environmental assessment us border patrol, tucson sector

3-5212345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546473.17.2.3 Alternative 2Impacts similar to those discussed for the Preferred Alternative would occur if Alternative 2were implemented.3.17.2.4 Alternative 3Impacts similar to those discussed for the Preferred Alternative would occur if Alternative 3were implemented.3.17.2.5 Alternative 4Impacts similar to those discussed for the Preferred Alternative would occur if Alternative 4were implemented.3.18 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY3.18.1 Affected EnvironmentThree of the alternative sites are currently unoccupied, vegetated parcels, and the Alternative 4site is an active ranch which contains two residences. The immediate vicinity consists of vacantland with no substantial, nearby population. There is little potential for USBP agents, the generalpopulation, residents of Peterson/Lazy J Ranch, or private contractors to be at risk from a humanhealth and safety aspect in this setting.3.18.2 Environmental Consequences3.18.2.1 No Action AlternativeUnder the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur; therefore, there would be noimpacts, either beneficial or adverse, on human health and safety issues. The possibility oftraffic accidents resulting from the long agent commute from the USBP Douglas Station wouldremain. Indirect impacts from illegal activity would continue. More agents would be required topatrol the remote eastern zones of the USBP Douglas Station’s AOR to account for the necessarydrive time 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.3.18.2.2 Preferred AlternativeIf implemented, this alternative has a slight potential to create human health hazards duringconstruction. All construction activities would be limited to daylight hours to the extentpracticable. Through BMPs developed for general construction practices (see Section 5.1), andbecause of the rural nature of the project area with only two residences located nearby, no major,long-term, adverse impacts are expected. Furthermore, strict compliance with all OccupationalSafety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations would be achieved to minimize thepotential for accidents to occur for USBP agents, private contractors, or other individuals whomight be present near the project site. The potential for traffic accidents due to agent commuteswould be reduced.3.18.2.3 Alternative 2Alternative 2 would have impacts similar to those described for the Preferred Alternative. AllOSHA standards would be adhered to; therefore, no major or long-term impacts would beexpected.Douglas FOB EADraftAugust 2011