Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 11/9/10 - OBP006123-OBP006145 Expenditure Plan- Introduction - Draft 2008013 (Final) 23

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 11/9/10 - OBP006123-OBP006145 Expenditure Plan- Introduction - Draft 2008013 (Final) 23

Ratings: (0)|Views: 7 |Likes:
Published by CREW
CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence; FOIA Request: CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence; Holder of Document: CREW; Producing Agency: Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Date Received: 11/9/10;
CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence; FOIA Request: CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence; Holder of Document: CREW; Producing Agency: Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Date Received: 11/9/10;

More info:

Published by: CREW on Nov 15, 2010
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
This book can be read on up to 6 mobile devices.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/21/2014

pdf

text

original

 
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY DRAFT
Expenditure Plan – Analysis of Fence Segments
The Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act includes requirements to assess the potentialimpact on local communities due to the construction of fencing. DHS and CBP do not viewthese as new requirements, as the assessment of effects on local communities and regular consultation are part of our standard planning process that enables us to make informed decisionsin deploying tactical infrastructure in the most effective and prudent way.CBP is deploying a comprehensive approach to secure the border, and fencing is one element of the layered defense plan. Our comprehensive plan includes additional, substantial investments intechnology, infrastructure and enforcement personnel. Fencing and technology arecomplementary tools. Technology allows the Border Patrol to identify and track illegal activity.Fencing gives Border Patrol agents time they need to respond to illegal cross border activity. Acombination of technology and tactical infrastructure best allows the Border Patrol to do their jobsafely and effectively. CBP will continue to work to deploy the right mix of technology, tacticalinfrastructure, and personnel to secure the border as effectively and efficiently as possible.In alignment with the appropriations direction, DHS and CBP will construct infrastructure whereit is the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the international border. Four main factors contribute to fence location decisions: (1) the initial Border Patroloperational assessments; (2) input from stakeholders, including landowners; (3) environmentalassessments; and (4) engineering assessments, which include the cost to construct.Operational assessments by the local Border Patrol Agents and Chiefs – based on illegal cross- border activity and the Border Patrol’s extensive field experience – identified multiple locationswhere pedestrian or vehicle fencing would most effectively enhance border security. Thedeployment of the tactical infrastructure is geared toward disrupting identified routes into theUnited States that are utilized by smugglers and potential terrorists. This infrastructure willstrengthen the Border Patrol’s defense in-depth strategy, providing Border Patrol Agents with atactical advantage over illegal entrants and enable Agents to push the depth of intrusion as far south as possible.Between the Ports of Entry, CBP operates in three primary environments: urban, rural, andremote. In an urban environment the illegal entrant can be across the border and into thecommunity in a matter of minutes or seconds, in rural environments in minutes or hours, and inremote environments it may take hours or days. Interdiction efforts are achieved by multi-tieredenforcement operations to include pedestrian and vehicle fencing where it is deemed anoperational advantage to deter entrants. If accessible to entry, urban areas require an inordinatenumber of enforcement personnel to effectively confront the illegal activity. In thisenvironment, pedestrian fencing provides a critical deterrent. In a rural area or remote area, thetime it takes for an illegal entrant to mix into the community infrastructure is greater, therebygiving enforcement personnel the advantage of time to respond, and reducing the need for fencing. Places where we do not currently have plans for fencing are areas where the border environment acts as a natural impediment or other options have been deemed more appropriatethan fencing.
DRAFT As of January 31, 2008 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
OBP006123
 
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY DRAFT
CBP has gone to great lengths to obtain public input throughout our planning efforts regardingthe construction of fence along the Southwest Border. The Border Patrol has engaged inextensive discussions about the placement of fencing with state and local stakeholders, includinglandowners. As part of these outreach efforts, CBP has contacted almost 600 differentlandowners and held 13 town hall meetings.For purposes of providing this information, CBP is classifying consultation efforts as either: (1) atown hall, (2) an outreach to public group, (3) an outreach to officials, or (4) a meeting with anindividual stakeholder. A town hall is a meeting that was open to the public, for which noticewas provided or advertised in some way, and at which there was the opportunity for dialogue.Outreach to public group includes meetings with members of the community that was notadvertised. Outreach to officials covers discussions with representatives of the community atany level of Government, potentially including mayors, city managers, law enforcement,Congress, etc. Because stakeholder outreach efforts are performed by Border Patrol Sectors andtypically include communities broader than a single segment of fence, stakeholder input is provided below at a sector level.Another important part of CBP’s decision-making process is the formal environmental review process required by the National Environmental Policy Act – known as “NEPA.” Theenvironmental planning process includes an evaluation of options to mitigate – avoid, minimize,reduce, or compensate for – the potential impact of the project on affected local communities.During the preparation of NEPA documents, 14 areas are evaluated including: land use, geologyand soils; biological and water resources; cultural resources; air quality and noise; aesthetics andvisual resources; and socioeconomics.The environmental review process includes extensive consultation with federal, state, and localofficials, landowners, and the public. Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService and the International Boundary and Water Commission, are also included in the review process.These extensive consultations have allowed CBP to continue to identify areas where we canmake accommodations to meet both operational needs and other elements in the decision-making process, including local stakeholder input. Examples include: numerous fence alignmentchanges to limit the impact on residences, historical sites, educational institutions and birdwatching areas in the Rio Grande Valley; and alignment changes in Del Rio to avoid the need torelocate residences. CBP is also continuing to consider viable alternatives, including the possibility of clearing Carrizo cane to enhance visibility in the Laredo Sector and thecombination of security infrastructure and levee improvements in the Rio Grande Valley Sector.The feasibility of any such proposal can only be assessed, however, after fully considering thecomplex operational, financial, environmental, and construction timeline requirements associatedwith the project.The primary objectives of the engineering and construction strategy are to design and constructhigh quality, cost-effective pedestrian fence and associated infrastructure (e.g., access roads,
DRAFT As of January 31, 2008 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
OBP006124
 
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY DRAFT
staging areas, etc.) that meet CBP and U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) fence performancerequirements.USBP identified and prioritized locations along the southwest border that operationally require pedestrian fencing. Site visits were conducted to determine the specific fence style(s) to beinstalled, agree on the specific lay down location of the proposed fencing and associatedinfrastructure, and identify real estate, environmental, engineering and construction challenges to be addressed.Utilizing USBP legacy pedestrian fence designs as well as fence designs tested and evaluated bySBI
net 
’s Fence Lab program, the USACE developed – with input from USBP and SBI – a toolkit of fence designs to be constructed. All of the fence tool kit designs comply with the majorityof performance requirements stipulated by USBP and can be constructed of readily available and plentiful materials. In addition, the fence designs will allow for cost-effective and efficient postconstruction operations and maintenance.We recognize the potential impact that fencing may have on landowners and communities alongthe border and remain committed to maintaining an open dialogue with these stakeholders.However, consultation does not mean stakeholders have veto power over CBP’s operationalassessments. Stakeholder input is but one element in the decision-making process. The locationof fence will ultimately be based upon operational needs.The use of fencing as a means to secure areas along the border is not a new approach. TheBorder Patrol, which has long been recognized as the experts on border security, has receivedsupport for erecting and employing fence as an effective border security measure for over twodecades. Only recently has politics, which itself has created a barrier to reasoned discussion, been applied to the use of fencing. The intrusion of politics in this national security matter doesn’t change the fact that the use of fencing is still operationally sound and necessary.Sector and Segment AnalysisSan Diego Sector The San Diego Border Patrol Sector contacted 53 individual landowners. The Sector held a townhall meeting in East San Diego County and a meeting with officials at Sector Headquarters.For potential fencing within the San Diego Sector, CBP drafted an Environmental ImpactStatement and an Environmental Assessment to address different potential segments of fence.The draft documents were released to the public on January 4 and 8, 2008, respectively. Publicopen house meetings were held in San Diego and Alpine, California, respectively on January 17and 16, 2008 respectively.The following table provides summary Border Patrol operational assessments for each fencesegment within the San Diego Sector:
Project ID: A-1 State: CA Station: BRF Location: Pack Truck Trail Length (mi): 3.58
DRAFT As of January 31, 2008 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
OBP006125

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd