FME002366

ANALYSIS OF FENCE SEGMENTS 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 in technology, infrastructure and enforcement personnel. Fencing and technology are complementary tools. Technology allows the BP to identify and track illegal activity. Fencing gives BP agents time they need to respond to illegal cross border activity. A combination of technology and TI best allows the BP to do their job safely and effectively. CBP will continue to work to deploy the right mix of technology, TI, and personnel to secure the border as effectively and efficiently as possible. The FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act includes requirements to assess the potential impact on local communities due to the construction of fencing. DHS and CBP do not view these 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 decisions in deploying TI in the most effective and prudent way. In alignment with the appropriations direction, DHS and CBP will construct infrastructure where it 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 BP operational assessments; (2) input from stakeholders, including landowners; (3) environmental assessments; and (4) engineering assessments, which include the cost to construct. Based upon the current information available and estimates, PF is (b) million per mile (4) and VF is (b) (4) million per mile. These costs do not reflect those costs required to award the fence construction contracts and only include construction and non-GFM material costs. For PF, they do not include an average of (b) million per mile in prepaid (4) GFM steel and (b) (4) per mile of prepaid real estate, environmental, and USACE program management costs. For VF, they do not include an average of (b) (4) per (b) (4) mile in prepaid GFM steel and per mile of prepaid real estate, environmental, and USACE program management costs. Operational assessments by the local BP agents and Sectors – based on illegal crossborder activity and the BP’s extensive field experience – identified multiple locations where pedestrian or vehicle fencing would most effectively enhance border security. The deployment of the TI is geared toward disrupting identified routes into the United States that are utilized by smugglers and potential terrorists. This infrastructure will strengthen the BP’s defense in-depth strategy, providing BP agents with a tactical advantage over illegal entrants and enable agents to push the depth of intrusion as far south as possible. Between the POEs, CBP operates in three primary environments: urban, rural, and remote. In an urban environment, the illegal entrant can be across the border and into the community in a matter of minutes or seconds; in rural environments in minutes or hours; and in remote environments it may take hours or days. Interdiction efforts are achieved by multi-tiered enforcement operations to include pedestrian and vehicle fencing where it

FME002367

is deemed an operational advantage to deter entrants. If accessible to entry, urban areas require an inordinate number of enforcement personnel to effectively confront the illegal activity. In this environment, pedestrian fencing provides a critical deterrent. 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 appropriate than fencing. Since May 2007, CBP has continued to hold extensive discussions with state and local stakeholders, including landowners, about the placement of the remaining miles of fencing. As part of these outreach efforts, CBP has contacted almost 600 different landowners and held almost a hundred meetings along the southwest border, including town hall meetings, meetings with public groups, meetings with state and local officials, and public open houses focused on our environmental documents. For purposes of providing this information, included below is the sector analysis. CBP is classifying consultation efforts as either: (1) a town hall; (2) an outreach to public group; (3) an outreach to officials; or (4) a meeting with an individual stakeholder. A town hall is a meeting that was open to the public, for which notice was 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 were not advertised. Outreach to officials covers discussions with representatives of the community at any level of Government, potentially including mayors, city managers, law enforcement, Congress, etc. Stakeholder outreach efforts are performed by BP Sectors and typically include communities broader than a single segment of fence, so specific details on efforts to obtain stakeholder input are provided under Sector and Segment Analysis below and in the Appendix. These extensive consultations have allowed CBP to continue to identify areas where we can make accommodations to meet both operational needs and other elements in the decision-making process, including local stakeholder input. Examples include: numerous fence alignment changes to limit the impact on residences, historical sites, educational institutions, and bird watching areas in the Rio Grande Valley; and alignment changes in Del Rio to avoid the need to relocate residences. CBP is also continuing to consider viable alternatives, including the clearing of Carrizo Cane to enhance visibility in the Laredo Sector and the potential combination of our security infrastructure with local levee improvement efforts in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. The feasibility of any such proposal can only be assessed, however, after fully considering the complex operational, financial, environmental, and construction timeline requirements associated with the project. Another important part of CBP’s decision-making process is the formal environmental review process required by the NEPA. The environmental planning process includes an evaluation of options to mitigate – by either avoiding, minimizing, reducing, or compensating for – the potential impact of the project on affected local communities. During the preparation of NEPA documents, 14 areas are evaluated including: land use, geology, and soils; biological and water resources; cultural resources; air quality and

FME002368

noise; aesthetics and visual resources; and socioeconomics. A summary of potential impacts to seven resource categories is provided for each of the project sections identified below. The complete environmental analysis can be found in the corresponding NEPA document for each of the projects. The environmental review process includes extensive consultation with Federal, State, and local officials, landowners, and the public. Federal agencies, such as the USFWS and the International Boundary and Water Commission, are also included in the review process. The primary objectives of the engineering and construction strategy are to design and construct high quality, cost-effective PF and associated infrastructure (e.g., access roads, staging areas, etc.) that meet CBP and OBP fence performance requirements. OBP 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 be installed, to agree on the specific lay down location of the proposed fencing and associated infrastructure, and to identify real estate, environmental, engineering, and construction challenges to be addressed. Utilizing OBP legacy PF designs as well as fence designs tested and evaluated by SBInet’s Fence Lab program, USACE developed – with input from OBP and SBI – a tool kit of fence designs to be constructed. All of the fence tool kit designs comply with the majority of performance requirements stipulated by OBP and can be constructed of readily available and plentiful materials. In addition, the fence designs will allow for cost-effective and efficient post-construction O&M. We recognize the potential impact that fencing may have on landowners and communities along the border and remain committed to maintaining an open dialogue with these stakeholders. However, consultation does not mean stakeholders have veto power over CBP’s operational assessments. Stakeholder input is but one element in the decision-making process. The location of 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. The BP, which has long been recognized as the expert on border security, has received support for erecting and employing fence as an effective border security measure for over two decades. The information above and below (additionally in the Sector and Segment Analysis found in Appendix E) illustrates that the use of fencing is still operationally sound and necessary.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful