[Federal Register: May 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 25104-25106]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12my05-121]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
Record of Decision for Customs and Border Protection's Office of
Border Patrol Operation Rio Grande in the Office of Border Patrol
McAllen Sector, Texas
AGENCY: Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Record of decision general notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Record of Decision (ROD) document announces the final
decision regarding the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Office of Border Patrol's Operation Rio Grande regarding potential
environmental impacts resulting from Customs and Border Protection's
(CBP), Office of Border Patrol (OBP), deployment of the lighting,
roads, fences, mowing and boat ramp construction on the United States
and Mexican border in the McAllen Sector of the OBP. The final EIS for
Operation Rio Grande was made available for public review and was filed
for public review with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which
published it in the Federal Register on June 17, 2004. This ROD will be
incorporated into the final EIS after publication. The Operation Rio
Grande has five project actions covered by this EIS: Lighting
installation (permanent and portable), road improvement, fencing
construction, boat ramp construction, and mowing. These actions are
intended to reduce the influx of illegal entrants and contraband into
the McAllen Sector, increase arrest of those not deterred; increase
safety for operations by OBP agents; decrease response time; and
decrease the risk from drowning as victims attempt to cross the river
and/or irrigation canals. Since September 11, 2001, terrorist
activities have also become a major focus of the OBP. This EIS was
prompted by a lawsuit brought by the Defenders of Wildlife because of
the potential impact that OBP activities may have on the habitat of two
endangered species in the area, the ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) and
jaguarundi (Hepailurus yagouaroundi) cats. The adjustments to lighting
and other construction and mowing activities are incorporated into this
ROD and were agreed to by the OBP and the Defenders of Wildlife in the
settlement agreement for Defenders of Wildlife v. Meissner. The final
EIS reflects this agreement and states that no significant impacts
occur to geology, soils, climate, or air quality. Short-term
disturbances may occur to water resources. Aquatic systems could be
impacted; however, the effects will decrease over time. The
socioeconomic impacts would primarily be beneficial. Lastly, some
immediate and direct impacts to wildlife from construction activities
would occur. Smaller and less mobile wildlife such as amphibians,
reptiles, and small mammals may be adversely impacted by heavy
machinery. The increased noise and activity levels during constructions
could temporarily disturb breeding behavior of some wildlife inhabiting
the areas adjacent to the project; however, little permanent damage to
the populations of such organisms would result. The proposed lighting
improvements could potentially impact migration, dispersal, and
foraging activities of nocturnal species. Two endangered species, the
ocelot and jaguarundi, could potentially be impacted by the proposed
project. These species are largely nocturnal, and it is expected they
would avoid illuminated areas. Extensive coordination with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service was conducted to determine the position and
direction of the proposed lighting structures to minimize the
illumination to brush and other types of screening cover for these
animals. Proposed mitigation measures such as road closures and habitat
construction would increase the amount of habitat for these species.
Reducing illegal immigrant traffic in the McAllen Sector would further
reduce impacts to the habitat. Some, as yet, unidentified cultural
resource sites may be impacted but mitigation will be provided through
an initial assessment of the site, its anticipated severity, and
proposals for the appropriate mitigation will be coordinated with the
State Historic Preservation Officer.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection, Suite 3.4-D, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC
20229, Attn: Mr. Kevin Feeney. Mr. Feeney is also available at (202)
344-2336 or at Kevin.Feeney@dhs.gov. No public comment period is
required for the ROD.
Record of Decision
Operation Rio Grande Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron Counties, Texas
I have reviewed the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
Operation Rio Grande, as well as correspondence received in response to
[[Page 25105]]
coordination and public review of the draft EIS.
Operation Rio Grande is a strategy initiated in August 1997 by the
Office of Border Patrol (OBP, formerly the U.S. Border Patrol (BP)), a
Federal law enforcement branch of the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection (CBP, which includes functions transferred from the former
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)), to aid in reducing
illegal immigration and drug trafficking along the Rio Grande corridor
of the McAllen Sector of the OBP. The purpose of the proposed project
is to facilitate OBP missions to reduce or eliminate illegal drug
activity and illegal entry along the southwestern border of the United
States and to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants into the United
States.
A draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for Operation Rio Grande was
circulated for review and comment to Federal, State, and local agencies
and to organizations, public groups, and the local public known to have
an interest in the project in September 1998. Comments received on the
draft EA were addressed, and the EA became final in August 1999.
However, the final EA was never distributed, because the Defenders of
Wildlife filed a lawsuit in August 1999 (Defenders of Wildlife v.
Meissner D.D.C. case no. 1:99CV02262) against the former INS and BP
challenging Operation Rio Grande. This case was settled on September 8,
2000. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, OBP prepared an EIS that
analyzed the potential beneficial and adverse impacts of Operation Rio
Grande in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
of 1969, as amended.
Five project actions were covered by the EIS: Lighting
installation, road improvement, fencing construction, boat ramp
construction, and mowing. These actions are intended to reduce the
influx of illegal immigration and drugs into the McAllen Sector,
especially into towns; increase arrests of those not deterred; increase
safety for operations by OBP agents; decrease response time; and
decrease the risk from drowning as illegal entrants attempt to cross
the river and/or irrigation canals. In light of the September 11, 2001,
terrorist activities, securing the U.S. borders against illegal entry
has become an increased focus of the OBP. The proposed project actions
presented in the EIS are anticipated to significantly aid in securing
the U.S. border against illegal entry of any kind.
Two types of lighting are addressed in the final EIS: Permanent and
portable. All portable lighting is currently in place; no more portable
lighting is proposed in the final EIS. All proposed lighting is the
permanent type. Proposed lighting locations were determined by the OBP
agents in each McAllen Sector Station based on their knowledge of
traffic in their station and on the site-specific needs of each station
to deter or direct traffic in that station. Lighting acts as a
deterrent to illegal immigration and smuggling, and as an aid to the
OBP agents in capturing illegal entrants or smugglers after they have
entered the United States. It also provides protection to illegal
entrants from criminals on the United States side of the Rio Grande.
Road improvement (adding calich[eacute] to the road surface) is
necessary to allow the present and incoming agents to effectively
perform the functions required of them. Additionally, upgrading the
most crucial roads to all-weather roads would lead to a reduction in
the number of roads needed. All road improvements addressed in the
final EIS are on existing roads; no new construction is planned.
Calich[eacute] is the most benign all-weather topping available, and
its use is proposed for Operation Rio Grande road improvements.
Border fences are located mostly in urbanized areas near the land
Ports of Entry and are an effective deterrent to illegal drug and
immigrant trafficking. Fencing also facilitates enforcement actions by
hindering escape. Fencing has proved to be an effective measure for
controlling the border.
The McAllen Sector currently has a fleet of 18 boats and none will
be added to this fleet specifically because of Operation Rio Grande.
The boats are used for surveillance, observation, and information
gathering and, therefore, are operated as inconspicuously as possible.
The boats are not used for pursuit since they are on international
waters. Boat ramps are utilized along the Rio Grande and other large
surface-water bodies by OBP agents and other law enforcement officers
to deter and/or apprehend those involved in illegal activities. These
illegal activities include drug smuggling and transport of illegal
immigrants by boat, as well as persons involved in smuggling or trying
to enter the United States illegally by wading or swimming.
Currently, under a Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S.
International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), the USIBWC mows certain areas between the
USIBWC levee and the Rio Grande once a year between July and October.
Despite the annual mowing, some of the herbaceous vegetation grows tall
enough to hinder the efforts of the OBP to apprehend illegal entrants
and drug traffickers. Increased mowing would make it easier and safer
for OBP agents to apprehend these persons.
The application of Operation Rio Grande dictates that a viable
alternative be one that meets the purpose and need to develop a border
security system that also meets the mission of the OBP. Two
alternatives, the No-Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative,
were carried forward throughout the final EIS since all other
alternatives (more lighting with larger coverage area, including some
in National Wildlife Refuges and inside the USIBWC flood control levee;
different placement and aiming of the lighting; additional boat ramps;
different boat ramp locations; additional mowings; extensive fencing)
were eliminated from consideration through a dynamic application of the
intent of the NEPA process using interagency coordination and
cooperation (final EIS, Section 2.3). Two public meetings for Operation
Rio Grande were held in April 2001. The purpose of the meetings was to
get public input on what issues and alternatives should be addressed in
the EIS. The public's view, and concerns were used in the preparation
of the EIS. One or more copies of the draft EIS (DEIS) were sent to
State and Federal resource agencies, and the general public on February
20, 2003, requesting comments by April 14, 2003. However, a public
notice soliciting comments on the DEIS was not published in the Federal
Register until March 21, 2003, and the comment period was extended by
letter and newspaper notice until May 5, 2003. Those comments are
included in the final EIS in Appendix D.
The purpose of the actions, as noted in Section 1.2 of the final
EIS, is to increase the efficiency and safety of the OBP agents and the
safety of U.S. citizens and illegal entrants in the McAllen Sector
while the OBP agents fulfill their obligations under U.S. laws and
directives. It was noted in the final EIS that the number of OBP agents
is not determined by Operation Rio Grande, although the method in which
they are used is. The recommended plan is a mix of various actions to
provide the optimum multitiered approach to achieve the purpose of
Operation Rio Grande.
Under the No-Action Alternative, the actions proposed in the final
EIS would not occur and present practices would continue. The No-Action
Alternative would not increase or decrease the number of OBP agents in
the sector but would tend to concentrate them along the river. Because
of a Congressional Mandate (final EIS, Section 2.1), there
[[Page 25106]]
will be an increase in the number of OBP agents in all areas of the
country, with a concomitant increase in the number of vehicles.
The following actions comprise the recommended plan for Operation
Rio Grande at the six OBP stations in the McAllen Sector:
Rio Grande City Station: (3.5 miles of permanent lighting and 6
boat ramps); McAllen Station (4 miles of permanent lighting, 6.4 miles
of road improvement, and 2 boat ramps); Mercedes Station (11.1 miles of
permanent lighting, 30 miles of road improvement, and 3 boat ramps);
Harlingen Station (1.7 miles of permanent lighting (43 portable lights
along 4.6 miles currently exist), 16 miles of road improvement, and 3
boat ramps); Brownsville Station (19 miles of road improvement, 5 boat
ramps, 3.8 miles of fencing, and mowing (79 portable lights over a 13-
mile distance and 30 permanent light poles along 1.5 miles currently
exist)); and Port Isabel Station (16 miles of road improvement, 4 boat
ramps, and 1.6 miles of fencing (64 portable lights along 11 miles
currently exist)). The Harlingen, Brownsville, and Port Isabel Stations
currently have portable lighting and the Brownsville Station currently
has permanent lighting, as agreed to under the settlement of the
lawsuit noted above. No new lighting is proposed for the Brownsville
and Port Isabel Stations and only permanent lighting is proposed for
the Harlingen Station. The current permanent/portable lighting at these
three stations, however, was addressed in the final EIS.
The proposed project is not expected to produce any significant
long-term or cumulative adverse impacts on the human or natural
environment, as defined in the Council of Environmental Quality
Regulations (40 CFR 1508.27). As noted in detail in the final EIS,
essentially no impacts, beneficial or adverse, to the physiography,
geology, soils, climate, water resources, aquatic systems, wildlife,
cultural resources, aesthetics, noise, or air quality of the area are
anticipated and there were no indications of hazardous wastes. There
will be some local, beneficial impacts to vegetation from reduced
trampling of vegetation and littering by illegal entrants and drug
traffickers and from road closures. The proposed lighting improvements
could potentially have minor, local adverse impacts on migration,
dispersal, and foraging activities of nocturnal species. Two endangered
species could potentially be impacted by the proposed project, the
ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) and jaguarundi (Hepailurus yagouaroundi).
These species are largely nocturnal and it is expected they would avoid
illuminated areas. Extensive coordination with the FWS was conducted to
determine the position and direction of the proposed lighting
structures to minimize the illumination to brush and other types of
screening cover. Proposed mitigation measures, such as road closures
and habitat construction, would increase the amount of habitat for
these species. Reducing illegal immigrant traffic in the McAllen Sector
would further reduce impacts to the habitat. Therefore, both the final
EIS and the FWS Biological Opinion conclude that no significant adverse
impacts will accrue to these species.
The only significant impacts would be socioeconomic. The
socioeconomic impacts would be long-term and beneficial, both
nationally and locally, primarily from the long-term reduction of flow
of illegal drugs into the United States and the concomitant effects
upon the Nation's health and economy, drug-related crimes, community
cohesion, property values, and traditional family values. Residents of
the border towns would benefit from increased security, a reduction in
illegal drug-smuggling activities and the number of violent crimes,
less damage to and loss of personal property, and less financial burden
for entitlement programs. This would be accompanied by the concomitant
benefits of reduced enforcement and insurance costs. Minor short-term
local employment may be generated during the construction phase of the
proposed action.
I have reviewed and evaluated the documents concerning the proposed
actions, views of other interested agencies and parties, and the
various practical means to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Based on these considerations, I conclude that all practical means to
avoid or minimize environmental impacts have been incorporated into the
preferred plan. I find the preferred plan to be economically justified,
in compliance with environmental statutes, and in the public interest.
Dated: April 15, 2005.
Robert C. Bonner,
Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.
[FR Doc. 05-9518 Filed 5-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P