W912PL19R0011_Amendment0001_Part2.pdf

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR

INTEGRATED FIXED TOWERS ON THE

TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION IN THE

AJO AND CASA GRANDE STATIONS'

AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY

U.S. BORDER PATROL TUCSON SECTOR, ARIZONA

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

WASHINGTON D.C.

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR

INTEGRATED FIXED TOWERS ON THE TOHONO O’ODHAM NATION

IN THE AJO AND CASA GRANDE STATIONS’

AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY

U.S. BORDER PATROL TUCSON SECTOR, ARIZONA

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

March 2017

Lead Agency: Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs & Border Protection Office of Acquisition 1901 S. Bell Street, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 20598

Cooperating Agencies: Bureau of Indian Affairs Environmental Quality Services Branch 2600 N. Central Avenue, 4th Floor Mailroom Phoenix, AZ 85004

Tohono O’odham Nation P.O. Box 837 Sells, AZ 85634

Point of Contact: Mr. Paul C. Schmidt U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Acquisition 1901 S. Bell Street, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 20598

USBP’s Ajo and Casa Grande Stations’ AORs IFT Final EA March 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the law enforcement component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responsible for securing the border and facilitating lawful international trade and travel. U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) is the uniformed law enforcement component within CBP responsible for securing the Nation’s borders against the illegal entry of people and goods between Ports of Entry.

USBP developed a detailed technology deployment plan for each USBP Sector in Arizona based on current and anticipated operational activity. One of the technology-based approaches in the plan is the integrated fixed tower (IFT) system. The IFT system provides long-range, persistent surveillance, enabling USBP personnel to detect, track, identify, and classify illegal entries through a series of integrated sensors and tower-based surveillance equipment. The proposed IFT project represents a technology solution for the distinct terrain within USBP Tucson Sector.

STUDY LOCATION: The Proposed Action would take place in Pima County, Arizona, in USBP Ajo and Casa Grande Station’s Areas of Responsibility (AORs), Tucson Sector. The Proposed Action would occur on the Tohono O’odham Nation, within the Chukut Kuk and Gu-Vo Districts, as well as at existing CBP facilities in USBP Tucson Sector.

PURPOSE AND The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide improved NEED: surveillance and detection capabilities that facilitate rapid responses to areas of greatest risk for illegal cross-border threats along approximately 63 miles of the U.S. border in the USBP Ajo and Casa Grande Stations’ AORs.

The project is needed to

1) provide more efficient and effective means of assessing cross-border activities

2) provide rapid detection and accurate characterization of potential threat

3) provide coordinated deployment of resources in the apprehension of cross-border violators

4) increase surveillance and interdiction efficiency

5) enhance the deterrence of illegal cross-border activity

6) enhance agent safety

7) enhance safety to border communities

ES-2

March 2017

PROPOSED ACTION CBP analyzed three alternatives in this Environmental Assessment AND ALTERNATIVES (EA). Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative. The No CONSIDERED: Action Alternative reflects conditions within the project area should the Proposed Action not be implemented. Under this alternative, CBP would not construct the proposed IFTs in USBP’s Ajo and Casa Grande Stations’ AORs or improve existing approach roads to these tower sites. USBP’s ability to detect and interdict cross-border violators would not be enhanced; thus, operational efficiency and effectiveness would not be improved within the area covered by the proposed towers. USBP would continue to rely solely on traditional detection methodology that includes traditional sign detection, which requires both patrolling and dragging of roads. The No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose of and need for this project.

Alternative 2 is the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would include the following activities:

Construction, operation, and maintenance of 15 new IFT sites (see Table ES-1);

Collocation, operation, and maintenance of equipment on two existing, CBP-operated communication towers;

Installation of IFT workstations at command and control (C2) facilities at the San Miguel Law Enforcement Center (LEC) and at USBP Ajo Station;

Construction of 14 new access roads, up to 0.24 miles totals, and improvement of up to 70.90 miles of existing approach roads, as well as maintenance and repair of these roads;

Use of two existing staging areas for the temporary storage of materials and equipment; and Obtaining rights-of-way (ROWs) from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to perform these activities.

Each IFT site consists of a tower equipped with a suite of sensors and communications equipment. The IFT system would provide radar and video data feeds to the C2 modular facilities at USBP Ajo Station and at the San Miguel LEC, which would be retrofitted to integrate and display data from the IFT units. Approach roads are existing private or public roads used to travel to a tower site. Access roads are short road segments from an approach road into a tower site.

Approach road improvements would include reconstructing, widening, or straightening of existing roads, and installing drainage structures. Roadwork also includes performing maintenance and repair within approximately 270 ephemeral washes and installing either a low water crossing or culvert at approximately 195 of these washes.

ES-3

March 2017

Table ES-1. Proposed Tower Sites

Tower ID Alternative 1

No Action Alternative

Alternative 2 Proposed

Action Alternative 3

TCA-AJO-0216 -- Existing Existing TCA-AJO-0305 -- Existing Existing TCA-AJO-0446 -- New New TCA-AJO-0448 -- New New TCA-AJO-0450 -- New New TCA-AJO-0452 -- New New TCA-AJO-0454 -- New New TCA-AJO-0458 -- New New TCA-AJO-0460 -- New New TCA-AJO-0462 -- New New TCA-CAG-0430 -- New New TCA-CAG-0432 -- New New TCA-CAG-0434 -- New New TCA-CAG-0436 -- New -- TCA-CAG-0438 -- New New TCA-CAG-0440 -- New New TCA-CAG-0442 -- New New TCA-CAG-0444 -- -- New

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 except that Alternative 3 includes alternate IFT site TCA-CAG-0444 instead of TCA-CAG- 0436 (see Table ES-1). Alternative 3 has the same number of tower sites and similar miles of access roads as the Proposed Action;

however, Alternative 3 would include improving up to 68.26 miles of approach roads, which is approximately 2.64 miles less than the Proposed Action. The towers and C2 facilities would be equipped with the same suite of sensor and communications equipment as the Proposed Action. Roadwork would be similar to that of the Proposed Action and would include performing maintenance and repair within approximately 250 ephemeral washes and installing either a low water crossing or culvert within approximately 187 of these washes.

Alternative 3 would also include obtaining ROWs from the BIA.

Alternatives considered but eliminated from consideration included unmanned aircraft systems, remote sensing satellites, unattended ground sensors, increased CBP workforce, and increased aerial reconnaissance/operations. Although these alternatives or a combination of these alternatives could be valuable tools that CBP may employ in other areas or circumstances of border incursion, they were eliminated because of logistical restrictions, environmental

ES-4

March 2017 considerations, or functional deficiencies that fail to meet the purpose for this project.

AFFECTED The Proposed Action would have permanent, negligible impacts on ENVIRONMENT AND land use. Up to 8.23 acres of the 2.7 million acres that encompass ENVIRONMENTAL the Tohono O’odham Nation would be converted from undeveloped CONSEQUENCES: rangeland to law enforcement facilities. In addition, up to 0.57 acres would be permanently converted for the construction of access roads and up to 214.20 acres would be permanently converted for improving existing approach roads.

CBP is committed to implementing best management practices (BMPs) in Section 5.0 of the EA that would avoid or minimize adverse effects on the environment. Contractors would be required to implement these measures, which would be strictly enforced.

Temporary, minor impacts would be expected on surface water quality during construction. No impacts on floodplains or wetlands are anticipated. Although there would be minor impacts to potential waters of the United States, BMPs and standard construction procedures would be implemented to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation during construction. The impact area for any one of the ephemeral washes would be less than 0.5 acres and would be authorized under Nationwide Permit 14 for Linear Transportation Crossings. CBP has obtained approval from the International Boundary Water Commission for the Proposed Action.

CBP will consult with the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act for this action. In addition, the withdrawal of water for construction purposes could have a temporary, minor impact on groundwater resources.

The Proposed Action would have minor impacts on soils, vegetative habitat, and wildlife. Areas with highly erodible soils would be given special consideration when designing the Proposed Action to ensure incorporation of various BMPs, such as straw bales, aggregate materials, and wetting compounds to decrease erosion. Site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans would be prepared prior to construction activities and would include pre- and post-construction measures.

CBP determined that the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis), jaguar (Panthera onca), lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae), and yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). The Proposed Action would not adversely

ES-5

March 2017 affect any designated or proposed critical habitat. CBP consulted with the Tohono O'odham Nation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and consultation is complete for this action.

Based on the archaeological surveys, archival research results, Native American Tribal consultation to date, and the implementation of BMPs, CBP has determined that there would be no adverse effect on any National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible or listed architectural or aboveground resources, NRHP-eligible or listed archaeological resources, traditional cultural properties, or sacred sites. The Tohono O'odham Nation THPO concurred with CBP's no adverse effect determination, and consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is complete for this action.

Temporary and minor increases in air emissions would occur during construction of the IFTs, access road construction, and approach road improvement and maintenance and repair. In addition, there would be long-term air emissions during maintenance and operation of the tower sites. Air emissions are estimated to be below the Federal de minimis thresholds.

Noise level increases associated with construction of TCA-AJO-0450 and TCA-AJO-0462 could temporarily impact residences in the area.

In addition, construction at TCA-AJO-0460 and TCA-AJO-216 would impact Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. However, these impacts would be temporary and would be minimized by restricting activities to daylight hours and weekdays. Operational noise at TCA-AJO-0460 and TCA-AJO-216 would not impact Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. The backup propane generators are designed with sound insulation to decrease noise emissions.

Negligible demands on utilities would be required. Communications equipment on the proposed towers would emit electromagnetic radiation (i.e., radio waves and microwaves), and a potential for impacts could occur depending on the location. Any adverse effects on human health would be negligible due to the minimal exposure risk and the elevated locations in which the sensors and communications equipment would be positioned. CBP would obtain authorization to use specific frequencies and power levels from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration prior to operating communications equipment.

Construction and staging for towers, access roads, and approach roads would create a temporary, minor impact on roadways and traffic within the region for the purposes of transporting materials and work

ES-6

March 2017 crews. Tower maintenance would also require that vehicles travel to each IFT site for fuel delivery and maintenance and operation of the proposed towers. Approximately 416 vehicle trips per year are anticipated for tower maintenance and refueling, and these trips would have a long-term, negligible impact on roadways and traffic.

Construction vehicles and equipment would use established roads with proper flagging and safety precautions.

Depending on the location and elevation of an observer, most towers could be visible up to 5 miles away, and some towers may be visible up to 15 miles; therefore, the Proposed Action would have a long-term, moderate impact on the aesthetic and visual qualities of the region. The Proposed Action would not result in exposure of the environment or the public to any hazardous materials.

FINDINGS AND Based upon the analyses of the EA and the BMPs to be implemented, CONCLUSIONS: the Proposed Action would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, no further analysis or documentation (i.e., Environmental Impact Statement) is required under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347) and its implementing regulations (40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508). CBP, in implementing this decision, would employ all practical means to minimize or avoid the potential for adverse impacts on the human and natural environment, which would include committing to the BMPs found in Section 5.0 of the EA.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED ....................................................................................... 1-1

1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION ...................... 1-3

1.5 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 1-5

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ......................................................... 2-1

2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ......................................... 2-3

2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................... 2-4

2.2.1 Tower Characteristics .............................................................................. 2-5

2.2.2 Construction of Communications and Sensor Towers........................... 2-11

2.2.3 Operation and Maintenance of Communications and Sensor Towers ... 2-12

2.2.4 Roadwork ............................................................................................... 2-13

2.2.5 Real Estate ............................................................................................. 2-15

2.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 ............................................................................................. 2-20

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER

CONSIDERATION ........................................................................................... 2-25

2.5 ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY ........................................................................ 2-26

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES ........................................ 3-1

3.1 PRELIMINARY IMPACT SCOPING ................................................................ 3-1

3.2 LAND USE .......................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative ...................................................... 3-5

3.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ............................................................... 3-5

3.2.3 Alternative 3............................................................................................. 3-5

3.3 SOILS .................................................................................................................. 3-5

3.3.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative ...................................................... 3-5

3.3.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ............................................................... 3-6

3.3.3 Alternative 3............................................................................................. 3-6

3.4 VEGETATIVE HABITAT .................................................................................. 3-9

3.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................................... 3-13

3.4.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ............................................................. 3-13

3.4.3 Alternative 3........................................................................................... 3-13

3.5 WILDLIFE RESOURCES ................................................................................. 3-13

3.5.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................................... 3-15

3.5.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ............................................................. 3-15

3.5.3 Alternative 3........................................................................................... 3-17

3.6 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ........................................... 3-17

3.6.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................................... 3-27

3.6.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ............................................................. 3-27

3.6.3 Alternative 3........................................................................................... 3-31

3.7 GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................ 3-31

3.7.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................................... 3-31

3.7.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ............................................................. 3-31 ii

March 2017

3.7.3 Alternative 3........................................................................................... 3-32

3.8 SURFACE WATERS AND WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ............... 3-32

3.8.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................................... 3-33

3.8.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ............................................................. 3-33

3.8.3 Alternative 3........................................................................................... 3-34

3.9 FLOODPLAINS ................................................................................................ 3-34

3.9.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................................... 3-35

3.9.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ............................................................. 3-35

3.9.3 Alternative 3........................................................................................... 3-36

3.10 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................. 3-36

3.10.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................................... 3-37

3.10.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ............................................................. 3-37

3.10.3 Alternative 3........................................................................................... 3-39

3.11 NOISE ................................................................................................................ 3-39

3.11.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................................... 3-40

3.11.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ............................................................. 3-41

3.11.3 Alternative 3........................................................................................... 3-42

3.12 CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .... 3-42

3.12.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................................... 3-45

3.12.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ............................................................. 3-45

3.12.3 Alternative 3........................................................................................... 3-46

3.13 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................... 3-46

3.13.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................................... 3-47

3.13.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ............................................................. 3-47

3.13.3 Alternative 3........................................................................................... 3-48

3.14 ROADWAYS AND TRAFFIC ......................................................................... 3-48

3.14.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................................... 3-48

3.14.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ............................................................. 3-48

3.14.3 Alternative 3........................................................................................... 3-48

3.15 AESTHETIC AND VISUAL RESOURCES .................................................... 3-50

3.15.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................................... 3-50

3.15.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ............................................................. 3-50

3.15.3 Alternative 3........................................................................................... 3-51

3.16 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................................... 3-51

3.16.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................................... 3-51

3.16.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ............................................................. 3-51

3.16.3 Alternative 3........................................................................................... 3-52

3.17 RADIO FREQUENCY ENVIRONMENT........................................................ 3-52

3.17.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................................... 3-54

3.17.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ............................................................. 3-54

3.17.3 Alternative 3........................................................................................... 3-55

3.18 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS .............................................................................. 3-55

4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .......................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 DEFINITION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................... 4-1

4.2 PAST IMPACTS WITHIN THE REGION OF INFLUENCE ........................... 4-1

4.3 CURRENT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE CBP PROJECTS WITHIN

AND NEAR THE REGION OF INFLUENCE ................................................... 4-1 iii

March 2017

4.4 ANALYSIS OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...................................................... 4-3

4.4.1 Land Use .................................................................................................. 4-3

4.4.2 Soils.......................................................................................................... 4-3

4.4.3 Vegetative Habitat ................................................................................... 4-4

4.4.4 Wildlife Resources ................................................................................... 4-4

4.4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................... 4-4

4.4.6 Groundwater, Surface Water, Waters of the United States, and Floodplains

.................................................................................................................. 4-4

4.4.7 Air Quality ............................................................................................... 4-5

4.4.8 Noise ........................................................................................................ 4-5

4.4.9 Cultural Resources ................................................................................... 4-5

4.4.10 Utilities and Infrastructure ....................................................................... 4-6

4.4.11 Roadways and Traffic .............................................................................. 4-6

4.4.12 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ............................................................. 4-6

4.4.13 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................ 4-6

4.4.14 Radio Frequency Environment ................................................................ 4-7

5.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ........................................................................ 5-1

5.1 GENERAL PROJECT PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS ................................ 5-1

5.2 SOILS .................................................................................................................. 5-2

5.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................. 5-4

5.4 PROTECTED SPECIES ...................................................................................... 5-7

5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 5-10

5.6 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................. 5-13

5.7 WATER RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 5-13

5.8 NOISE ................................................................................................................ 5-14

5.9 SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTES ........................................................... 5-15

5.10 ROADWAYS AND TRAFFIC ......................................................................... 5-16

6.0 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 6-1

7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 7-1

8.0 ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................... 8-1

9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................. 9-1 iv

March 2017

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Project Vicinity Map ................................................................................................ 1-2 Figure 2-1. IFT Locations ........................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2. Typical IFT Site Portfolio ........................................................................................ 2-6 Figure 2-3. Tower Construction Footprint Schematic ................................................................ 2-7 Figure 2-4. Typical Tower Site Laydown ................................................................................... 2-8 Figure 2-5. Typical Tower Site Foundation ................................................................................ 2-9 Figure 3-1. Designated Critical Habitat for the Jaguar in the Vicinity of the Action Area ...... 3-24 Figure 3-2. Lesser Long-nosed Bat Roost Sites in the Vicinity of the Action Area ................. 3-25 Figure 3-3. Proposed Critical Habitat for the Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo in the Vicinity of the Action Area .......................................................................................................................... 3-26 Figure 3-4. Transportation Routes to the Project AreaTransportation Routes to the Project Area .................................................................................................................................................... 3-49

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES-1. Proposed Tower Sites .......................................................................................... ES-3 Table 2-1. Temporary and Permanent Impacts Resulting from the Action Alternatives* ......... 2-3 Table 2-2. Summary of Annual Vehicle Trips Required for Tower Maintenance and Refueling for the Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 2-13 Table 2-3. Summary of the Proposed Action Tower Sites* ..................................................... 2-16 Table 2-4. Summary of the Alternate 3 Tower Sites* .............................................................. 2-21 Table 2-5. Other Alternatives Considered But Eliminated ....................................................... 2-25 Table 2-6. Alternatives Matrix of Purpose and Need for Alternatives ..................................... 2-26 Table 3-1. Resources Analyzed in the Environmental Impact Analysis Process ....................... 3-1 Table 3-2. Temporary and Permanent Impacts Resulting from the Action Alternatives ........... 3-3 Table 3-3. Tower Site Land Ownership ...................................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-4. Characteristics of Soils at the Tower Sites ................................................................ 3-7 Table 3-5. Vegetative Habitat at Each Proposed IFT Sites ........................................................ 3-9 Table 3-6. Plant Species Observed During the Biological Surveys .......................................... 3-10 Table 3-7. Wildlife Species Observed During the Biological Surveys .................................... 3-14 Table 3-8. Federally Listed and Proposed Species Potentially Occurring within Pima County, Arizona ....................................................................................................................................... 3-19 Table 3-9. State-Listed Special Status Species Observed ......................................................... 3-27 Table 3-10. Number of Potential Waters of the United States Associated with IFT Sites and Approach Roads ......................................................................................................................... 3-33 Table 3-11. Total Estimated Air Emissions from Construction Activities versus the De Minimis Threshold Levels* ...................................................................................................................... 3-38 Table 3-12. Total Estimated Air Emissions from Generator and Commuter Activities versus the De Minimis Threshold Levels* .................................................................................................. 3-38 Table 3-13. A-Weighted (dBA) Sound Levels of Construction Equipment and Modeled Attenuation at Various Distances* ............................................................................................. 3-41 Table 3-14. Summary of Previous Investigations within a 1-mile Radius ............................... 3-44 Table 3-15. Power Company Service Areas ............................................................................. 3-46 Table 3-16. Summary Matrix of Potential Impacts .................................................................. 3-56 v

March 2017

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 3-1. View of Isolated Mountain Ranges within the Project Area .......................... 3-10 Photograph 3-2. Example of Broad Alluvial Valley within the Project Area ......................... 3-10 Photograph 3-3. Jaguar ............................................................................................................. 3-22 Photograph 3-4. Example of a Waters of the United States in the Southwest .......................... 3-33

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. Correspondence Appendix B. Conceptual Field Laydowns Appendix C. USBP’s Ajo and Casa Grande Stations’ AORs IFT Project sites Appendix D. Soil Maps Appendix E. Waters of the United States Appendix F. Arizona Natural Heritage Program Special Status Species List Appendix G. Air Quality Calculations vi

1-1

March 2017

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is preparing this Environmental Assessment (EA) to document the analysis of the proposed construction of Integrated Fixed Towers (IFTs) within U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Ajo and Casa Grande Stations’ Areas of Responsibility (AORs).

CBP is the law enforcement component of the DHS responsible for securing the border and facilitating lawful international trade and travel. USBP is the uniformed law enforcement subcomponent of CBP responsible for patrolling and securing the border between the land ports of entry. USBP has developed a detailed technology deployment plan for each USBP sector in Arizona based on current and anticipated operational activity (DHS 2011). CBP’s Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan (ABSTP) for Tucson Sector includes the utilization of IFTs to provide long-range, persistent surveillance, enabling USBP personnel to detect, track, identify, and classify illegal entries through a series of integrated sensors and tower-based surveillance equipment.

CBP is the lead agency and proponent for the Proposed Action. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Tohono O'odham Nation are cooperating agencies in this effort and have assisted with the preparation of this EA.

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION

The project is located in USBP Tucson Sector's Ajo and Casa Grande Stations’ AORs within Pima County, Arizona (Figure 1-1). The proposed new IFT sites and roadwork would be located within the Chukut Kuk and Gu-Vo Districts of the Tohono O’odham Nation. Activities would also occur at the San Miguel Law Enforcement Center (LEC), at USBP Ajo Station, and at an existing tower site on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land off State Route (SR) 85.

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide persistent surveillance capability, command and control (C2); and sustainment of support capabilities along approximately 63 miles of the U.S./Mexico border within the Tohono O’odham Nation, in USBP Ajo and Casa Grande Stations’ AORs.

This proposal is consistent with the 2012-2016 Border Patrol Strategic Plan, which is a risk-based approach to countering threats through information, integration, and rapid response (CBP 2012a). The Border Patrol Strategic Plan is intended to advance mission functions such as predicting illicit activity, detecting and tracking border crossings, identifying and classifying detections, and responding to and resolving suspect border crossings as threats through intelligence efforts and prioritized responses and targeted enforcement.

1-

U

SB

P’ s A jo a nd C as a

G ra nd e

St at io ns

’ A O

R sI

FT

F in al

EA

M ar ch

Fi gu re

-1

Pr oj ec t V ic in ity M ap M ar ch

1-3

March 2017

The Proposed Action is needed to improve USBP response time and law enforcement operations within the Tohono O’odham Nation. The difficult terrain and a lack of infrastructure within the Tohono O’odham Nation create a need for a year-round, persistent, technology-based surveillance capability that could effectively collect, process, and distribute information among USBP agents. A surveillance system is needed that would allow USBP agents to maintain surveillance over large areas, contributing to agent safety and increasing operational effectiveness as they detect, identify, and classify incursions/illegal entry at the border and resolve the incursions with the appropriate level of response.

Specifically, the Proposed Action is needed to

1) provide more efficient and effective means of assessing cross-border activities

2) provide rapid detection and accurate characterization of potential threats

3) provide coordinated deployment of resources in the apprehension of cross-border violators

4) increase surveillance and interdiction efficiency

5) enhance the deterrence of illegal cross-border activity

6) enhance USBP agent safety

7) enhance the safety of border communities.

1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION

In accordance with 40 C.F.R. Parts 1501.7, 1503, and 1506.6, CBP initiated public involvement and agency scoping to identify significant issues related to the Proposed Action. CBP invited the Tohono O’odham Nation and the BIA to participate as cooperating agencies in the development of the EA to ensure that the analysis meets their needs. Under the Proposed Action, the BIA would issue rights-of-way (ROWs) to CBP for proposed activities on Tohono O’odham Nation land after the Tohono O’odham Nation has consented to the ROWs.

CBP has consulted with appropriate Federal, state, and local government agencies and the Tohono O’odham Nation throughout the EA process. CBP would continue to coordinate with the following agencies, if it implemented the proposed action:

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

BIA

BLM

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) State of Arizona

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

Tohono O’odham Nation

1-4

March 2017

Tohono O’odham Nation Department of Natural Resources Tohono O’odham Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO)

Pima County

CBP has completed consultation with USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1536, and with the Tohono O'odham Nation's THPO under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (54 U.S.C § 306108). CBP also submitted an application to USIBWC for proposed roadwork and received their concurrence to proceed with the Proposed Action on August 29, 2016. CBP will consult with the EPA and USACE under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act as necessary prior to implementing the Proposed Action.

The Draft EA and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was available for public review from April 15 to May 16, 2016, at the Tohono O’odham Community College Library and the Venito Garcia Library and Archives in Sells, and the Pima County Public Library in Tucson and electronically at http://www.cbp.gov/about/environmental-cultural-stewardship/nepa-documents/docs-review. CBP also provided hard copies of the Draft EA to all coordinating Federal and state agencies for review and comment. Appendix A includes public comments and interagency correspondence that was sent or received during the preparation of this EA.

The Final EA and FONSI will be available at https://www.cbp.gov/about/environmental-cultural-stewardship/current-ongoing-projects.

This EA was prepared as follows:

1. Conduct Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination for Environmental Planning.

The first step in this National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process was to solicit comments about the Proposed Action from Federal, state, and local agencies and Federally recognized tribes to ensure that their concerns are included in the analysis.

2. Prepare a Preliminary Draft EA. CBP examined the environmental impacts of the three alternatives and prepared a Preliminary Draft EA in 2014, which was available for the Tohono O’odham Nation and the BIA to review for 30 days, and a revised Preliminary Draft EA in 2015, which was available for the Tohono O’odham Nation and the BIA to review for 45 days.

3. Prepare a Draft EA. CBP incorporated relevant comments and concerns received from the Tohono O’odham Nation and the BIA and prepared a Draft EA for public review.

4. Announce that the Draft EA has been Prepared. A Notice of Availability (NOA) was published in the Tohono O’odham Nation’s The Runner, Ajo Copper News, and Arizona Daily Star newspapers to announce the public comment period and the availability of the Draft EA and Draft FONSI (See Appendix A).

5. Provide a Public Comment Period. A public comment period allows interested parties to review the analysis presented in the Draft EA and provide feedback. The Draft EA was available to the public from April 15 to May 16, 2016, at the Tohono O’odham

1-5

March 2017

Community College Library in Sells, the Venito Garcia Library and Archives in Sells, Arizona, and the Pima County Public Library in Tucson, Arizona; as well as electronically at http://www.cbp.gov/about/environmental-cultural-stewardship/nepa-documents/docs-review.

6. Prepare a Final EA. This Final EA was prepared following the public comment period.

The Final EA incorporated relevant comments and concerns received from all interested parties during the public comment period. The Final EA will be available online at https://www.cbp.gov/about/environmental-cultural-stewardship/current-ongoing-projects.

7. Issue a FONSI. The final step in the NEPA process is the signature of a FONSI, if the environmental analysis supports the conclusion that impacts on the quality of the human and natural environments from implementing the Proposed Action would not be significant. If the environmental impacts could be considered significant, a Notice of Intent for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be published. CBP and the BIA are preparing FONSIs for the Proposed Action, which has been selected as the agencies' Preferred Alternative.

1.5 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS

The scope of this EA includes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the natural, social, economic, and physical environments resulting from the three alternative carried forward for analysis (referred to collectively as the "action alternatives"). This EA analyzes the deployment of technology but does not include an assessment of normal, day-to-day operations conducted in the field by CBP agents. The information provided in this EA will assist CBP in determining whether the Proposed Action has a significant impact and achieves the objectives of the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. The process for developing this EA also allows for input and comments on the Proposed Action from the concerned public and interested government agencies, which informs agency decision making.

CBP would follow all applicable Federal, state, local, and tribal government laws and regulations when implementing the Proposed Action. This EA has been developed in accordance with the requirements of the NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347); regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508); DHS Directive 023-01, Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (31 October 2014); DHS Instruction 023-01-001-01, Revision 01, Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (6 November 2014); and other pertinent environmental statutes, regulations, and compliance requirements. This EA also provides the status of compliance with all applicable environmental statutes, such as the ESA and the NHPA.

1-6

2-1

March 2017

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Three alternatives were identified and considered during the planning stages of the Proposed Action. Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative. Under this alternative, CBP would not construct IFTs or improve or construct road segments within the Tohono O'odham Nation.

Alternative 2 is the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action includes constructing 15 new IFTs, collocating equipment on 2 existing communication towers, constructing up to 0.24 miles of new access roads, and improving up to 70.90 miles of existing approach roads. Similar to the Proposed Action, Alternative 3 consists of constructing 15 new IFTs, collocating equipment on 2 existing communication towers, constructing approximately 0.23 miles of new access roads, and improving up to 68.26 miles of existing approach roads. The primary difference between the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 is that Alternative 3 includes constructing, operating, and maintaining alternate tower site TCA-CAG-0444 instead of preferred tower site TCA-CAG- 0436.

USBP agents from Ajo and Casa Grande Stations identified proposed IFT site locations based on operational requirements. Operationally preferred site locations were then further selected based on knowledge of the terrain, environment, land ownership, and operational requirements. This review process resulted in multiple conceptual field laydowns. Mapping programs and modeling and analysis processes were also utilized to develop a laydown that achieved both optimal surveillance and communications capabilities with the minimum number of IFT sites. Over time, operational requirements change in order to mitigate emerging threats or strengthen areas of vulnerabilities. To adapt to changes in operational requirements, the site selection process was repeated in December 2009, January and February 2010, June 2011, and finally in July 2012. A list of IFT sites considered during the conceptual field laydowns is provided in Appendix B. This list was narrowed down to sixteen sites that were visited as part of the conceptual field laydown in July 2012 (Figure 2-1).

During the site visits, CBP project team personnel and representatives from the Tohono O’odham Nation’s Cultural Affairs Office and Department of Natural Resources evaluated each of the locations based on accessibility, constructability, operability, and environmental considerations. In addition to meeting the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, CBP used the following screening factors for selecting tower sites:

Proximity to existing roads and the potential need for new access roads or improving existing roads, as well as proximity to a power source;

Basic site conditions such as the terrain, soil type, drainage, available space and slope of the site;

IFT viewsheds and line of sight available at varying IFT heights;

Proximity to sensitive biological and cultural resources, waters of the United States, floodplains, wetlands, or wilderness areas; and Impacts on the surrounding viewshed or visual resources.

2-

U

SB

P’ s A jo a nd C as a

G ra nd e

St at io ns

’ A O

R sI

F al

EA

M ar ch

Fi gu re

-1

IF

T

Lo ca tio ns

M ar ch

2-3

March 2017

Sixteen sites were evaluated for sensor and communications efficiencies and overall compatibility with IFT network design and connectivity. Eleven sites were relocated or shifted slightly during the site visit due to terrain or access considerations or the presence of cultural and/or sensitive resources or technical requirements. Some sites were shifted multiple times in order to maximize the surveillance and communications capabilities while limiting IFTs to the lowest practical height.

The Proposed Action would not be implemented without the consent of the Tohono O'odham Nation. CBP invited the Tohono O’odham Nation Gu-Vo and Chukut Kuk Districts to visit the proposed IFT sites within those Districts and to solicit feedback on the proposed locations. In September 2012, council members representing the Gu-Vo District visited the proposed IFT site locations with CBP. The Gu-Vo council members requested the relocation of TCA-AJO-0456 due to its proximity to a culturally sensitive area. A new location was selected during the visit (TCA-AJO-0462), and TCA-AJO-0456 was removed from consideration. Council members representing the Chukut Kuk District visited the proposed IFT sites with CBP in October 2012.

The Chukut Kuk council members did not object to the proposed site locations. TCA-CAG- 0436 was shifted slightly and the proposed route to TCA-CAG-0442 was altered due to sensitive resources identified during the biological and cultural resources surveys.

Ultimately, 15 new IFT sites and 1 alternate IFT site were selected for further assessment (Figure 2-1). Table 2-1 summarizes the permanent and temporary (construction) impacts acreage for the three assessed alternatives.

Table 2-1. Temporary and Permanent Impacts Resulting from the Action Alternatives*

Alternatives

Permanent Impact (NTE Acres)

Temporary/Construction Impact (NTE Acres)

T ow er

Si te s

N ew

A cc es s

R oa ds

E xi st in g A pp ro ac h

R

T ot al

Si s

N ew

A cc es s

R

E xi st in g A pp ro ac h

R ot al

Alternative 1 (No Action) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 8.23 0.57 214.20 223.00 4.63 1.43 0 6.06

Alternative 3 8.23 0.57 204.36 213.15 4.63 1.41 0 6.04

* Actual impacts are not to exceed (NTE) those described here. Temporary/construction impact acres for tower sites and access roads do not include permanent impact areas. For approach roads, estimates assume an existing road width of 20 feet that is previously disturbed, which is not included in this estimate.

2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative serves as a basis of comparison to the anticipated effects of the other action alternatives, and its inclusion in the EA is required by NEPA and CEQ regulations (40 C.F.R. § 1502.14[d]). Under the No Action Alternative, the installation of proposed communications and sensor towers would not take place and improvements to existing approach roads would not be performed. In the absence of the

2-4

March 2017 proposed IFTs and their technological capabilities, USBP agents would continue to rely solely on traditional detection methodology that includes traditional sign detection, which requires both patrolling and dragging of roads.