1-512345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546471.6 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSISThe scope of this EA includes the analysis of impacts on the human environment resulting fromthe construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Douglas FOB. This analysis doesnot include an <strong>assessment</strong> of USBP operations conducted in the field and away from the USBPDouglas Station or the proposed FOB. While the establishment of the proposed FOB wouldfacilitate <strong>border</strong> <strong>patrol</strong> operations within the remote eastern zones of the USBP Douglas Station’sAOR, those operations are not expected to change.Current detection methodology within the Douglas Station’s AOR includes traditional signcutting which requires both <strong>patrol</strong>ling and dragging of roads. To ensure timely detection andeffective response, <strong>patrol</strong>ling and dragging m<strong>us</strong>t take place on a regular basis within each shift.Remote sensors are strategically placed to aid detection and interdiction of illegal activity.Detection methodology also relies on information provided from the recently installed SBInettowers.Identification, classification, response, and resolution actions require that agents respond toevidence of illegal entry gained through the previo<strong>us</strong>ly mentioned tools and techniques as well asthrough direct observation. Agents, in most cases, follow sign as opposed to viewed subjects.They follow, flank, and interdict <strong>us</strong>ing agents on foot, horseback, or motor vehicles. Rotarywingedaircraft are also <strong>us</strong>ed in support of these activities. These activities are guided by theprovisions of the Cooperative National Security and Counterterrorism Efforts on Federal Landsalong the United States’ Borders Memorandum of Agreement between DHS, Department of theInterior (DOI), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (DHS 2006). CBP recognizes thatexecution of its <strong>border</strong> security mission can impact lands administered by other Federal agencies,and continues to work cooperatively with other Federal agencies to minimize any such impacts.The allocation of agents within the USBP Douglas Station’s AOR is dictated by the location ofsecurity threats along the <strong>border</strong>. The proposed Douglas FOB would provide greater efficiencyfor <strong>patrol</strong>ling the remote eastern zones of the USBP Douglas Station’s AOR. Currently, agentsassigned to those remote zones of the USBP Douglas Station’s AOR spend about 25 percent oftheir time on a daily shift commuting.The following example ill<strong>us</strong>trates how <strong>patrol</strong> activities would change within the AOR followingestablishment of the proposed FOB. Currently, if the Patrol Agent in Charge determines that thethreat level in the USBP Douglas Station’s AOR warrants an allocation of a hypothetical 100agent hours per day, then 125 hours of agent time m<strong>us</strong>t be allocated to meet that 100 hour needwith 25 percent of this time being spent on commuting. Once the proposed FOB is operational,this 25 percent of lost time would be saved, since the agents would be pre-positioned. The actualamount of time spent by agents <strong>patrol</strong>ling the USBP Douglas Station’s AOR, and the nature andlocation of their duties, would be unchanged.The number of trips taken by agents from USBP Douglas Station to the proposed FOB alongGeronimo Trail would change so that number of trips would be reduced. CBP estimates thatapproximately 12,000 trips annually along Geronimo Trail would be eliminated followingestablishment of the proposed FOB. Therefore, CBP has concluded that while the number ofagents required to address a specified <strong>border</strong> security threat level would not change, the numberDouglas FOB EADraftAug<strong>us</strong>t 2011
1-6123456789101112131415161718192021222324of trips on Geronimo Trail would be reduced, and the establishment of the proposed FOB wouldresult in no other change to field operations.1.7 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDANCE, STATUTES, ANDREGULATIONSThis EA was prepared by CBP in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) of 1969 (42 USC 4321-4347) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), as wellas the DHS “Environmental Planning Directive” (Directive 023-01). Other pertinent<strong>environmental</strong> statutes, regulations, and compliance requirements that guided the preparation ofthis EA are summarized in Table 1-1. This list, however, is not intended to be an all-incl<strong>us</strong>ivelist of applicable Federal laws and regulations.1.8 REPORT ORGANIZATIONThis EA will be organized into eight major sections including this introduction. Section 2.0describes all alternatives considered for the project. Section 3.0 disc<strong>us</strong>ses the <strong>environmental</strong>resources potentially affected by the project and the <strong>environmental</strong> consequences for each of theviable alternatives. Section 4.0 disc<strong>us</strong>ses cumulative impacts, and best management practices(BMPs) are disc<strong>us</strong>sed in Section 5.0. Sections 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0 present a list of the referencescited in the document, a list of acronyms and abbreviations <strong>us</strong>ed in the document, and a list ofthe persons involved in the preparation of this document, respectively. Correspondencegenerated during the preparation of this EA can be found in Appendix A.Douglas FOB EADraftAug<strong>us</strong>t 2011