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, 25104-25106 [05-9518]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
25104
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 91 / Thursday, May 12, 2005 / Notices
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency/component,
including whether the information will
have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the
agencies/components estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the
collections of information on those who
are to respond, including the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
Title: Establishment of a Bonded
Warehouse (Bonded Warehouse
Regulations).
OMB Number: 1651–0041.
Form Number: N/A.
Abstract: 19 CFR section 19 sets forth
requirements for bonded warehouses.
This includes applications needed to
establish a bonded warehouse; to
receive free materials the warehouse;
and to make alterations, suspensions,
relocation or discontinuance of a
bonded warehouse.
Current Actions: There are no changes
to the information collection. This
submission is being submitted to extend
the expiration date.
Type of Review: Extension (without
change).
Affected Public: Businesses,
Institutions.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
198.
Estimated Time Per Respondent: 24
hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 4,910.
Estimated Total Annualized Cost on
the Public: $108,020.
If additional information is required
contact: Tracey Denning, Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection, 1300
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room
3.2.C, Washington, DC 20229, at 202–
344–1429.
Dated: May 3, 2005.
Tracey Denning,
Agency Clearance Officer, Information
Services Branch.
[FR Doc. 05–9520 Filed 5–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820–02–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:04 May 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
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
Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Record of decision general
notice.
AGENCY:
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
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 91 / Thursday, May 12, 2005 / Notices
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:04 May 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 sitespecific 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 caliche 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 allweather 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. Caliche 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
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25105
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
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
25106
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 91 / Thursday, May 12, 2005 / Notices
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:04 May 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
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, drugrelated 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
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–4665–N–24]
Conference Call Meeting of the
Manufactured Housing Consensus
Committee
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing
Commissioner, HUD.
ACTION: Notice of upcoming meeting via
conference call.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the
schedule and proposed agenda of an
upcoming meeting of the Manufactured
Housing Consensus Committee (the
Committee) to be held via telephone
conference. This meeting is open to the
general public, which may participate
by following the instructions below.
DATE: The conference call meeting will
be held on Wednesday, May 25, 2005,
from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. eastern time.
ADDRESSES: Information concerning the
conference call can be obtained from the
Department’s Consensus Committee
Administering Organization, the
National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA). Interested parties can log onto
NFPA’s Web site for instructions on
how to participate, and for contact
information for the conference call:
https://www.nfpa.org/
categoryList.asp?categoryID=858.
Alternately, interested parties may
contact Jill McGovern of NFPA by
phone at (617) 984–7404 (this is not a
toll-free number) for conference call
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William W. Matchneer III,
Administrator, Office of Manufactured
Housing Programs, Office of the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Regulatory
Affairs and Manufactured Housing,
Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 7th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202)
708–6409 (this is not a toll-free
number). Persons who have difficulty
hearing or speaking may access this
number via TTY by calling the toll-free
Federal Information Relay Service at
(800) 877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of
this meeting is provided in accordance
with Sections 10(a) and (b) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App.2) and 41 CFR 102–3.150.
The Manufactured Housing Consensus
Committee was established under
Section 604(a)(3) of the National
Manufactured Housing Construction
and Safety Standards Act of 1974, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 4503(a)(3). The
Committee is charged with providing
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 91 (Thursday, May 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25104-25106]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9518]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
