environmental assessment us border patrol, tucson sector

3-49123456level for the State of Arizona and the United States (U.S Census Bureau 2010h). Medianhousehold income for Cochise County is $43,304. The reported median household income isbelow that of the State of Arizona ($50,296) and the United States ($51,425) (U.S. CensusBureau 2009i).Table 3-13. 2009 Poverty and Median Income by LocationLocationNumber for Whom PovertyStatus is DeterminedPercentage inPovertyMedian Income789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839Cochise County 121,616 16.3 $43,304State of Arizona 6,204,965 14.7 $50,296Nation 293,507,923 13.5 $51,425Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010h and 2009i3.15.2 Environmental Consequences3.15.2.1 No Action AlternativeUnder the No Action Alternative, no socioeconomic impacts would be expected. Indirectimpacts from illegal activity would continue. More agents would be required to patrol theremote eastern zones of the USBP Douglas Station’s AOR to account for the necessary drivetime to their patrol areas. Indirect impacts from CBV activities and subsequent USBPinterdiction activities would be greater under the No Action Alternative than any of the otheralternatives.3.15.2.2 Preferred AlternativeThe Preferred Alternative would have no adverse effects on socioeconomic conditions in the SanBernardino Valley. By placing the FOB at the Preferred Alternative site, agent response time toillegal cross-border activities would be greatly reduced, and agents could be more efficientlydeployed to patrol the more remote sections of USBP Douglas Station’s AOR, which wouldlikely contribute to a decrease in cross-border violations. The decrease in CBV activities wouldhave a beneficial effect on the incidence of crime in USBP Douglas Station’s AOR. Thepurchase of materials and use of local labor for the project would provide a temporary benefit forthe local economy in the San Bernardino Valley. There would be no disproportionate impacts onpeople, regardless of race or income levels.3.15.2.3 Alternative 2The socioeconomic impacts from Alternative 2 would be similar to those described for thePreferred Alternative.3.15.2.4 Alternative 3The socioeconomic impacts from Alternative 3 would be similar to those described for thePreferred Alternative.3.15.2.5 Alternative 4The socioeconomic impacts from Alternative 4 would be similar to those described for thePreferred Alternative.Douglas FOB EADraftAugust 2011