildings would reduce the impact to moderate or
24 minor. Placement of the fence within the boundaries of an NHL or historic
25 district, particularly where there is a high degree of visual continuity between
26 resources (few noncontributing elements) would also be considered a major
27 negative impact on that resource. A more detailed discussion of the impacts on
28 the settings or viewsheds of specific cultural resources is provided in Section
29 4.8.2 of this EIS.
30 Intrusions into the settings or viewshed of many of these resources would need
31 to be avoided, minimized, or mitigated depending on the extent and duration of
32 the impact. Mitigation measures could include HABS documentation of historic
33 resources, use of different fence materials (e.g., use of brick facing on a fence
34 where surrounding buildings are brick construction, or change of color of fencing
35 to blend into natural settings).
36 Viewer Response Concerns. In Section 3.9.2, the pool of potential viewers was
37 grouped into several general categories. As noted in that discussion, any single
38 viewer would have some responses to the alteration to the visual resources in
39 each land unit that are based on their own personal experiences and ties to
40 those resources, and other responses tied to more common experiences (group
41 sentiment). Specific comments received from viewers during the scoping process
42 for this EIS identified concerns about visual impacts throughout the APE and with
43 some of the specific natural or cultural resources noted above, but did not identify
44 any new visual resources of concern. Accordingly, analysis of viewer response
4-38
FME005683
1 to the alterations of the existing visual environment should Route B be

2 implemented focuses on group concerns.
3 In many respects, the principle of “not in my backyard” has a strong correlation

4 with the responses of viewers for whom view of the fence would be regular or
5 constant (i.e., residential, commercial, or industrial viewers). Where the fence
6 would directly impact private property, the viewer response from the landowner is
7 likely to be that the Proposed Action would represent a major negative impact on
8 visual resources visible from their property. This response is partially colored by
9 the emotional response of the viewer to loss of property rights or perceived
10 damage to their business, but it is also a valid response given that the fence
11 might dominate the view out one’s back door, even if you could only see the
12 levee before the fence was constructed. There is also a possibility that the viewer
13 response in this instance could be positive, based on a feeling of increased
14 safety or security (e.g, fence as protection). Responses from viewers located a
15 greater distance from the fence, particularly if their view of the fence is obstructed
16 by other elements or is simply part of the overall visual clutter, would typically be
17 less intense (minor) and more likely neutral, unless the fence would obstruct a
18 visual resource considered to be of high quality or cultural importance. In
19 general, the closer the proximity of the viewer to the fence, the more likely the
20 response is to be major and negative.
21 For viewers likely to view the fence on a less regular basis (i.e., recreational
22 viewers, special interest viewers, intermittent viewers), viewer responses would
23 be tied to perception of how the Proposed Action has altered their access
24 (impede existing views or impede physical access to views) to valued visual
25 resources. Although any of these groups might object on principal to any type of
26 alteration, responses would be more intense and negative where alterations
27 downgrade the quality or character of existing visual resources. Based on the
28 comments received during the scoping process for this EIS, viewer responses
29 appear to range from minor to major and neutral to negative.
30 As a final point, for viewers accustomed to accessing views available from the
31 levees or from settings other than parks or refuges, the construction of the fence
32 would place a permanent barrier between the viewer and the visual resources in
33 those locales. By presumption, any visual resource regularly sought out by a
34 viewer would constitute a moderate or high quality visual resource; restricting
35 physical access to those resources would thus constitute a long-term major
36 adverse impact for those viewers.

38 Project characteristics. In addition to those physical characteristics already
39 noted for the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 3 would involve addition of a
40 second line of fencing (permanent element, long-term impact) and remove a
41 greater number of existing visual elements due to the larger construction corridor.
42 As with the single line of fencing in the Preferred Alternative, choice of fence

4-39
FME005684
1 colors and material types could affect the nature (negative, neutral, beneficial) or
2 intensity (minor to major) of the impacts on visual resources in certain land units
3 or viewshed, as could removal of existing visual elements. In general; however,
4 having two lines of fencing amplifies the overall visual impact of the Proposed
5 Action, as does the larger construction corridor. Impacts related to the physical
6 characteristics of Alternative 3 are, therefore, likely to be major and adverse
7 compared to those of the Preferred Alternative.
8 Visual Resource Concerns. Implementation of Alternative 3 would also amplify

9 the impacts to the character and quality of visual resources within each of the
10 land units compared to the Preferred Alternative. The broader construction
11 corridor and additional line of fencing would have a greater visual contrast and a
12 greater chance of dominating the view in most settings, although one could argue
13 that parallel lines of fencing would potentially add more visual unity to some
14 settings. Long-term impacts on the visual environment associated with the
15 Alternative 3 (permanent construction elements) would range from neutral to
16 negative, and moderate to major. Short-term impacts would also be more
17 negative and intense (moderate to major) given that construction of a double
18 fence and wider corridor would take more time.
19 Viewer Response Concerns. Implementation of Alternative 3 would also

20 amplify viewer responses, in most cases changing minor or neutral responses to
21 moderate or major adverse responses. For the viewers with constant or close
22 proximity exposure, a double line of fencing and larger corridor would be
23 perceived as doubly intrusive. The corridor would intrude more closely on many
24 landowners, increase the number of viewers that would have regular exposure,
25 and would further complicate access to visual resources behind the far line of
26 fencing. For viewers with less regular exposure, Alternative 3 would still likely be
27 perceived as having a greater impact than Alternative 2, simply because it makes
28 impacts on various visual resources more difficult to avoid.
29 4.10 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND

30 SAFETY
32 Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change from the baseline
33 conditions. Under this Alternative, illegal immigration, narcotics trafficking, and
34 opportunities for terrorists and terrorist weapons to enter the United States would
35 remain. Over time, the number of crimes committed by smugglers and some
36 illegal border crossers would increase, and an increase in property damage
37 would also be expected. If Alternative 1 were implemented, short-term local
38 employment benefits from the purchase of construction materials and the
39 temporary increase in construction jobs would not occur. Furthermore, money
40 from construction payrolls that would circulate within the local economy would not
41 be available.

4-40
FME005685

2 Socioeconomics. Construction of proposed tactical infrastructure would have
3 minor beneficial direct and indirect impacts on socioeconomics through increased
4 employment and the purchase of goods and services. Project impacts related to
5 employment, temporary housing, public services, and material supplies would be
6 minor, temporary, and easily absorbed within the existing Rio Grande Valley
7 Sector regional resource and socioeconomics infrastructure. Construction would
8 occur over approximately 8 months in 2008, with a construction workforce
9 peaking at about 200 workers. There would be no change in the permanent
10 workforce.
11 Construction costs associated with Alternative 2 have not been defined. As

12 stated in Section 2.2, if approved, competitive design/build contracts would be
13 issued to construct the fence. However, for this analysis, estimated construction
14 costs are based on USACE studies for other similar projects.
15 [[Preparer’s Note: Estimated construction costs for pedestrian fence per

16 mile is requested.]]
17 Changes in economic factors can also impact the social fabric of a community.
18 For example, increases in employment could stimulate the need for new housing
19 units, and, as a result, increase demand for community and social services such
20 as primary and secondary education, fire and police protection, and health care.
21 There would be no change in population size or distribution, and a relatively
22 small increase in employment and contribution to the local economy under this
23 alternative. Therefore, demand for new housing units and other social services
24 would not be expected.
25 Population Growth and Characteristics. Negligible short-term adverse and

26 beneficial impacts on population growth and characteristics would be expected.
27 Short-term moderate increases to populations would be expected in construction
28 areas. Due to the large size of the regional construction trades industry,
29 construction is expected to be drawn primarily from the regional workforce, with
30 some project managers and specialized skilled workers brought in by the
31 selected contractor. The temporary need for approximately 200 construction
32 workers can be easily supplied by the three-county construction workforce of
33 more than 25,000 (Table 3.10-1). Given the short timeframe for construction, it is
34 unlikely that any nonlocal workers would be accompanied by their families.
35 Therefore, the short-term nature and scale of the construction project would not
36 induce secondary population growth in the region. Similarly, there would be new
37 permanent employees associated with the project.
38 Construction of the project would require some acquisition of private property,

39 including the potential dislocation of some property owners and tenants. Such
40 dislocation could result in some population relocations within the region, but with
41 little or no net change in the region’s population.

4-41
FME005686
1 Employment and Income. Minor short-term beneficial impacts on employment

2 and income would be expected. Each job created by Alternative 2 would
3 generate additional jobs within companies that supply goods and services for the
4 project. Direct and secondary jobs created would be temporary and short-term in
5 nature. The project would not create any long-term employment in the region.
6 During the public scoping process, concerns were expressed that the project
7 could hinder legitimate trade activities between the two border economies, and
8 that environmental effects associated with the construction and long-term
9 presence of the project could detract from outdoor recreation and ecotourism,
10 particularly birding—reported to contribute $150 million to the local economy
11 annually.
12 As to retail trade, cross-border trade is estimated to contribute at least $1.2

13 million in retail trade in McAllen and Brownsville alone (Coronado, Roberto and
14 Phillips, Keith R. 2005). However, there is nothing inherent in the design or
15 location of the fence segments that would hinder or restrict normal, legal cross-
16 border interaction. The project would not affect the operations of established
17 border crossings and bridges, nor alter procedures affecting the ability of
18 individuals from either the United States or Mexico to continue to travel back and
19 forth as they now do. As a consequence, little or no long-term effects on regional
20 income or economic structure are anticipated.
21 No permanent or long-term effects on employment, population, personal income,

22 or poverty levels; or other demographic or employment indicators would be
23 expected from construction. Since Alternative 2 would not measurably affect the
24 local economy or workforce, no social effects are expected. There would be a
25 net short-term increase in income to the region, as the funding for the project
26 would come from outside the area, and, as a Federal project, construction
27 workers would be paid the “prevailing wage” under the Davis-Bacon Act, which
28 might be higher than the average wage in the construction industry locally
29 (Source).
30 Agriculture. Overall the impact on agriculture and agricultural landowners would

31 be adverse, moderate, and long-term. The proposed project would impact
32 agricultural lands in two ways. First there could be some loss of cropland along
33 the alignment of the proposed fence for both construction and the proposed
34 accompanying roadways for USBP vehicles. New tactical infrastructure is
35 expected to permanently affect a corridor 60 feet wide, although the existing
36 levee road would serve this function on the river side of the fence. The proposal
37 provides gates at key locations that are intended to provide landowners with
38 access to their property, but there could be some extra distance in reaching a
39 given field. Installation of a fence with gates would have minor adverse effects
40 on landowner’s access, the movement of machinery and equipment, planting and
41 harvesting, potential problems of access for agricultural service firms (as
42 opposed to owners/lessees), and a resulting increase in costs.

4-42
FME005687
1 Select Public Services. Minor short-term beneficial and adverse impacts on

2 public services would be expected. Generally, workers spend approximately 25
3 to 30 percent of their wages locally for food, shelter, and entertainment, which
4 would have an indirect beneficial impact on the local economy. Other indirect
5 impacts would be noticed through the taxes generated by purchases, as well as
6 payroll deductions. However, based on the large size of the ROI the impacts
7 would be minor and dispersed throughout the ROI.
8 Minor short-term adverse and long-tern beneficial impacts would be expected on

9 local law enforcement. The impact on local law enforcement could be mixed in
10 the short run. Many locals are opposed to the proposed fence and there could
11 be conflicts with the construction workers, particularly those who might not
12 themselves be local residents. Such situations could result in additional
13 demands on local law enforcement. In the long run, however, the objective of the
14 fence in reducing illegal activity along the border could ease the burden of local
15 law enforcement agencies.
16 Land Use. Minor to moderate adverse indirect impacts would be expected from
17 the imminent dislocation of some families due to property acquisition. Some
18 housing properties will either be removed or visually impaired by the fence and
19 adjacent patrol roads. The social aspects of dislocation could be disruptive.
20 Many families in the corridor have lived there for decades, some even centuries,
21 and have strong emotional ties to the family land and homes.
22 These effects would be mitigated to some extent by fair compensation for the
23 acquisition or impairment, and relocation assistance to any displaced families.
24 However, it would still be an adverse impact on those who do not wish to relocate
25 regardless of the level of compensation. Furthermore, renters might receive
26 relocation assistance, but are less likely than property owners to have the
27 resources to resettle in a comparable location.
28 Environmental Justice, Protection of Children, and Safety. No adverse

29 disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income populations would be
30 expected. Indirect beneficial effects on safety and the protection of children are
31 expected from the expected deterrence of illegal aliens, smugglers, terrorists,
32 and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, and therefore provide for
33 safer communities.
34 Environmental justice could be an issue depending on the exact alignment of the

35 project infrastructure and how individual properties will be affected. In cases
36 where properties will be acquired or substantially impaired the impact can be
37 mitigated through purchase at a fair price and relocation assistance.
38 The proposed tactical infrastructure under this alternative (Route A and B) would
39 have short- to long-term indirect beneficial effects on children and safety in the
40 ROI and surrounding areas. The addition of tactical infrastructure would increase
41 the safety of USBP agents in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. The Proposed

4-43
FME005688
1 Action would help to deter illegal border crossings in the immediate area, which
2 in turn could prevent drug smugglers, terrorists, and illegal border crossers from
3 entering the surrounding area.

5 Socioeconomic Resources. Short-term beneficial impacts for this alternative
6 would be similar to those under Alternative 2. This alternative would increase the
7 need for more construction workers and materials. Also, the USACE predicted
8 that the 25-year life cycle costs would range from $16.4 million to $70 million per
9 mile depending on the amount of damage sustained by the fencing (CRS 2006).
10 Environmental Justice, Protection of Children, and Safety. Impacts under

11 this alternative would be similar to those discussed for Alternative 2. Indirect
12 beneficial effects on safety and the protection of children are expected as
13 Alternative 3 would be designed two layers of fence along each segment. The
14 additional layer of fencing would deter drug smugglers, terrorists, and illegal
15 aliens, and therefore provide for a generally safer ROI and immediate area.

18 Under the No Action Alternative there would be no impact on utilities and
19 infrastructure.

21 Irrigation and Drainage Systems. Short-term minor adverse impacts on the
22 Lower Rio Grande Valley irrigation system could occur. Any canals or pipelines
23 that would be affected by Alternative 2 would be moved. Temporary interruptions
24 in irrigation might be experienced when this infrastructure is moved. No long-
25 term impacts are expected.
26 Municipal Water Systems. Short-term minor adverse impacts on municipal

27 water systems could occur within the impact corridor. Any canals or pumps that
28 would be affected by the proposed construction would be moved. No long-term
29 impacts are expected.
30 Municipal Sanitary Sewer Systems. Short-term minor adverse impacts on

31 municipal sanitary systems could occur within the impact corridor. Any outfall
32 pipes that would be affected by the proposed construction would be moved. No
33 long-term impacts are expected.
34 Storm Water Drainage Systems. Short-term minor adverse impacts on local

35 storm water drainage systems would occur from Alternative 2. All storm water
36 drainages would be identified during design build, and impacts to these systems

4-44
FME005689
1 would be kept minimal. The fence line and road would avoid most drainages and
2 culverts or reroute the project around this infrastructure. Alternative 2 would not
3 increase impervious surface area that could potentially affect local storm water
4 management. Adherence to proper engineering practices and applicable codes
5 and ordinances would reduce storm water runoff-related impacts to a level of
6 insignificance. In addition, erosion and sedimentation controls would be in place
7 during construction to reduce and control siltation or erosion impacts on areas
8 outside of the construction site.
9 Solid Waste Management. Short-term minor adverse impacts on solid waste

10 management could occur as a result of Alternative 2. Solid waste generated
11 from the proposed construction activities would consist of building materials such
12 as concrete and metals (conduit and piping). The contractor would recycle
13 construction materials to the greatest extent possible. Non-recyclable
14 construction debris would be taken to one or more of the Starr, Hidalgo, or
15 Cameron County landfills permitted to take this type of waste. While some of the
16 landfills in the Lower Rio Grande Valley area might be at or near capacity, the
17 remaining landfills have sufficient capacity. Solid waste generated as a result of
18 Alternative 2 is expected to be negligible compared to the solid waste currently
19 generated in Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties, and would not exceed the
20 capacity of any landfill.
21 Transportation Systems. No adverse impacts on transportations systems

22 would be expected. The construction of alternative 2 would require delivery of
23 materials to and removal of debris from the construction site. Construction traffic
24 would comprise a small percentage of the total existing traffic and many of the
25 vehicles would be driven to and kept onsite for the duration of construction
26 activities, resulting in relatively few additional trips. Furthermore, potential
27 increases in traffic volume associated with proposed construction activities would
28 be temporary. Heavy vehicles are frequently driven on local transportation
29 systems. Therefore the vehicles necessary for construction are not expected to
30 have a heavy impact on local transportation systems. No road or lane closures
31 are anticipated at this time. However, if roadways or lanes are required to be
32 closed, USBP would coordinate with TDOT and local municipalities to reduce
33 these impacts to less than significant.
34 Electrical and Natural Gas Systems. Short minor adverse impacts on the
35 Lower Rio Grande Valley electrical and natural gas systems could occur within
36 the impact corridor. Any electrical transmission or natural gas distribution lines
37 by construction would be moved. Temporary interruptions in electrical power
38 transmission and natural gas distribution could be experienced when this
39 infrastructure is moved. No long-term impacts are expected.

41 The potential impacts of Alternative 3 on infrastructure and utilities are expected
42 to be similar to the potential impacts of Alternative 2. However, more

4-45
FME005690
1 infrastructure could be affected because of the larger impact area. Additional

2 solid waste would be generated under Alternative 3 because of two fences being
3 built rather than one.

6 Under the No Action Alternative there would be no impacts on hazardous
7 materials and waste management.

9 Negligible short-term adverse effects would be expected as a result of Alternative
10 2. Products containing hazardous materials (such as fuels, oils, lubricants,
11 pesticides, and herbicides) would be procured and used during construction. It is
12 anticipated that the quantity of products containing hazardous materials used
13 would be minimal and their use would be of short duration. Herbicides would be
14 used along the fence line to maintain vegetation in an herbaceous state.
15 Herbicides would be applied according to USEPA standards and regulations.
16 Therefore, no long-term effects on humans, wildlife, soils, and water would be
17 expected.
18 Accidental spills could occur during construction. A spill could potentially result in
19 adverse effects on wildlife, soils, water, and vegetation. However, only small
20 amounts of hazardous materials are expected. Contractors would be responsible
21 for the management of hazardous materials and wastes. USBC would also
22 require that the contractor keep any necessary materials and equipment on site
23 to quickly contain any spill or leak. The management of hazardous materials and
24 wastes would include the use of BMPs, a pollution prevention plan, and a storm
25 water management plan. All hazardous materials and wastes would be handled
26 in accordance with applicable Federal, state, and local regulations.
27 Pesticides and herbicides are currently used within the proposed construction
28 corridor. It is assumed that all such substances are applied according to USEPA
29 standards and regulations. As such, these substances are not expected to be
30 above the level that would cause harm to humans, wildlife, soils, and water.
31 There are no known waste storage or disposal sites within the construction
32 corridor (VW.001). ASTs have been observed within the proposed construction
33 corridor. If it is necessary to remove the ASTs as part of Alternative 2, removal
34 would be conducted in accordance with all applicable Federal, state, and local
35 regulations. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment would be conducted prior
36 to real estate transactions associated with the Proposed Action. If ACM and LBP
37 are identified in buildings that need to be removed, removal and disposal would
38 be conducted in accordance with all applicable Federal, state, and local
39 regulations. Therefore, no impacts on humans, wildlife, soils, water, and
40 vegetation would be expected as a result of hazardous materials and wastes.
4-46
FME005691
1 Additionally, Alternative 2 would not have an impact on Federal, state, or local

2 hazardous wastes management or pollution prevention programs.
3 [[Preparer’s Note: It is unknown whether the demolition of buildings will be

4 required under the Proposed Action.]]

6 Short-term minor adverse impact as a result of hazardous materials and waste
7 would be expected under Alternative 3. The impacts of Alternative 3 as a result
8 of hazardous materials and wastes would be similar to the impacts of Alternative
9 2; however, there is a greater potential for impacts under Alternative 3, because
10 two fences would be built under this alternative.
11

4-47
FME005692

4-48
FME005693
1 5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
2 CEQ defines cumulative impacts as the “impacts on the environment that result
3 from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and
4 reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or
5 non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7).
6 Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant
7 actions taking place over a period of time by various agencies (Federal, state,
8 and local) or individuals. Informed decisionmaking is served by consideration of
9 cumulative impacts resulting from projects that are proposed, under construction,
10 recently completed, or anticipated to be implemented in the reasonably
11 foreseeable future.
12 This cumulative impacts analysis summarizes expected environmental effects

13 from the combined impacts of past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future
14 projects within the Proposed Action area. Projects that were considered for this
15 analysis were identified by reviewing USBP documents, news releases, and
16 published media reports, and through consultation with planning and engineering
17 departments of local governments, and state and Federal agencies. Projects
18 that do not occur in close proximity to the proposed infrastructure would not
19 contribute to a cumulative impact and are generally not evaluated further.
20 Cumulative Fencing, Southern Border. There are currently 62 miles of landing

21 mat fence at various locations along the U.S./Mexico international border (CRS
22 2006), 14 miles of single, double, and triple fence in San Diego, California, 70
23 miles of new pedestrian fence approved and currently under construction at
24 various locations along the U.S./Mexico international border, and fence at POE
25 facilities throughout the southern border. In addition, 225 miles of proposed new
26 fence (including the 70 miles proposed under the action considered in this EIS).
27 Proposed new fence segments are being studied for Texas, New Mexico,
28 Arizona, and California.
29 Past Actions. Past actions are those within the cumulative effects analysis
30 areas that have occurred prior to the development of this EIS. Past actions have
31 shaped the current environmental conditions around the Proposed Action.
32 Therefore, the effects of these past actions are generally included in the affected
33 environment described in Section 3.0. For example, most of the proposed route
34 alignments would follow the IBWC levee ROW or existing USBP patrol roads in
35 the southern portions of Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties in Texas.
36 Consequently, some of the proposed segments would be located on private
37 lands and cross multiple land use types, including rural, urban, suburban, and
38 agriculture that have undergone changes as the result of urban sprawl. These
39 past actions are now part of the existing environment.
40 Present Actions. Present actions include current or funded construction

41 projects, USBP or other agency operations in close proximity to the proposed

5-1
FME005694
1 fence locations, and current resource management programs and land use
2 activities within the affected areas. Ongoing actions considered in the cumulative
3 effects analysis include:
4 • Anzalduas POE. The Anzalduas POE is currently under construction in

5 the Granjeno/Mission area. This POE is adjacent to a National Wildlife
6 Refuge parcel west of Granjeno and would become an extension of Stuart
7 Road, which intersects FM 494. When completed, Anzalduas POE would
8 contain elevated north and south bound lanes. This elevated roadway
9 would provide access across two levees and a floodway just below
10 Anzalduas Dam and Anzalduas County Park. The proposed fence
11 Segment O-5 would intersect this new roadway by crossing underneath
12 the new Anzalduas POE.
13 • UTB TSC Bond Program Projects. In November 2004, the community
14 said “yes” to a $68 million bond package that would provide facilities
15 necessary for growing enrollment. The bond is providing the financial
16 resources to build seven projects, of which two are currently under
17 construction: 1) East Library & Oliveira Library construction project would
18 redefine the functions of the Oliveira Library, and expand and address
19 new technology in the East Library. The groundbreaking is scheduled for
20 October 25, 2007; 2) Recreation, Education & Kinesiology Center is being
21 constructed to house Health and Human Performance classrooms and
22 labs and to provide a fitness facility for students, faculty and staff.
23 • Texas Department of Transportation (TDOT). TDOT has several ongoing
24 road improvement projects scheduled for the counties impacted by the
25 Proposed Action. However, the area of impacts would tend to be low, as
26 the majority of the construction would be within existing ROW. These
27 projects are in various stages of completion: U.S. 83 Mercedes Project
28 consists of widening the highway to a six-lane expressway facility with a
29 median concrete barrier. Bridges would be constructed over the floodway
30 and Mercedes Main Canal. July 2008 is the estimated completion date.
31 U.S. 83 Weslaco Project consists of reconstructing expressway facility to
32 six lanes from FM 1423 to FM 1015. This expansion would include
33 construction of new overpasses.
34 • Road Construction San Benito. Construction for North Sam Houston
35 Boulevard (FM 345) has commenced. The project would expand and
36 overlay the road, at a cost of $7.7 million. Completion is expected in
37 2009.
38 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future

39 actions consist of activities that have been proposed or approved and can be
40 evaluated with respect to their effects. The following are reasonably foreseeable
41 future actions that are related to securing the southern international border:

5-2
FME005695
1 • SBInet is a comprehensive program focused on transforming border

2 control through technology and infrastructure. The goal of the program is
3 to field the most effective proven technology, infrastructure, staffing, and
4 response platforms, and integrate them into a single comprehensive
5 border security suite for DHS. Potential future SBInet projects include
6 deployment of sensor technology, communications equipment, command
7 and control equipment, fencing, barriers capable of stopping a vehicle,
8 and any required road or components such as lighting and all-weather
9 access roads (Boeing 2007).
10 • Construction of Tactical Infrastructure. USBP is currently constructing a
11 border infrastructure system along the U.S.-Mexico border within San
12 Diego County. The infrastructure system project spans 14 miles and
13 includes: secondary and tertiary fences, patrol and maintenance roads,
14 lights, and integrated surveillance and intelligence system resources.
15 Approximately 9 miles of the 14-mile project have been completed or are
16 currently under construction. These projects were addressed under
17 individual EAs as pilot projects for the barrier system. When completed,
18 the infrastructure system would impact approximately 297 acres,
19 consisting of disturbed/developed lands, coastal sage scrub, maritime
20 succulent scrub, and grasslands.
21 Table 5.0-1 presents the Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions by proposed

22 segment in the proposed project corridor area.
23 Cumulative Analysis by Resource Area. This section presents the resource-

24 specific impacts related to the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions
25 discussed above. Only those actions that are additive to the potential impacts
26 associated with the Proposed Action are considered. Table 5.0-2 presents the
27 cumulative effects by resource area that might occur from implementation of the
28 Proposed Action when combined with other past, present, and future activities
29 that are discussed in more detail below.
30 Table 5.0-1. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions by Proposed Fence

31 Segments for the Rio Grande Valley Sector
Fence
Border Patrol
Segment Description of Future Action
Station
Number
O-1 Rio Grande
City
O-2 Rio Grande
City
O-3 McAllen Plans are likely to be developed sometime in 2008 for a
new POE facility. This plan is only for the POE facility
itself. There are no plans to construct a bridge. The
plan involves keeping the ferry operational.

5-3
FME005696
Fence
Border Patrol
Station
Number
O-4 McAllen Proposed levee upgrades. According to a recently
released document from USIBWC, the design phase of
this project is scheduled through February 2008.
Construction is scheduled from March 2008 through
September 2009. Work would be completed by Hidalgo
County Drainage District No. 1.
O-5 McAllen Proposed levee upgrades. However, preliminary plans
indicate USIBWC would rehabilitate the south floodway
levee (AKA Common Levee) from the Anzalduas Dam
area to the Hidalgo area. Construction is projected to
occur from March 2008 through September 2009. Work
would be completed by Hidalgo County Drainage District
No. 1.
O-6 McAllen 1) According to the Chairman of the Hidalgo County
Water District #3, there are plans to build a reservoir just
northeast of the McAllen Pump on land currently owned
by the district. The plans are to integrate the reservoir
into the upgraded levee in this area. Exact timeframes
for this project are unknown.
2) USIBWC, in conjunction with the City of Hidalgo, is
planning on relocating the current levee southward
toward the river in the area just east of the Hidalgo POE.
These plans have recently become available and
indicate the rerouting of the levee from an area near or
under the Hidalgo POE Bridge to a point near the Old
Hidalgo Pump house. The length of this relocation
project is approximately 0.65 miles.
3) Additional levee rehabilitation. Construction for Phase
1 of the levee rehabilitation is anticipated to begin in April
2008 from the Common Levee (south floodway levee) to
the Hidalgo POE. Construction for Phase 2 is
anticipated to commence during December 2008. Phase
2 begins at the Hidalgo POE and runs downriver for
approximately 1.5 miles along the levee to the 2nd street
canal. Construction for the levee in the Hidalgo area
would be performed by USIBWC.
O-7 Weslaco
O-8 Weslaco The Donna POE facility would be located south of FM
493. Construction is to start early November 2008.
O-9 Weslaco
O-10 Weslaco
O-11 Harlingen
O-12 Harlingen

5-4
FME005697
Fence
Border Patrol
Station
Number
O-13 Harlingen
O-14 Harlingen A 40-acre parcel is proposed by the Texas Department
of Transportation (TDOT) for construction of a state of
the art DPS inspection station for commercial truck
traffic.
O-15 Harlingen In La Paloma near FM 732 the Texas Department of
Transportation would begin construction within the next
few years of the expansion of U.S. 281 from La Paloma
to Brownsville. The highway would be expanded to a
four-lane highway to accommodate international
commercial truck traffic. Dates of construction are not
known.
O-16 Harlingen Construction of a residential subdivision is proposed
adjacent to the proposed action corridor in El Ranchito,
Texas. Dates of construction are unknown at this time.
O-17 Brownsville 1) The B&M railroad bridge (Union Pacific) is being
relocated just west of River Bend Resort within the next
two years.
2) ANCLA Design and Construction is considering
subdividing land and developing a new neighborhood in
project area.
3) Expansion of U.S. 281 to four lanes. Stakes in the
field indicate an expansion of the hardtop of about 21-30
feet.
4) USBP is proposing to improve the Russell / Barreda
Canal, frequently used by smugglers and aliens to hide.
USBP proposes to have it buried (install a pipe
underground rather than open canal).
O-18 Brownsville 1) Expansion of U.S. 281 from Pharr, Texas to FM 3248
Alton Gloor. This would be a five-lane highway.
2) New proposed commercial POE Bridge located at Flor
De Mayo and IBWC levee.
3) Fish & Wildlife Service and the City of Brownsville are
proposing and planning a Nature Trail Park in this area.
O-19 Brownsville 1) A residential subdivision is currently under
construction adjacent to levee/proposed fence area.
2) Brownsville waterfront redevelopment project near
Hope Park, on private property. No additional
information about this proposal is available at this time.
O-20 Brownsville

5-5
FME005698
Fence
Border Patrol
Station
Number
O-21 Fort Brown 1) Proposed East Loop, Phase II Project, would begin at
U.S. 77/83 and end at FHM 1419. The project is a part
of the Trans Texas Corridor I-69 that would link the Rio
Grande Valley to Denison, Texas. It is slated for
construction in 2010 and is being funded by the City of
Brownsville and the Texas Department of
Transportation. The levee in the proposed project area
would be redirected and would be placed further south of
its current location. The location of the existing levee
would become a four lane highway which would be used
to redirect commercial traffic around the city of
Brownsville. The City of Brownsville is in the process of
finalizing negotiations to purchase land from private
landowners in the area. The city has already acquired a
majority of the land with the exception of four
landowners.
2) The Mayor of Brownsville and the Brownsville Public
Utility Board (PUB) are proposing the construction of a
weir and reservoir approximately six miles downriver of
the Gateway International Bridge. The weir proposal
would impound a water reservoir approximately 42 river-
miles long, extending from river mile 48 to 90. The
reservoir would be located within the existing riverbanks
and inside the levees that parallel the banks of the river.
The USACE has prepared an environmental
assessment, concluding that the proposal would have no
significant impact on the quality of the human
environment. The project would impact approximately
65 acres of jurisdictional riverine habitat and wetlands on
the U.S. side of the Rio Grande, and 65 acres on the
Mexico side of the Rio Grande. The proponent proposes
to mitigate this loss through the creation or enhancement
of 130 acres of wetlands downstream of the project area.
The proponent also proposes to mitigate any impacts by
purchasing and protecting a 280 tract of land that would
form a corridor between the Laguna Atascosa National
Wildlife Refuge and the Boca Chica National Wildlife
Refuge that would allow wildlife to travel between the
two refuges (SP.3).
1

5-6
FME005699
Table 5.0-2. Summary of Potential Cumulative Effects
Current
Known Future
Resource Past Actions Background Proposed Action Cumulative Effects
Actions
Activities
Air Quality Attainment criteria Emissions from Fugitive dust and Fugitive dust and Continued
for all criteria vehicles and combustion increased attainment.
pollutants. agricultural areas. emissions equipment Effect not significant.
generation during operation during
construction. construction.
Noise None. Current background Short-term noise Short-term noise Short-term adverse
noise from urban from construction from construction impacts from
sprawl. and increased equipment and construction
traffic. increased traffic. equipment and
increased traffic.
Agricultural lands Development of USBP purchase of Residential and Moderate adverse
5-7
Land Use
impacted by urban undeveloped and land or easements commercial impacts to
sprawl. agricultural lands. to construct tactical development recreational and
infrastructure. permanently agricultural lands.
Natural areas alters natural
developed for areas and
tactical agricultural lands.
infrastructure.
Geology and Soils Installation of Installation of Installation of Installation of Minor long-term
pipelines and other pipelines and other fence posts and pipelines, fencing, impact from

features. features. other structures. and other additional
infrastructure. infrastructure.
Water Resources
October 2007
FME005700
Current
Known Future
Actions
Activities
Hydrology and Degradation of Continued None. Minor to Minor to moderate
Groundwater aquifers to historical degradation of moderate short short and long tern
pollution. aquifers from and long term impacts.
pollution. impacts.
Surface Waters and Point and nonpoint Point and nonpoint Construction Construction Moderate short- term
Waters of the U.S. discharges discharges erosion and erosion and impacts from
including including sediment runoff, sediment runoff, construction
wastewater wastewater potential oil spills potential oil spills activities. Minor
treatment effulgent, treatment effluent, and leaks. and leaks. long-term erosion
agricultural runoff, agricultural runoff, impacts from
and storm water and storm water infrastructure.
have impacted have impacted
water quality. water quality.
5-8
Floodplains Permanently None. None. None. None.

altered by
development and
safety features
such as levees and
dams.
Biological
Resources
Vegetation Degraded historic Continued Minor to moderate Minor to Moderate adverse

Resources habitat of sensitive urbanization results loss of native moderate loss of impacts on native
and common in loss of native species and native species habitats and
wildlife species. species. habitat. and habitat. vegetation.
October 2007
FME005701
Current
Known Future
Actions
Activities
Wildlife and Aquatic Urbanization and Minor to moderate Minor to moderate Loss of green Moderate loss of
Resources loss of green loss of green loss of green corridor for green corridor and
corridors impacted corridor for wildlife. corridor and water wildlife. water asses for
habitat and food access for wildlife. wildlife.
sources.
Threatened and Degraded water Urbanization and Minor to moderate Loss of habitat for Current and future
Endangered quality and agricultural loss of green sensitive species activities would
Species urbanization development corridor and water and water quality continue to delete
impacted sensitive degraded habitat access for wildlife. degradation. green corridor and
species. for sensitive water access for
species. wildlife.
Cultural Resources Possible Identification and None. None. Long-term adverse
destruction of recordation of impacts from past
5-9
unknown artifacts. historic and cultural actions. Extent is

resources. unknown.
Aesthetic and Historical Development of Constant static Constant static Minor to moderate
Visual Resources development of natural areas for visual interruption visual interruption long-term impacts
undeveloped lands. community and at fixed points. at fixed points. from permanent
industry Loss of infrastructure.
infrastructure. recreational area.

October 2007
FME005702
Current
Known Future
Actions
Activities
Socioeconomics, Urban development Strong local Minor to moderate Continued strong Minor stimulation of
Environmental throughout economy and high short-term and local economy, local economies from
Justice, and Human counties. land values. long-term high land values, construction
Health and Safety beneficial impacts and expansion in activities. No
to local counties. adverse impact on
construction. environmental justice
or protection of
children or human
health and safety.
Utilities and Historical Utilities, Minor to moderate Continued None.
Infrastructure and development and infrastructure, and short-term adverse development and
Roadways/Traffic maintenance of roadways have impacts to local maintenance of
utilities, been upgraded as utilities, utilities,
5-10
infrastructure, and necessary. infrastructure, and infrastructure,

roadways in area. roadways during and roadways in
construction. area.
Hazardous Use of hazardous Use of hazardous Minor use of Minor use of None.
Materials and substances in substances in hazardous hazardous
Wastes vehicles. Possible vehicles. Possible materials during materials during
illegal dumping. illegal dumping. construction. construction.

October 2007
FME005703
1 5.1 AIR QUALITY

2 Minor cumulative impacts on air quality are expected from the additive effects of
3 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Construction
4 equipment would increase fugitive dust and operation emissions from
5 combustion fuel sources. Limited operation of temporary or permanent lighting
6 along the fence line would also indirectly impact local air quality.
7 5.2 NOISE
8 Minor cumulative impacts on ambient noise are expected from the additive
9 effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Construction
10 activities would add to the ambient background noise generated from
11 urbanization of the area due to additional vehicle traffic and heavy machinery.
12 5.3 LAND USE

13 Moderate impacts on land use are expected from the additive effects of the past,
14 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Recreational lands,
15 residential areas, and agricultural lands would be displaced by the Proposed
16 Action. Future development of residential areas would further alter the current
17 land use.
18 5.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

19 Minor impacts on geology and soils are expected from the additive effects of
20 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Additive effects
21 include changes in topography; increases in erosion; and a loss of prime
22 farmland. Potential impacts of the Proposed Action would include minor changes
23 in topography due to grading, contouring, and trenching; minor soil disturbance; a
24 minor increase in erosion; and a loss of prime farmland. However, the impacts
25 associated with the Proposed Action would be negligible in comparison to the
26 impacts of current and future actions.
27 5.5 HYDROLOGY AND GROUNDWATER

28 Moderate impacts on hydrology and groundwater are expected from the additive
29 effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Additive
30 effects could include changes in hydrology (i.e. drainage into the Rio Grande)
31 due to changes in topography, the increase of impervious surface area, and a
32 reduction in the quantity and quality of groundwater in local aquifers.
33 5.6 SURFACE WATERS AND WATERS OF THE U.S.

34 Moderate impacts on surface water and waters of the U.S. are expected from the
35 additive effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Past

5-11
FME005704
1 actions, including historic and current fishing, vessel traffic, sewage, agricultural
2 runoff, and industrial discharges have generally degraded the quality of water in
3 the lower Rio Grande and have resulted in long-term direct moderate impacts on
4 water quality. However the general water quality meets Federal and state water
5 quality standards.
6 5.7 FLOODPLAINS
7 Negligible impacts on floodplains would be expected from the additive effects of
8 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Floodplains were
9 greatly impacted by the construction of the levee system which controls the flow
10 of water over low lying areas. Fencing in Segments O-1, O-2, and O-3, would
11 further regulate water flow in those areas where no levee system exists.
12 5.8 VEGETATION RESOURCES

13 Moderate impacts on native species vegetation and habitat are expected from
14 the additive effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
15 Urbanization of the area has directly reduced habitat for sensitive flora species.
16 Indirect impacts from urbanization include changes in floodways, water quality,
17 and the introduction of non-native species.
18 5.9 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES

19 Minor to moderate impacts on wildlife and species are expected from the additive
20 effects of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
21 Urbanization of the area has effectively reduced green corridor and water access
22 for wildlife. Cumulative impacts would mainly result from habitat disturbance and
23 degradation, construction traffic, and permanent loss of green corridors. Indirect
24 impacts would result from noise during construction, operational lighting, and loss
25 of potential food web species. Species would also be impacted by equipment
26 spills and leaks.
27 5.10 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

28 Moderate impacts on threatened and endangered species are expected from the
29 additive effects of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
30 Cumulative impacts would mainly result from habitat disturbance and
31 degradation, construction traffic, and permanent loss of green corridors. Indirect
32 impacts would result from noise during construction, operational lighting, and loss
33 of potential food web species. Species would also be impacted by equipments
34 spills and leaks.

36 No cumulative impacts on known historic and cultural resources are expected
37 from the additive effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
5-12
FME005705
1 actions. Planning and consultation with SHPOs would limit the possibility of
2 future impact to unknown historical and cultural resources.
3 5.12 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL

4 Minor to moderate impacts on aesthetics and visual resources are expected from
5 the additive effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
6 The construction and installation of tactical would create a permanent and fixed
7 visual interruption at fixed points.
8 5.13 SOCIOECONOMICS
9 Short-term beneficial impacts on the local and regional socioeconomic resources
10 are expected from the additive effects of past, present, and reasonably
11 foreseeable future actions. Fence and road construction has the potential for
12 minor beneficial effects from temporary increases in construction jobs and the
13 purchase of goods and services.
14 5.14 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

15 Cumulative beneficial impacts on human health and safety are expected from the
16 additive effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The
17 proposed tactical infrastructure would have short- to long-term indirect beneficial
18 effects on children by reducing the number of illegal border crossers, smugglers,
19 terrorists, and terrorist weapons.
20 5.15 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY

21 Cumulative beneficial impacts on human health and safety are expected from the
22 additive effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The
23 proposed tactical infrastructure would have short- to long-term indirect beneficial
24 effects on safety by reducing the number of illegal border crossers, smugglers,
25 terrorists, and terrorist weapons. It would have indirect minor adverse impact on
26 human safety by encouraging illegal border crossers to cross in more remote or
27 hazardous areas.

29 Minor cumulative impacts on utilities and infrastructure are expected from the
30 additive effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
31 Minor impacts on roadways and traffic are expected from the additive effects of
32 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

5-13
FME005706

2 No cumulative impacts are expected from past, present, and reasonably
3 foreseeable future actions. Small quantities of hazardous materials may be used
4 to install, build, and install tactical infrastructure.
5 5.18 SUSTAINABILITY AND GREENING

6 No cumulative impacts on sustainability and greening would be expected.

5-14
FME005707
1 6. REFERENCES
ACHP Regulations, 36 CFR 800. Protection of Historic Properties.

Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1 July 2007.
ACHP Davenport, Elizabeth Pettit. “Fort Brown.” The Handbook of
Texas Online. Texas State Historical Association, 2001. 17
October 2007.
<http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/FF/qbf7.
html>
ACHP “Las Cuevas Ebony.” Famous Trees of Texas. Texas Forest
Service, Texas A&M University System. 2005. 18 October
2007.
http://famoustreesoftexas.tamu.edu/TreeHistory.aspx?TreeName=Las%20Cuevas
%20Ebony>
ACHP Sánchez, Mario L. and Kitty A. Henderson. “Los Caminos del
Rio: A Bi-national National Heritage Study Along the Lower Rio
Grande.” Cultural Resource Management Magazine 20:11
(1997): 13. 18 October 2007. <
http://crm.cr.nps.gov/issue.cfm?volume=20&number=11>
ACHP Sánchez, Mario Ed. “A Shared Experience: The History,
Architecture and Historic Designations
of the Lower Rio Grande Heritage Corridor.” 1994. Texas
Historical Commission. 18 October 2007. <
http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Past/Book/index.html>
ACHP “Stillman House Museum” Brownsville Historical Association.
2007. 17 October 2007. http://brownsvillehistory.org/?page id=148
ACHP ACHP. Texas Historical Commission. Texas Historic Sites
Atlas and Texas Archaeological Sites Atlas.
<http://www.atlas.thc.state.tx.us> Search by quad maps, then
downloaded various pages to provide coverage nearby to the
lower Rio Grande area.
AirNav 2007a AirNav. 2007. Airport Information for Brownsville/South Padre
International Airport. Available online
<http://www.airnav.com/airport/KBRO>. Accessed 17 October
2007.
AirNav 2007b AirNav. 2007. Airport Information for McAllen Miller
International Airport. Available online
<http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMFE>. Accessed 17 October
2007.

6-1
FME005708
AP.001 AP.001 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)s for project
areas located in the Rio Grande River Area. FIRMettes are
available online through the FEMA map service center
website. http://msc.fema.gov. Accessed on October 17
AP.003 AP.003 Definitions of FEMA Flood Zone Designations.
Available online through the FEMA map center service
website. http://msc.fema.gov. Accessed on October 17
AP.004 AP.004 Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management.
Available online
http://www.fema.gov/plan/ehp/ehplaws/eo11988.shtm#1.
Accessed on October 18
BEA 2007 Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2007. Regional Economic
Information System, Local Area Personal Income 1969 – 2005.
http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/.
BLS 2007 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007. Local Area Unemployment
Statistics. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=la.
CBP 2006 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 2006. “Border
Patrol Overview.” Last updated January 11, 2006. Available
online:
<http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/ov
erview.xml>. Accessed October 2, 2007.
CBP 2007 CBP. 2007. Rio Grande Valley Sector Homepage. Available
online: <http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/
border_patrol/border_patrol_sectors/rio_grande_valley_sector/
>. Accessed September 20, 2007.
CHPPM 2007 U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive
Medicine. 2007. Available online: <http://chppm-
www.apgea.army.mil/hcp/NoiseLevels.aspx>. Accessed 20 October
2007.
CRS 2006 Congressional Research Service (CRS). 2006. “Report For
Congress.” Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S.
International Border. 12 December 2006.
DOI Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines. Federal
Register 48: 44716-44742.
DOI Weitze, Karen. Roma Historic District. National Historic
Landmark Nomination Form. National Register of Historic
Places. 1993.
DOI National Park Service. “How To Apply National Register
Criteria for Evaluation” National Register Bulletin 15 (1997): 5.

6-2
FME005709
IBWC 2007 U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC).

2007. “The International Boundary and Water Commission, Its
Mission, Organization and Procedures for Solution of
Boundary and Water Problems.” Available online:
<www.ibwc.state.gov/About_Us/About_Us.html>. Accessed
September 20, 2007.
Landrum & Landrum & Brown, Inc. 2002. “Common Noise Sources.”
Brown 2002 Available online <www.landrum-
brown.com/env/PVD/EIS/Jan%202002%20Chapter%204/
4%201-1%20%20common_noise_sources.pdf>. Accessed 6
July 2004.
NatureServe NatureServe Explorer. 2007. Ecological System
(2007 Comprehensive Reports. Accessed On-line at:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/.
Ohio State Ohio State University. 2007. Noise on the Farm Can Cause
University Hearing Loss. Available online <http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-
2007 fact/0590.html>. Accessed 20 October 2007.
SM#1 Texas Administrative Code (TAC). 2007. Chapter 106, Subchapter
W, Turbines and Engines.
TAC 2007
<http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_view=5
&ti=30&pt=1&ch=106&sch=W&rl=Y >. Accessed 15 October 2007.
SM#2 USEPA. 2006. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards.”
USEPA Available online: <http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html>.
2006a Accessed 15 October 2007.
SM#3 USEPA. 2006. AirData NET Tier Report for BLIAQCR Available
online: <http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html>. Accessed 15
USEPA 2006b
October 2007.
SM#4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007. Green
Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Available online:
USEPA 2007
<http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk>. Accessed 15 October
2007.
TDPS 2006 Texas Department of Public Safety, Crime Information Bureau.
2006. 2004 Crime in Texas.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/04/2004index.htm#cit2004.
TEA 2006 Texas Education Agency, 2006. Enrollment Report, 2006-
2007. http://www.tea.state.tx.us/adhocrpt/Standard_Report.html.
TEA 2006 Texas Education Agency, 2006. Snapshot Download
Statistics, District and Charter Detail Data for SY 2003-2004.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/snapshot/download.html.
TSDC-OSD Texas State Data Center, Office of the State Demographer,
2006 2006. Population 2000 and Projected Population 2005 to 2040.
http://txsdc.utsa.edu/cqi-bin/prj2006totnum.cgi.

6-3
FME005710
U.S. Census U.S. Census Bureau, 2002. Census 2000 Summary File 3,
2002 Matrice H76, Median Value (dollars) for Specified Owner-
Occupied Housing Units.
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html? lang=en.
2002 Matrice P7, Hispanic and Latino by Race: 2000.
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en.
2002 Matrice P88, Ratio of Income in 1999 to Poverty Level.
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en.
U.S. Census U.S. Census Bureau, 2006. Small Area Income & Poverty
2006 Estimates, Model-based Estimates for States, Counties and
School District, 1995, 1999, 2000 and 2004.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/.
U.S. Census U.S. Census Bureau, 2006. Annual Population Estimates and
2006 Estimated Components of Population Change for the United
States and States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006
(NST_EST2006_ALLDATA).
http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html.
U.S. Census U.S. Census Bureau, 2007. Annual Estimates of the Resident
2007 Population by Selected Age Groups and Sex for Counties,
April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 (CC-EST2006-AGESEX-
[ST_FIPS]). http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/asrh/CC-EST2006-
agesex.html.
U.S. Census U.S. Census Bureau, 2007. Subcounty Population Estimates:
2007 April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 (SUB-EST2006).
http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2006-states.html.
U.S. Census U.S. Census Bureau, 2007. Table 4: Annual Estimates of
2007 Housing Units for Counties in Texas: April 1, 2000 to July 1,
2006 (HU-EST2006-04-48). http://www.census.gov/popest/housing/HU-
EST2006-4.html.
USDA 2004 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004. 2002 Census of
Agriculture – Texas State and County Data, Table 1.
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/index.asp

6-4
FME005711
1 7. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

% percent Support Office
3
µg/m micrograms per cubic meter EIS Environmental Impact
°F degrees Fahrenheit Statement
ACHP Advisory Council on EO Executive Order
Historic Preservation ESA Endangered Species Act
ACM asbestos containing
material FEMA Federal Emergency
APE area of potential effect Management Agency
AQCR air quality control region FHWA Federal Highway
AST aboveground storage tank Administration
BAT best available technology FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
BMP Best Management Practice ft feet
BLIAQCR Brownsville-Laredo FY fiscal year
Intrastate Air Quality HABS Historic American
Control Region Building Survey
BO Biological Opinion HAER Historic American
CAA Clean Air Act Engineering Record
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments IBWC International Boundary and
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Water Commission
Protection LBP lead based paint
CCR California Code of LRGVNWR Lower Rio Grande Valley
Regulations National Wildlife Refuge
CEQ Council on Environmental m meter
Quality MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
CERCLA Comprehensive MCL Maximum Contaminent
Environmental Response, Level
Compensation and Liability MCLG Maximum Contaminant
Act
Level Goals
CFR Code of Federal
MD Management Directive
Regulations
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
CO carbon monoxide
mph miles per hour
CWA Clean Water Act
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
CY calendar year
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality
dBA A-weighted decibels
Standards
dBC C-weighted decibels
NEPA National Environmental
DHS U.S. Department of Policy Act
Homeland Security
NHL National Historic
DOPAA Description of the Proposed Landmarks
Action and Alternatives
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
EA Environmental Assessment
NOI Notice of Intent
ECSO Engineering Construction

7-1
FME005712
NOx Nitrogen oxide TMDL Total Maximum Daily

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Load
Elimination System tpy tons per year
NPS National Parks Service TSCA Toxic Substances Control
NHRP National Register of Historic Act
Places U.S.C. United States Code
O3 ozone USACE U.S. Army Corps of
OSHA Occupational Safety and Engineers
Health Administration USBP U.S. Border Patrol
P.L. Public Law USEPA U.S. Environmental
Pb lead Protection Agency
PCB polychlorinated biphenyls USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife
PM10 particles equal to or less Service
than 10 microns in diameter UST underground storage tank
PM2.5 particles equal to or less VOC volatile organic compound
than 2.5 microns in diameter
POE Port of Entry
ppm parts per million
PSD Prevention of Significant
Deterioration
RCRA Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
ROI Region of Interest
ROW right-of-way
SARA Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act
SHPO State Historic Preservation
Office
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan
TAAQS Texas Ambient Air Quality
Standards
TAC Texas Administrative
Code
TCEQ Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality
TCP traditional cultural
properties
TDOT Texas Department of
Transportation

7-2
FME005713
1 8. LIST OF PREPARERS
2 This EIS has been prepared by engineering-environmental Management, Inc.

3 (e²M) under the direction of USBP. The individual contractors that contributed
4 to the preparation of this document are listed below.
5 (b) (6) 37 (b) (6)

6 B.A. Geography 38 M.S. Biology
7 Years of Experience: 2 39 B.S. Environmental Studies
40 Years of Experience: 3
8 (b) (6)
9 M.P.A. Public Administration 41 (b) (6)
10 B.S. Political Science 42 Ph.D. Anthropology
11 Years of Experience: 7 43 B.A. Anthropology and
44 Archaeology
12 (b) (6)
13 M.S. Natural Resources
14 B.S. Applied Biology 46 (b) (6)
15 Years of Experience: 31 47 B.A. Geography
48 GIS Professional Certificate
16 (b) (6)
17 M.S. Environmental Sciences and
18 Engineering 50 (b) (6)
19 B.S. Geology 51 M.S. Environmental Studies
20 Certificate of Water Quality 52 B.S. Earth Science and Geography
21 Management 53 Years of Experience: 10
54 (b) (6)
23 (b) (6) 55 B.S. Environmental Science
24 B.S. Geology 56 Registered Environmental
25 USACE Certified Wetland 57 Professional
26 Delineator 58 Years of Experience: 12
27 Certified Professional Soil Scientist
28 Years of Experience: 23 59 (b) (6)
60 M.A. Anthropology
29 (b) (6) 61 Years of Experience: 15
h.D. Mass Communications
31 B.A. Journalism 62(b(b) (6)
32 Years of Experience: 22 63) M.A. Anthropology
33 (b) (6)
65 (b) (6)
34 B.S. Economics
35 M.S. Economics 66 B.S. Environmental Policy and
36 Years of Experience: 31 67 Planning

8-1
FME005714
1 (b) (6) 40 (b) (6)

2 M.S. Environmental Science 41 B.S. Environmental Studies
3 M.A. Political Science/International 42 Years of Experience: 8
4 Economics
43 (b) (6)
5 B.A. Political Science , AICP
6 Years of Experience: 22 44 Sammons/Dutton LLC
45 B.S. Civil Engineering
7 (b) (6) 46 Graduate Studies, City and
8 M.B.A. Business Administration 47 Regional Planning
9 B.S. Forestry and Natural 48 Years of Experience: 43
10 Resources Management
50 B.S. Biology
12 (b) (6) , Ph.D. 51 Years of Experience: 4
13 Ph.D. Biochemistry
52 (b) (6)
14 B.S. Chemistry
15 Registered Environmental 53 B.S. Biology
16 Manager 54 M.S. Biology
17 Years of Experience: 23 55 Ph.D. Biology
18 (b) (6)
57 (b) (6)
19 A.A.S. Nursing
20 Years of Experience: 17 58 B.S. Biology
59 Ph.D. Botany
21 (b) (6) 60 Years of Experience: 24
22 M.S. Historic Preservation
23 M.S. Anthropology 61 (b) (6)
24 B.S. Anthropology 62 B.S. Geography
25 Years of Experience: 24 63 Years of Experience: 2
26 (b) (6) 64 (b) (6)

27 B.S. Environmental Science 65 Masters of Engineering
28 B.A. Communications 66 Years of Experience: 5
67 (b) (6)
30 (b) (6) 68 B.S. Biology
31 B.S. Environmental Science 69 M.S. Environmental Science and
32 B.A. Business Administration 70 Education
33 Years of Experience: 9 71 Years of Experience: 9
72 (b) (6)
34 (b) (6)
.S. Natural Resource 73 Masters in Public Policy
36 Management 74 B.A. Economics and Political
37 J.D. with Certificate in 75 Science
38 Environmental Law 76 Years of Experience: 14

8-2
FME005715
1 (b) (6) 11 (b) (6)

.S. Environmental Studies 12 M.S. Resource
3 Years of Experience: 3 13 Economics/Environmental
14 Management
4 (b) (6)
15 B.A. Political Science
5 B.S. Biology 16 Years of Experience: 32
6 M.S. Biology
18 M.S. Fisheries Science
8 (b) (6) 19 B.S. Marine Science
9 B.S. Environmental Science 20 Years of Experience: 12
21

8-3
FME005716

8-2

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 12/22/10 - FME005529-FME005716 RGV PDEIS - 10.23.07 - SBMTL (Final)

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 12/22/10 - FME005529-FME005716 RGV PDEIS - 10.23.07 - SBMTL (Final)

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

FME005529

PRELIMINARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR

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

Affected Location: U.S./Mexico international border in Starr, Hidalgo, and

Proposed Action: The Proposed Action includes the construction,

Report Designation: Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Abstract: USBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate approximately 70

The Proposed Action includes the installation of tactical infrastructure in 21

(a) Electronically through the web site at: www.BorderFenceNEPA.com;

Your comments on this document are requested. Comments will normally be

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

17 This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared in cooperation

23 PURPOSE AND NEED

35 In many areas fences are a critical element of border security. To achieve

17 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION

35 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

18 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative

28 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

1 Table ES-1. Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts by Alternative

2 [[Preparer’s Note: This table will be populated once the analysis is

Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

1 3.6 WATER RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 3-14

Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

1 4.8.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative ..........................................4-29

Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

8 The Proposed Action includes the installation of tactical infrastructure in 21

38 Appendix A contains a listing of those laws, regulations, and executive orders

Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS

O-18 O-19 O-20 O-21

Source: ESRI StreetMap USA 2005

1 Appendix D provides potential fence designs and a description of the proposed

10 1.1 USBP BACKGROUND

12 • Prevention of terrorists and terrorist weapons, including weapons of mass

27 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

3 In many areas, fences are a critical element of border security. To achieve

22 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION

31 1.4 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS

Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

12 The process for implementing NEPA is codified in 40 CFR 1500–1508,

17 An EIS is prepared when a proposed action is anticipated to have potential

21 • The need for the Proposed Action

39 Within the framework of environmental impact analysis under NEPA, additional

Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

1 Water Act (CWA) (including a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

8 1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

33 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) will publish a Notice of

Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

1 days. At the conclusion of the 30-day period, a Record of Decision (ROD)

Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

1 USBP by contacting SBInet, Tactical Infrastructure Program Office. To avoid

15 1.6 COOPERATING AGENCIES

22 The USACE-Galveston District will act on applications for Department of the

Rio Grande Valley Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

3 In addition, the Proposed Action would encroach on multiple component parcels