environmental assessment us border patrol, tucson sector

2-4123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233specialized vehicles, including those equipped with infrared cameras and thermal imagingtechnology and trailers. Up to 20 horses could be stabled at the station, and equestrian supportfacilities would include a hay barn, round pen, and turn-out corral.All undeveloped areas within the boundaries of the proposed FOB would be restored with nativeplantings, landscaped, or allowed to revegetate naturally, and a perimeter fence with gates wouldbe placed around the facility for security purposes. Additionally, continued maintenance, as wellas potential renovations of or minor additions to the proposed FOB, would be expected. Suchactivities could include, but are not limited to, monthly supply trips necessary for fuel and waterat the FOB, minor renovations and additions to buildings such as realigning interior spaces of anexisting building, adding a small storage shed to an existing building, kennels, security systems,lighting, parking areas, and stormwater detention basins, and installing a small antenna on analready existing antenna tower that does not cause the total height to exceed 200 feet. Othermaintenance activities could include routine upgrade, repair, and maintenance of the FOB’smodular buildings, roofs, parking area, grounds, or other facilities which would not result in achange in functional use (e.g., replacing door locks or windows, painting interior or exteriorwalls, resurfacing a road or parking lot, culvert maintenance, grounds maintenance, or replacingessential FOB components such as an air conditioning unit).2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDEREDFour alternatives for the proposed FOB were investigated, as shown in Table 2-2, and all fourhave been carried forward for analysis. A No Action Alternative has also been included in theevaluation as required by NEPA regulations. Therefore, five alternatives are carried forward foranalysis: 1) No Action Alternative; 2) Preferred Alternative; 3) Alternative 2; 4) Alternative 3;and 5) Alternative 4 (see Figure 2-1). Three of the five alternatives satisfy the purpose and need,have access to electricity, are on state-owned land, are accessed from Geronimo Trail, and arerelatively flat (Table 2-1). Alternative 4 also satisfies the purpose and need, but is currently aprivately owned, active ranch that contains several historic structures potentially eligible forlisting on the NRHP (Table 2-1). The No Action Alternative does not satisfy the project’spurpose and need.Table 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives ConsideredAlternative Owner Limiting ConditionsMeets SelectionCriteriaNo Action None Does not meet the purpose and need. NoPreferred Alternative State of ArizonaNone. Located near main access road on flatterrain with access to electricity.YesAlternative 2 State of ArizonaNone. Located near main access road on flatterrain with access to electricity.YesAlternative 3 State of ArizonaNone. Located near main access road on flatterrain with access to electricity.YesAlternative 4 Mr. Tom PetersonSeveral historic structures potentially eligiblefor listing on the NRHP on the property; atpresent, privately owned, active ranch; wouldalso involve a larger land purchase thanneeded.YesDouglas FOB EADraftAugust 2011