1 

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS (CATEX) 

The development of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS or 

Department) categorical exclusions was a concerted effort on the part of many 

DHS legal and environmental professionals. Together, they represented 

twenty-four DHS components and two independent contractors procured to 

provide administrative support and expert recommendations to inform the 

government’s efforts. The professionals on the panel (Panel) were 

environmental practitioners with numerous years of planning and compliance 

experience including the preparation of environmental documentation such as 

assessments, impact statements, findings of no significant impact, and 

records of decision. The Panel also included several legal practitioners 

with advanced education and experience advising Federal agency managers on 

environmental planning and compliance responsibilities. All of these 

professionals had significant experience in other DHS legacy and non-legacy 

agencies, thereby bringing a breadth and wealth of environmental experience 

and history about the Department as well as other agencies with whom we share 

similar environmental practices and interests. The agencies and contractors 

that were represented on the Panel include: 

 

• Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Secretary 

• Customs and Border Protection Agricultural Inspectors (formerly part of 

Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service) (USDA, MD) 

• Coast Guard (DOT, DC) 

• Chemical Biological Radiological & Nuclear Response and Civilian Biodefense Research Programs (CDC, GA) 

• Chemical Biological Radiological & Nuclear Countermeasures Programs 

(Energy, DC) 

• National BW Defense Analysis Center (DOD, MD) 

• Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (Commerce, DC) 

• Customs Service (Treasury, DC) 

• Environmental Measurements Laboratory (DOE, NY) 

• Federal Computer Incident Response Center (GSA, DC) 

• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, DC) 

• Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) (Treasury, GA) 

• Federal Protective Service (GSA, DC) 

• Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (DOE/UnivCA, CA) 

• Immigration & Naturalization Service (DOJ, DC) 

• National Communications System (DC) 

• National Domestic Preparedness Office (DOJ, DC) 

• National Infrastructure Simulation & Analysis Center (LLNL/UnivCA, CA) 

• National Infrastructure Protection Center (FBI, DC) 

• Nuclear Incident Response Team (DOE, DC) 

• Domestic Emergency Support Team (DC) 

• Plum Island Animal Disease Center (USDA, NY) 

• Secret Service (Treasury, DC) 

• Transportation Security Administration (DOT, DC) 
2 

• Representatives from independent contractors, including: the Shipley Group 

(SLC, UT)and the Clark Group (DC) 

 

 

Each proposed categorical exclusion was reviewed and deliberated in concept, 

coverage, applicability, and wording by the Panel. The Panel cautiously 

crafted each exclusion with the goal of balancing increased administrative 

efficiency in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance with 

avoidance of misinterpretations and misapplications of exclusionary language 

that could lead to non-compliance with NEPA requirements. The Panel 

concurred that the attached categorical exclusions meet both objectives. 

 

The Department spent extraordinary amounts of time and effort deliberating 

over and drafting these categorical exclusions. Between April 9, 2003 and 

April 13, 2004, the Panel was involved in extensive debate on the categorical 

exclusions initially presented to the public. During that process, numerous 

environmental professionals, representing the many component agencies within 

Department, participated in group meetings and conference calls approximately 

twice per week. Members of that group concurred with the proposed form of 

each categorical exclusion by active participation in meetings and 

teleconferences, as well as by reviewing the numerous drafts of categorical 

exclusions developed from those calls and meetings, and by soliciting or 

providing their own suggested changes or corrections. Following that 

process, the draft of the Department’s environmental planning directive 

containing the categorical exclusions was published in the Federal Register 

on June 14, 2004 for public comment. The comment period closed on July 14, 

2004, but the Department reopened the comment period on July 16, 2004 for an 

additional 30 days. The interested public provided more than 7,500 letters 

and e-mails during those two comment periods. Detailed and thorough review 

of those comments yielded approximately seventy unique comments for 

consideration in the final draft of the directive and the final versions of 

the categorical exclusions. 

The Department then worked in close cooperation with the President’s Council 

on Environmental Quality to ensure that the directive and all categorical 

exclusions conformed to the requirements of NEPA. The Department took great 

care to ensure that the categorical exclusions were supported by the 

administrative record. 

All of the agencies that transitioned into the Department were previously 

performing various aspects of what is now the Nation’s homeland security 

mission. The Panel noted that many of them had performed, and now as DHS 

components, still perform similar types of administrative and operational 

activities. For that reason, many of the Department’s components will share 

in the application of the categorical exclusions that reflect similar 

functions and activities. The operational activities that were unique to one 

or more DHS component are specifically limited to the pertinent component(s). 

A summary of information collected and relied upon by the Panel and 

Department personnel in formulating and deciding the extent and limitations 

of the categorical exclusions is provided below. The Department envisions 
3 

that this information will help interested parties to understand the basis 

and rationale behind each categorical exclusion that is presented. This 

information is not meant to provide an exhaustive list of factors relied upon 

during the two years of deliberation, but rather, to detail the bases upon 

which each categorical exclusion was established. 

This summary reflects changes in the organization of DHS as directed by the 

Congress in the FY 2006 appropriations. 

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS for ADMINISTRATIVE AND 

REGULATORY ACTIVITIES. These CATEX must also be conducted in 

conformance with the Executive Orders on Greening the Government, e.g., 

EO 13101, 13123, 13148, 13149, and 13150. 

A1 Personnel, fiscal, management, and administrative activities, such as recruiting, 

processing, paying, recordkeeping, resource management, budgeting, personnel actions, 

and travel. 

The actions contemplated by this categorical exclusion are a variety of 

internal administrative activities that inherently have no potential for 

significant environmental impacts. This categorical exclusion is supported 

by long standing categorical exclusions brought to the Department by its 

legacy components. Further, the Panel, in their extensive deliberations and 

discussions found that actions of a similar nature, scope, and intensity were 

performed throughout the Department without significant environmental 

impacts. 

The Panel determined that this categorical exclusion would benefit from a 

detailed description of the characteristics of activities envisioned. The 

descriptive items, “...recruiting, processing, paying, recordkeeping, resource 

management, budgeting, personnel actions, and travel...,” are intended to 

define the nature of activities encompassed by this categorical exclusion. 

They are neither presented to limit the categorical exclusion to those 

activities nor to extend the categorical exclusion to actions involving 

extraordinary circumstances that could result in the activity having 

significant environmental effects. 

 

The Panel also noted that numerous other agencies have categorical exclusions 

for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive of the activity as 

to establish for the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment as those performed by Department. 

In addition, the Panel recognized that all agencies, with very few 

limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the environment. The 

Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of other agencies that 

the characteristics of the activities in the Department were no different 

than those performed by other agencies. The Panel also determined that those 

activities have negligible impacts on the human environment. 

 
4 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently did not have individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

human environment. 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

APHIS 

Reference: 7CFR372.5 (c) 

(1) Policy development, planning and implementation which relate to 

routine activities, such as personnel, organizational changes, or 

similar administrative functions 

(2) Activities which deal solely with the funding of programs, such as 

program budget proposals, disbursements, and transfer or reprogramming 

of funds; 

 

FEMA 

Reference: 44CFR10.8 (d) (2) 

(i) Administrative actions such as personnel actions, travel, 

procurement of supplies, etc., in support of normal day-to-day 

activities and disaster related activities; 

 

USCG 

Reference: Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical Exclusions 

1. Administrative Actions: c. Routine personnel, fiscal, and 

administrative activities, actions, procedures, and policies which 

clearly do not have any environmental impacts, such as military and 

civilian personnel recruiting, processing, paying, and record keeping. 

 

AIR FORCE 

Reference: Air Force Instruction, January 24, 1995 

A2.3.4. Normal personnel, fiscal or budgeting, and administrative 

activities and decisions including those involving military and 

civilian personnel (for example, recruiting, processing, paying, and 

records keeping). 

 

ARMY 

Reference: Department of the Army Categorical Exclusions, 32CFR651 

Appendix B 

 (b) Administration/operation activities: 

 (5) Normal personnel, fiscal, and administrative activities 

involving military and civilian personnel (recruiting, processing, 

paying, and records keeping). 

 

INTERIOR 

Reference: Departmental Manual 516, Part 2, Appendix 1. 

1.1 Personnel actions and investigations and personnel 

services contracts. 

1.3 Routine financial transactions including such things as 

salaries and expenses, procurement contracts (in accordance with 

applicable procedures and Executive Orders for sustainable or green 
5 

procurement), guarantees, financial assistance, income transfers, 

audits, fees, bonds, and royalties. 

1.7 Routine and continuing government business, including 

such things as supervision, administration, operations, maintenance, 

renovations, and replacement activities having limited context and 

intensity (e.g., limited size and magnitude or short-term effects). 

1.8 Management, formulation, allocation, transfer, and 

reprogramming of the Department's budget at all levels. (This does not 

exclude the preparation of environmental documents for proposals 

included in the budget when otherwise required.) 

 

A2 Reductions, realignments, or relocation of personnel that do not result in exceeding 

the infrastructure capacity or changing the use of space. An example of a substantial 

change in use of the supporting infrastructure would be an increase in vehicular traffic 

beyond the capacity of the supporting road network to accommodate such an increase. 

The Panel found that actions of a similar nature, scope, and intensity were 

performed throughout the Department. Such actions include a variety of 

internal administrative activities, as well as activities that may involve 

the physical relocation of personnel and equipment. The Panel determined 

that the administrative activities would inherently have no potential for 

significant environmental impacts. However, the Panel was concerned that the 

physical relocations of personnel and equipment could involve a variety of 

associated activities, some of which could hold potential for impact to the 

human environment. In order to clearly demonstrate that those types of 

activities were beyond the scope of this categorical exclusion, the Panel 

decided to include phrasing that limited its scope to actions that would not 

result in exceeding the infrastructure capacity or changing the use of space 

involved in that activity. The Panel also recognized that physical 

relocations of personnel and equipment could result in indirect impacts to 

the human environment. 

The Panel included the example of an increase in vehicular traffic beyond the 

capacity of the supporting road network to accommodate that increase. This 

example was intended to exemplify a reduction, realignment or relocation that 

would not be encompassed by this categorical exclusion due to extraordinary 

circumstances that may result in the activity having significant 

environmental effects. The Panel provided this example to ensure that future 

users of this categorical exclusion would be alerted to potential for such 

indirect impacts when contemplating the use of this categorical exclusion. 

 

The Panel also noted that numerous other Federal agencies have categorical 

exclusions for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive of the 

activity as to establish for the Panel that those activities were similar in 

nature, scope, and impact on the human environment as those performed by 

Department. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, 

with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of 

other Federal agencies that the characteristics of the activities in the 
6 

Department were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies. 

The Panel also determined that those activities have negligible impacts on 

the human environment. 

 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed activities that inherently did not 

have individual or cumulative significant impact on the human environment. 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

USCG 

Reference: COMDTINST M16475.1D Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical 

Exclusions 

1. Administrative Actions: a. Personnel and other administrative 

action associated with consolidations, reorganizations, or reductions 

in force resulting from identified inefficiencies, reduced personnel or 

funding levels, skill imbalances, or other similar causes. (Checklist 

and CED required.) 

2. Real and Personal Property Related Actions m. Relocation of 

Coast Guard personnel into existing federally owned or leased space 

where use does not change substantially and any attendant modifications 

to the facility would be minor. 

4. Operational Actions d. Routine movement of personnel and 

equipment..... 

 

USBP 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Construction of 

the U.S. Border Patrol Station in Laredo, Webb County, Texas, May 1998, 

resulting in a FONSI signed in May of 1998 

This Environmental Assessment was prepared for the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) proposed land purchase, construction of a 

U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) station, and relocation of agents to the new 

facility on an approximately 10-acre tract at the southeast corner of 

Grand Central Boulevard and the McPherson Road extension in Laredo, 

Webb County, Texas. Analysis: The proposed action was not anticipated 

to have any significant adverse impacts to soils, water, biological, or 

cultural resources. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated to 

land use, socioeconomics, hazardous materials and waste, air quality, 

or noise. In addition, the proposed action was not anticipated to have 

any long-term adverse impacts to the environment. The facility has 

been in operation and no such impacts have occurred. 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment U.S. Border Patrol Station 

Wilcox, Arizona, September 2002, resulting in a FONSI signed in 

September 2002 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) proposed to relocate 

the operation of a United States Border Patrol Station (USBPS) to a new 

facility. The existing and proposed facilities were located in Wilcox, 

Cochise County. 
7 

Analysis: Based on the analysis of the resource studies, no significant 

adverse impacts were expected to result from the proposed alternative. 

The facility has been in operation and no such impacts have occurred. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment Proposed Construction of the U.S. 

Border Patrol Station in Sanderson, Terrell County, Texas, February 12, 

2001, resulting in a FONSI signed in February 2001. 

This EA assessed the potential impacts of the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) proposed property purchase, construction 

of a U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) station, and relocation of agents from 

an existing facility to the new facility. A new facility was needed to 

accommodate an increased number of agents assigned to the Marfa Sector, 

Sanderson Station. The existing Sanderson Station could not adequately 

accommodate the additional staff. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it was concluded that the 

proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

environment. The facility has been in operation and no such impacts 

have occurred. 

 

ARMY 

Reference: 32CFR651 Appendix B. Section II 

(b)(14) Relocation of personnel into existing federally-owned (or 

state-owned in the case of ARNG) or commercially-leased space, which 

does not involve a substantial change in the supporting infrastructure 

(for example, an increase in vehicular traffic beyond the capacity of 

the supporting road network to accommodate such an increase is an 

example of substantial change) (REC required). 

 

NAVY 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Addition of Two P-3 

Aircraft To The U.S. Customs Service’s Air And Marine Interdiction 

Division At Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas, resulting in a 

FONSI 

The proposed action is to add two P-3 Orion aircraft to the USCS Air 

and Marine Interdiction Division at NAS Corpus Christi, Texas The 

additional two aircraft will increase to ten the number of aircraft 

used by USCS at NAS Corpus Christi to accomplish their mission of drug 

interdiction and homeland defense. Additional parking apron will be 

constructed for the aircraft. Twenty-two new support personnel will 

join the USCS staff. The existing on-base and off-base utility systems 

(water, sanitary sewer, telephone, and electric) have adequate capacity 

to accommodate the proposed activities and personnel. 

Analysis: Based on the information gathered during preparation of the 

EA, the Navy and the U.S. Customs Service finds that adding two P-3 

aircraft to the USCS Air and Marine Interdiction Division at Naval Air 

Station Corpus Christi, Texas, will not significantly impact the 

environment. 
8 

A3 Promulgation of rules, issuance of rulings or interpretations, and the development 

and publication of policies, orders, directives, notices, procedures, manuals, advisory 

circulars, and other guidance documents of the following nature: 

(a) Those of a strictly administrative or procedural nature, 

(b) Those that implement, without substantive change, statutory or regulatory 

requirements, 

(c) Those that implement, without substantive change, procedures, manuals, and other 

guidance documents’ 

(d) Those that interpret or amend an existing regulation without changing its 

environmental effect, 

(e) Technical guidance on safety and security matters; or, 

(f) Guidance for the preparation of security plans. 

The Panel found that the activities contemplated by this categorical 

exclusion are a variety of administrative activities performed throughout the 

Department with impacts that are identical in nature, scope, and intensity, 

none of which have the inherent potential for significant environmental 

impacts. In addition, this categorical exclusion is supported by long 

standing categorical exclusions brought to the Department by its legacy 

components which would have been developed through a process consistent with 

NEPA regulatory requirements. 

 

The Panel determined that this categorical exclusion would benefit from a 

detailed description of the characteristics of the activities envisioned. 

Descriptive items (a) through (f) are intended to define the nature of 

activities encompassed by this categorical exclusion in a manner that does 

not extend the categorical exclusion to actions including extraordinary 

circumstances that may result in the activity having significant 

environmental effects. 

 

The Panel also noted that numerous other Federal agencies have categorical 

exclusions for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive of the 

activity as to establish for the Panel that those activities were similar in 

nature, scope, and impact on the human environment as those performed by 

Department. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, 

with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of 

other Federal agencies that the characteristics of the activities in the 

Department were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies. 

They Panel also determined that those activities have negligible impacts on 

the human environment. 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed activities that inherently did not 

have individual or cumulative significant impact on the human environment. 

 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 
9 

APHIS 

Reference: 7CFR372.5 (c) 

 (a) (1) Policy development, planning and implementation which 

relate to routine activities, such as personnel, organizational 

changes, or similar administrative functions; 

 (6) Activities which are advisory and consultative to other agencies 

and public and private entities, such as legal counseling and 

representation 

FEMA 

Reference: 44CFR10.8 (d) (2) 

(ii) Preparation, revision, and adoption of regulations, directives, 

manuals, and other guidance documents related to actions that qualify 

for categorical exclusions 

 

FAA 

Reference: FAA Order 1050.1d Chapter 31 (a) 

(5) Policy and planning documents not intended for or which do not 

cause direct implementation of project or system actions 

Reference: FAA Order 5050.4A Chapter 3, Section 23. 

(b) (6) Issuance of airport policy and planning documents including the 

National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), Airport 

Improvement Program (AIP) priority system, advisory circulars on 

planning, design, and development programs which are not intended for 

direct implementation or which are issued by FAA as administrative and 

technical guidance to the public. 

 

USCG 

Reference: Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical Exclusions 

1. Administrative Actions: e. Preparation of guidance documents that 

implement, without substantive change, the applicable Commandant 

Instruction or other Federal agency regulations, procedures, manuals, 

and other guidance documents. 

6. Bridge Administration Actions e. Promulgation of operating 

regulations or procedures for drawbridges. f. Identification of 

advance approval waterways under 33 CFR 115.70. 

7. Regulatory Actions a. Regulations concerning vessel operation 

safety standards (e.g., regulations requiring: certain boaters to use 

approved equipment which is required to be installed such as an 

ignition cut-off switch, or carried on board, such as personal 

flotation devices (PFDS), and/or stricter blood alcohol concentration 

(BAC) standards for recreational boaters, etc.), equipment approval, 

and/or equipment carriage requirements (e.g. personal flotation devices 

(PFDs) and visual distress signals (VDS’s)). b. Congressionally 

mandated regulations designed to improve or protect the environment 

(e.g., regulations implementing the requirements of the Oil Pollution 

Act of 1990, such as those requiring vessels to have the capability to 

transmit and receive on radio channels that would allow them to receive 

critical safety and navigation warnings in U.S. waters, regulations to 
10 

increase civil penalties against persons responsible for the discharge 

of oil or hazardous substances into U.S. waters, etc.). (Checklist and 

CED required.) c. Regulations which are editorial or procedural, such 

as those updating addresses or establishing application procedures. 

d. Regulations concerning internal agency functions or organization or 

personnel administration, such as funding, establishing Captain of the 

Port boundaries, or delegating authority. e. Regulations concerning 

the training, qualifying, licensing, and disciplining of maritime 

personnel. f. Regulations concerning manning, documentation, 

admeasurement, inspection, and equipping of vessels. g. Regulations 

concerning equipment approval and carriage requirements. h. 

Regulations establishing, disestablishing, or changing the size of 

Special Anchorage Areas or anchorage grounds. (Checklist and CED not 

required for actions that disestablish or reduce the size of the Area 

or grounds). i. Regulations establishing, disestablishing, or 

changing Regulated Navigation Areas and security or safety zones. 

(Checklist and CED not required for actions that disestablish or reduce 

the size of the area or zone. For temporary areas and zones that are 

established to deal with emergency situations and that are less than 

one week in duration, the checklist and CED are not required. For 

temporary areas and zones that are established to deal with emergency 

situations and that are one week or longer in duration, the checklist 

and CED will be prepared and submitted after issuance or publication.) 

j. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or 

marine parade; provided that, if a permit is required, the 

environmental analysis conducted for the permit included an analysis of 

the impact of the regulations. (Checklist and CED not required) k. 

Regulations in aid of navigation, such as those concerning rules of the 

road, International Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea 

(COLREGS), bridge-to-bridge communications, vessel traffic services, 

and marking of navigation systems. 

 

AIR FORCE 

Reference: Air Force Instruction 32-7061, January 24, 1995. 

A2.3. Categorical Exclusion List. 

A2.3.5. Preparing, revising, or adopting regulations, instructions, 

directives, or guidance documents that do not, themselves, result in an 

action being taken. 

A2.3.6. Preparing, revising, or adopting regulations, instructions, 

directives, or guidance documents that implement (without substantial 

change) the regulations, instructions, directives, or guidance 

documents from higher headquarters or other Federal agencies with 

superior subject matter jurisdiction. 

ENERGY 

Reference: 10CFR1021 

Subpart D._Typical Classes of Actions 

Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 1021--Categorical exclusions Applicable 

to General Agency Actions 
11 

 A4 Interpretations and rulings with respect to existing 

regulations, or modifications or rescissions of such interpretations 

and rulings. 

 A5 Rulemaking interpreting or amending an existing rule or 

regulation that does not change the environmental effect of the rule or 

regulation being amended. 

 A6 Rulemakings that are strictly procedural, such as rulemaking 

(under 48 CFR Part 9) establishing procedures for technical and pricing 

proposals and establishing contract clauses and contracting practices 

for the purchase of goods and services, and rulemaking (under 10 CFR 

Part 600) establishing application and review procedures for, and 

administration, audit, and closeout of, grants and cooperative 

agreements. 

 A10 Reports or recommendations on legislation or rulemaking that is 

not proposed by DOE. 

 A13 Administrative, organizational, or procedural Orders, Notices, 

and guidelines. 

 

A4 Information gathering, data analysis and processing, information dissemination, 

review, interpretation, and development of documents. If any of these activities result in 

proposals for further action, those proposals must be covered by an appropriate CATEX. 

Examples include but are not limited to: 

(a) Document mailings, publication and distribution, training and information 

programs, historical and cultural demonstrations, and public affairs actions 

(b) Studies, reports, proposals, analyses, literature reviews; computer modeling; and 

non-intrusive intelligence gathering activities 

The actions contemplated by this categorical exclusion are a variety of 

administrative activities that have no inherent potential for significant 

environmental impacts. This categorical exclusion is supported by long 

standing categorical exclusions that were brought to the Department by its 

components which would have only been developed through a process consistent 

with NEPA regulatory requirements. Further, the Panel found that actions of 

a similar nature, scope, and intensity were performed throughout the 

Department without significant environmental impacts. 

 

The Panel also determined that the use of examples in this particular 

categorical exclusion would be helpful to future users in clarifying the 

types of activities envisioned by the categorical exclusion. In providing 

examples, the Panel did not intend to limit the categorical exclusion to 

those activities or to extend the categorical exclusion to actions including 

extraordinary circumstances that may result in the activity having 

significant environmental effects. 

 

The Panel recognized that some of the activities contemplated by this 

categorical exclusion could result in proposals for further action. To 

ensure that these proposals would not promote activities with potential to 

significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the categorical 

exclusion is specifically limited so that if an activity results in a 
12 

proposal, this categorical exclusion would only apply if the proposal is for 

an action contemplated within another DHS categorical exclusion. This 

limitation is in place to ensure that there will be no potential for 

significant environmental impacts contemplated by the application of this 

categorical exclusion. 

 

The Panel also noted that numerous other Federal agencies have categorical 

exclusions for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive of the 

activity as to establish for the Panel that those activities were similar in 

nature, scope, and impact on the human environment as those performed by 

Department. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, 

with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of 

other Federal agencies that the characteristics of the activities in the 

Department were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies. 

They Panel also determined that those activities have negligible impacts on 

the human environment. 

 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed activities that inherently did not 

have individual or cumulative significant impact on the human environment. 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

FEMA 

Reference: 44CFR10.8 (d) (2) 

(iii)Studies that involve no commitment of resources other than 

manpower and associated funding; 

 

USDA-ARS- APHIS 

Reference: 7CFR1b.3 (a) 

(3) Inventories, research activities, and studies, such as resource 

inventories and routine data collection when such actions are clearly 

limited in context and intensity; 

(6) Activities which are advisory and consultative to other agencies 

and public and private entities, such as legal counseling and 

representation 

 

USCG 

Reference: Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical Exclusions 

2. Real and Personal Property Related Actions i. Real property 

inspections for compliance with deed or easement restrictions. 

5. Special Studies

a. Environmental site characterization studies and 

environmental monitoring including: siting, constructing, operating, 

and dismantling or closing of characterization and monitoring devices. 

Such activities include but are not limited to the following: 

• Conducting geological, geophysical, geochemical, and engineering 

surveys and mapping, including the establishment of survey marks. 
13 

• Installing and operating field instruments, such as streamgauging stations or flow-measuring devices, telemetry systems, 

geochemical monitoring tools, and geophysical exploration tools. 

• Drilling wells for sampling or monitoring of groundwater, well 

logging, and installation of water-level recording devices in 

wells. 

• Conducting aquifer response testing. 

• Installing and operating ambient air monitoring equipment. 

• Sampling and characterizing water, soil, rock, or contaminants. 

• Sampling and characterizing water effluents, air emissions, or 

solid waste streams. 

• Sampling flora or fauna. 

• Conducting archeological, historic, and cultural resource 

identification and evaluation studies in compliance with 36 CFR 

Part 800 and 43 CFR Part 7. 

• Gathering data and information and conducting studies that 

involve no physical change to the environment. Examples include 

topographic surveys, bird counts, wetland mapping, and other 

inventories. 

 

ENERGY 

Reference: 10CFR1021 

Subpart D_Typical Classes of Actions 

Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 1021--Categorical Exclusions Applicable 

to General Agency Actions 

 A9 Information gathering (including, but not limited to, literature 

surveys, inventories, audits), data analysis (including computer 

modeling), document preparation (such as conceptual design or 

feasibility studies, analytical energy supply and demand studies), and 

dissemination (including, but not limited to, document mailings, 

publication, and distribution; and classroom training and informational 

programs), but not including site characterization or environmental

monitoring. (Also see B3.1.) 

 

INTERIOR 

Reference: Departmental Manual 516, Part 2, Appendix 1. 

1.6 Nondestructive data collection, inventory (including 

field, aerial, and satellite surveying and mapping), study, research, 

and monitoring activities. 

1.11 Activities which are educational, informational, advisory, 

or consultative to other agencies, public and private entities, 

visitors, individuals, or the general public. 

A5 Awarding of contracts for technical support services, ongoing management and 

operation of government facilities, and professional services that do not involve unresolved 

conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. 
14 

This categorical exclusion was originally published for notice and comment as 

categorical exclusion A6. It has been renumbered categorical exclusion A5 

because the categorical exclusion that was published for notice and comment 

as categorical exclusion A5 has been deleted. 

Awarding of contracts for technical support services and other services 

included in this categorical exclusion involve administrative activities. 

The Panel found that the activities as contemplated by this categorical 

exclusion are a variety of administrative activities performed throughout the 

Department with impacts that are identical in nature, scope, and intensity, 

none of which have the inherent potential for significant environmental 

impacts. In addition, this categorical exclusion is supported by long 

standing categorical exclusions brought to the Department by its components, 

and which would have been developed through a process consistent with NEPA 

regulatory requirements. 

 

The Panel specifically limited this categorical exclusion to actions that do 

not involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available 

resources to ensure that there would be no potential for significant 

environmental impacts contemplated by the application of this categorical 

exclusion. 

 

The Panel also noted that numerous other Federal agencies have categorical 

exclusions for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that 

they demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by Department. 

In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, with very few 

limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the environment. The 

Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of other Federal 

agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in Department were no 

different than those performed by other Federal agencies in general, as well 

as specifically related to the environment. 

 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently did not have individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

human environment. 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

FEMA 

Reference: 44CFR10.8 (d) (2) 

(i) Administrative actions such as personnel actions, travel, 

procurement of supplies, etc., in support of normal day-to-day 

activities and disaster related activities.... 

 

USCG 

Reference: Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical exclusions 

1. Administrative Actions: c. Routine personnel, fiscal, and 

administrative activities, actions, procedures, and policies which 
15 

clearly do not have any environmental impacts, such as military and 

civilian personnel recruiting, processing, paying, and record keeping. 

 

AIR FORCE 

Reference: Air Force Instruction 32-7061, January 24, 1995. 

A2.3. categorical exclusion List: 

A2.3.1. Routine procurement of goods and services. 

 

ARMY 

Reference: 32CFR651 

Appendix B--Categorical Exclusions 

Section II--List of CXs 

 (e) Procurement and contract activities: 

 (1) Routine procurement of goods and services (complying with 

applicable procedures for sustainable or ``green'' procurement) to 

support operations and infrastructure, including routine utility 

services and contracts. 

 

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

Reference: PBS NEPA Deskguide, October 1999. 

5.3 AUTOMATIC categorical exclusions 

(i) Administrative actions such as procurement of consultant services 

for appraisal or environmental analysis. 

(n) Facility maintenance, custodial, and grounds keeping activities not 

involving environmentally sensitive areas (such as eroded areas, 

wetlands, cultural sites, etc.), including window washing, lawn mowing, 

trash collecting, and snow removal. 

(o) Procurement contracts for professional services and supplies not 

addressed elsewhere here. 

A6 Procurement of non-hazardous goods and services, and storage, recycling, and 

disposal of non-hazardous materials and wastes, that complies with applicable 

requirements and is in support of routine administrative, operational, or maintenance 

activities. Storage activities must occur on previously disturbed land or in existing 

facilities. Examples include but are not limited to: 

(a) Office supplies, 

(b) Equipment, 

(c) Mobile assets, 

(d) Utility services, 

(e) Chemicals and low level radio nuclides for laboratory use, 

(f) Deployable emergency response supplies and equipment, and, 

(g) Waste disposal and contracts for waste disposal in established permitted landfills and 

facilities. 

This categorical exclusion was originally published for notice and comment as 

categorical exclusion A7. It has been renumbered categorical exclusion A6 

because the categorical exclusion that was published for notice and comment 
16 

as categorical exclusion A5 was deleted and the categorical exclusion 

numbered A6 was renumbered categorical exclusions A5. Similarly, the 

administrative record comments regarding the categorical exclusion formerly 

published for notice and comment as categorical exclusion A6 are included as 

categorical exclusion A5. 

The Panel examined the various activities undertaken by both the new entities 

created and the existing entities merged into the Department to determine the 

extent to which these various components procured goods and services and 

whether they stored, recycled, and disposed of procured goods during the 

normal course of their activities. It was found that actions of a similar 

nature, scope, and intensity were quite common throughout Department in both 

administrative and operational activities. The vast majority of these 

procurements consisted of commercially available goods and services (in 

conformance with federal procurement priorities). A more limited number of 

these procurements were for goods that were provided by commercial sources 

specifically for military or law enforcement purposes. Homeland security 

unique procurements were found to be extremely infrequent, and most of these 

were adaptations of commercially available goods and services (in conformance 

with federal procurement priorities). 

 

The Panel examined the existing categorical exclusions brought into 

Department by legacy agencies and numerous categorical exclusions of other 

Federal agencies. A FEMA exclusion encompassed the procurement of supplies, 

goods, and services and the temporary storage of goods, and a Coast Guard 

exclusion encompassed the procurements of goods and services including office 

supplies, equipment, and mobile assets. These long standing categorical 

exclusions brought to Department by its legacy agencies would have only been 

developed through a process consistent with NEPA requirements. 

 

The Panel specifically limited the categorical exclusion to non-hazardous 

goods and services, materials, and wastes; limited the categorical exclusion 

by stating that actions contemplated by this categorical exclusion comply 

with all applicable requirements; limited the categorical exclusion to 

actions in support of routine activities; and finally, further limited the 

storage activities contemplated by this categorical exclusion to actions on 

previously disturbed land or in existing facilities. These limitations were 

applied to ensure that there would be no potential for significant 

environmental impacts contemplated by the application of this categorical 

exclusion. 

 

The Panel also noted that numerous other Federal agencies have categorical 

exclusion for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that 

it could be determined that they included a much broader range of activities 

and encompassed activities of generally greater scope and intensity than any 

in Department. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, 

with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. For example, the volume of goods and services procured and 

wastes disposed by other agencies dwarf those of Department and are done 

under the same governing environmental regulatory policies with no 

significant impacts to the quality of the human environment. The Panel 
17 

determined from their experience in or on behalf of other agencies, that the 

characteristics of the activities in Department were no different than those 

performed by other Federal agencies in general, as well as specifically 

related to the environment. 

 

The Panel determined that the use of examples in this particular categorical 

exclusion would be helpful to future users in clarifying the types of 

activities envisioned. In providing examples, the Panel did not intend to 

extend the categorical exclusion to actions including extraordinary 

circumstances that may result in the activity having significant 

environmental effects. 

When categorical exclusion A6 was previously published as categorical 

exclusion A7, it was the subject of comments concerning: (1) the references 

to waste disposal, and (2) public information regarding the use of chemicals 

and low-level radionuclide for analytical testing and research. 

The Department considered the comments regarding waste disposal. 

Essentially, comments that expressed concerns about the reference to waste 

disposal were that the analysis of impacts from waste disposal for permitted 

landfills may have been done in the past, but that may not account for new 

waste. To address this concern, the Panel ensured that example “(g)” limited 

this categorical exclusion to only apply to established permitted landfills 

and authorized facilities for the wastes generated pursuant to activities 

governed by this categorical exclusion; emphasizing that the department is 

held to all of the same requirements that are applicable to commercial 

generators of non-hazardous waste. 

Other comments regarding waste disposal expressed concern that, while there 

were categorical exclusions similar to this for FEMA and USCG, they were 

limited to procurement and storage of such materials and not to disposal. As 

stated previously, the Panel examined the various activities undertaken by 

both the new entities created and the existing entities merged into the 

Department to determine the extent to which these various components procured 

goods and services and whether they stored, recycled, and disposed of 

procured goods during the normal course of their activities. It was found 

that actions of a similar nature, scope, and intensity were quite common 

throughout Department in both administrative and operational activities. The 

vast majority of these procurements consisted of commercially available goods 

and services (in conformance with federal procurement priorities). A more 

limited number of these procurements were for goods that were provided by 

commercial sources specifically for military or law enforcement purposes. 

Homeland security unique procurements were found to be extremely infrequent 

and most of these were adaptations of commercially available goods and 

services (in conformance with federal procurement priorities). 

Also, as stated previously, the Panel noted that numerous other agencies have 

categorical exclusions for similar activities that are sufficiently 

descriptive such that it could be determined that they included a much 

broader range of activities and encompassed activities of generally greater 

scope and intensity than any in Department. In addition, the Panel 
18 

recognized that all Federal agencies, with very few limitations, must meet 

the same requirements to protect the environment. 

The Department also considered the comments regarding public information on 

the use of chemicals. These comments expressed concern that, while a 

categorical exclusion for such activities is likely warranted, it should not 

limit the ability of the public to information on these activities. One 

comment expressed the interest, for example, in the Department demonstrating 

or documenting how “Chemicals and low level radio nuclides for analytical 

testing and research” are being used safely. To address this comment, 

example “(e)” within this categorical exclusion was modified to further 

define “analytical testing and research” by clarifying the intent for 

including examples of those types of non-hazardous materials would be “for 

laboratory use” and would thus be subject to the detailed requirements for 

the handling of such materials in established laboratories and similar 

appropriate facilities. Concerns with the public availability of information 

on the potential for environmental impacts of DHS activities are addressed in 

the Department’s response to comments on Section 6 of the directive. 

 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently did not have individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

human environment. 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

FEMA 

Reference: 44CFR10.8 (d) (2) 

(vi) Procurement of goods and services for support of day-to-day and 

emergency operational activities, and the temporary storage of goods 

other than hazardous materials, so long as storage occurs on previously 

disturbed land or in existing facilities; 

 

USCG 

Reference: Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical exclusions 

1. Administrative Actions: b. Routine procurement activities and 

actions for goods and services, including office supplies, equipment, 

mobile assets, and utility services for routine administration, 

operation, and maintenance. 

 (24) Routine movement of personnel and equipment, and the 

routine movement, handling, and distribution of non-hazardous and 

hazardous materials and wastes in accordance with applicable 

regulations. 

 

AIR FORCE 

Reference: Air Force Instruction 32-7061, January24, 1995 

A2.3. Categorical Exclusion List. Actions that are categorically 

excluded in the absence of unique circumstances are: 

A2.3.1. Routine procurement of goods and services. 
19 

A2.3.28. Routine transporting of hazardous materials and wastes in 

accordance with applicable Federal, state, interstate, and local laws. 

A2.3.29. Emergency handling and transporting of small quantities of 

chemical surety material or suspected chemical surety material, whether 

or not classified as hazardous or toxic waste, from a discovery site to 

a permitted storage, treatment, or disposal facility. 

 

ARMY 

Reference: 32CFR651 

Appendix B to Part 651--Categorical exclusions 

 Section II--List of CXs 

 (b) Administration/operation activities: 

 (4) Proposed activities and operations to be conducted in an 

existing non-historic structure which are within the scope and 

compatibility of the present functional use of the building, will not 

result in a substantial increase in waste discharged to the 

environment, will not result in substantially different waste 

discharges from current or previous activities, and emissions will 

remain within established permit limits, if any (REC required). 

 (e) Procurement and contract activities: 

 (1) Routine procurement of goods and services (complying with 

applicable procedures for sustainable or ``green'' procurement) to 

support operations and infrastructure, including routine utility 

services and contracts. 

 (5) Procurement, testing, use, and/or conversion of a commercially 

available product (for example, forklift, generator, chain saw, etc.) 

which does not meet the definition of a weapon system (Title 10, 

U.S.C., Section 2403. ``Major weapon systems: Contractor guarantees''), 

and does not result in any unusual disposal requirements. 

 (6) Acquisition or contracting for spares and spare parts, 

consistent with the approved Technical Data Package (TDP). 

 (g) Repair and maintenance activities: 

 (1) Routine repair and maintenance of buildings, airfields, 

grounds, equipment, and other facilities. Examples include, but are not 

limited to: Removal and disposal of asbestos-containing material (for 

example, roof material and floor tile) or lead-based paint in 

accordance with applicable regulations; removal of dead, diseased, or 

damaged trees; and repair of roofs, doors, windows, or fixtures (REC 

required for removal work on historic structures). 

 (h) Hazardous materials/hazardous waste management and operations: 

 (4) Routine management, to include transportation, distribution, 

use, storage, treatment, and disposal of solid waste, medical waste, 

radiological and special hazards (for example, asbestos, PCBs, leadbased paint, or unexploded ordnance), and/or hazardous waste that 

complies with EPA, Army, or other regulatory agency requirements. This 

CX is not applicable to new construction of facilities for such 

management purposes. 

 (6) Reutilization, marketing, distribution, donation, and resale of 

items, equipment, or materiel; normal transfer of items to the Defense 

Logistics Agency. Items, equipment, or materiel that have been 

contaminated with hazardous materials or wastes will be adequately 
20 

cleaned and will conform to the applicable regulatory agency's 

requirements. 

 

NAVY 

Reference: 32 CFR Part 775 , Chapter VI. 

Sec. 775.6 Planning considerations. 

(f) Categorical exclusions. 

(7) Routine procurement of goods and services conducted in accordance 

with applicable procurement regulations, executive orders, and 

policies; 

(12) Routine procurement, management, storage, handling, installation, 

and disposal of commercial items, where the items are used and handled 

in accordance with applicable regulations (e.g., consumables, 

electronic components, computer equipment, pumps); 

(16) Routine movement, handling and distribution of materials, 

including hazardous materials/wastes that are moved, handled, or 

distributed in accordance with applicable regulations; 

 

GSA 

Reference: PBS NEPA Deskguide, October 1999. 

CHAPTER 5 categorical exclusions 

5.3 AUTOMATIC categorical exclusions 

(d) Reductions in force or other personnel, administrative, or 

ministerial actions, including bargaining with employee unions and 

managing routine activities normally conducted to protect or maintain 

GSA-controlled properties (e.g., security and custodial services). 

(i) Administrative actions such as procurement of consultant services 

for appraisal or environmental analysis. 

(n) Facility maintenance, custodial, and grounds keeping activities not 

involving environmentally sensitive areas (such as eroded areas, 

wetlands, cultural sites, etc.), including window washing, lawn mowing, 

trash collecting, and snow removal. 

(o) Procurement contracts for professional services and supplies not 

addressed elsewhere here. 

 

ENERGY 

Reference: 10CFR1021 

 B1.2 Training exercises and simulations (including, but not limited 

to, firing-range training, emergency response training, fire fighter 

and rescue training, and spill cleanup training). 

 B1.3 Routine maintenance activities and custodial services for 

buildings, structures, rights-of-way, infrastructures (e.g., pathways, 

roads, and railroads), vehicles and equipment, and localized vegetation 

and pest control, during which operations may be suspended and resumed. 

Custodial services are activities to preserve facility appearance, 

working conditions, and sanitation, such as cleaning, window washing, 

lawn mowing, trash collection, painting, and snow removal. Routine 

maintenance activities, corrective (that is, repair), preventive, and 

predictive, are required to maintain and preserve buildings, 

structures, infrastructures, and equipment in a condition suitable for 

a facility to be used for its designated purpose. Routine maintenance 
21 

may result in replacement to the extent that replacement is in kind and 

is not a substantial upgrade or improvement. In kind replacement 

includes installation of new components to replace outmoded components 

if the replacement does not result in a significant change in the 

expected useful life, design capacity, or function of the facility. 

Routine maintenance does not include replacement of a major component 

that significantly extends the originally intended useful life of a 

facility (for example, it does not include the replacement of a reactor 

vessel near the end of its useful life). Routine maintenance activities 

include, but are not limited to: 

 (a) Repair of facility equipment, such as lathes, mills, pumps, and 

presses; 

 (b) Door and window repair or replacement; 

 (c) Wall, ceiling, or floor repair; 

 (d) Reroofing; 

 (e) Plumbing, electrical utility, and telephone service repair; 

 (f) Routine replacement of high-efficiency particulate air filters; 

 (g) Inspection and/or treatment of currently installed utility 

poles; 

 (h) Repair of road embankments; 

 (i) Repair or replacement of fire protection sprinkler systems; 

 (j) Road and parking area resurfacing, including construction of 

temporary access to facilitate resurfacing; 

 (k) Erosion control and soil stabilization measures (such as 

reseeding and revegetation); 

 (l) Surveillance and maintenance of surplus facilities in 

accordance with DOE Order 5820.2, ``Radioactive Waste Management''; 

 (m) Repair and maintenance of transmission facilities, including 

replacement of conductors of the same nominal voltage, poles, circuit 

breakers, transformers, capacitors, crossarms, insulators, and downed 

transmission lines, in accordance, where appropriate, with 40 CFR part 

761 (Polychlorinated Biphenyls Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution 

in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions); 

 (n) Routine testing and calibration of facility components, 

subsystems, or portable equipment (including but not limited to, 

control valves, in-core monitoring devices, transformers, capacitors, 

monitoring wells, lysimeters, weather stations, and flumes); and 

 (o) Routine decontamination of the surfaces of equipment, rooms, 

hot cells, or other interior surfaces of buildings (by such activities 

as wiping with rags, using strippable latex, and minor vacuuming), 

including removal of contaminated intact equipment and other materials 

(other than spent nuclear fuel or special nuclear material in nuclear 

reactors). 

A7 The commitment of resources, personnel, and funding to conduct audits, surveys, and 

data collection of a minimally intrusive nature. If any of these commitments result in 

proposals for further action, those proposals must be covered by an appropriate CATEX. 

Examples include, but are not limited to: 
22 

(a) Activities designed to support the improvement or upgrade management of natural 

resources, such as surveys for threatened and endangered species, wildlife and wildlife 

habitat, historic properties, and archeological sites; wetland delineations; timber stand 

examination; minimal water, air, waste, material and soil sampling; audits, photography, 

and interpretation; 

(b) Minimally-intrusive geological, geophysical, and geo-technical activities, including 

mapping and engineering surveys. 

(c) Conducting Facility Audits, Environmental Site Assessments and Environmental 

Baseline Surveys, and, 

(d) Vulnerability, risk, and structural integrity assessments of infrastructure. 

This categorical exclusion was originally published for notice and comment as 

categorical exclusion A8. It has been renumbered categorical exclusion A7 

because the categorical exclusion that was published for notice and comment 

as categorical exclusion A5 was deleted and the categorical exclusions 

numbered A6 and A7 were renumbered categorical exclusions A5 and A6, 

respectively. Similarly, the administrative record comments regarding the 

categorical exclusions formerly published for notice and comment as 

categorical exclusions A6 and A7 are included within the administrative 

record as categorical exclusions A5 and A6 respectively. 

The Panel determined that the activities contemplated by this categorical 

exclusion would inherently have no potential for significant environmental 

impacts This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical 

exclusions brought to the Department by its legacy components. Further, 

the Panel found that actions of a similar nature, scope, and intensity were 

performed throughout the Department without significant environmental 

impacts. 

 

The Panel determined that the use of examples would help clarify the types of 

activities envisioned by this categorical exclusion. In providing examples, 

the Panel did not intend to extend the categorical exclusion to actions 

including extraordinary circumstances that may result in the activity having 

significant environmental effects. 

The Panel recognized that some of the activities contemplated by this 

categorical exclusion could result in proposals for further action. To 

ensure that these proposals would not promote activities with potential to 

significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the categorical 

exclusion is specifically limited so that if an activity results in a 

proposal, this categorical exclusion would only apply if the proposal is for 

an action contemplated within another DHS categorical exclusion. This 

limitation is in place to ensure that there will be no potential for 

significant environmental impacts contemplated by the application of this 

categorical exclusion. 

 

The Panel also noted that numerous other agencies have categorical exclusions 

for activities that are sufficiently descriptive to convince the Panel that 

those activities are similar in nature, scope, and impact on the human 
23 

environment to those performed by Department. Numerous agencies with 

responsibilities to manage similar activities to those managed by DHS at a 

larger scale and in a greater variety of natural environments, including 

environments at least as sensitive as those that DHS may normally work in, 

have categorical exclusions that encompass the types of activities 

contemplated for this DHS categorical exclusion. In addition, the Panel 

recognized that all Federal agencies, with very few limitations, must meet 

the same requirements to protect the environment. The Panel determined from 

their experience in or on behalf of other agencies, that the characteristics 

of the activities in Department were no different than those performed by 

other agencies in general, as well as specifically related to the 

environment. 

Through its deliberations, the Panel determined that the proposed categorical 

exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that inherently do not have an 

individual or cumulative significant impact on the environment. 

 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

APHIS 

Reference: 7CFR372.5 (c) and 7CFR1b.3 (a) 

(3) Inventories, research activities, and studies, such as resource 

inventories and routine data collection when such actions are clearly 

limited in context and intensity; 

(6) Activities which are advisory and consultative to other agencies 

and public and private entities, such as legal counseling and 

representation; 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

Reference: Title 44 CFR Part 10 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 

 Subpart B_Agency Implementing Procedures 

Sec. 10.8 Determination of requirement for environmental review. 

 (d) Categorical exclusions (categorical exclusions). CEQ 

regulations at 40 CFR 

(iii)Studies that involve no commitment of resources other than 

manpower and associated funding; 

(xviii) The following planning and administrative activities in support 

of emergency and disaster response and recovery: 

 (D) Situation Assessment including ground and aerial 

reconnaissance; 

USCG 

Reference: Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical Exclusions 

2. Real and Personal Property Related Actions i. Real property 

inspections for compliance with deed or easement restrictions. 

5. Special Studies a. Environmental site characterization studies and 

environmental monitoring including: Siting, constructing, operating, 

and dismantling or closing of characterization and monitoring devices. 

Such activities include but are not limited to the following: 

Conducting geological, geophysical, geochemical, and engineering 
24 

surveys and mapping, including the establishment of survey marks. 

Installing and operating field instruments, such as stream-gauging 

stations or flow-measuring devices, telemetry systems, geochemical 

monitoring tools, and geophysical exploration tools. Drilling wells for 

sampling or monitoring of groundwater, well logging, and installation 

of water-level recording devices in wells. Conducting aquifer response 

testing. Installing and operating ambient air monitoring equipment. 

Sampling and characterizing water, soil, rock, or contaminants. 

Sampling and characterizing water effluents, air emissions, or solid 

waste streams. Sampling flora or fauna. Conducting archeological, 

historic, and cultural resource identification and evaluation studies 

in compliance with 36 CFR part 800 and 43 CFR part 7. Gathering data 

and information and conducting studies that involve no physical change 

to the environment. Examples include topographic surveys, bird counts, 

wetland mapping, and other inventories. b. Natural and cultural 

resource management and research activities that are in accordance with 

inter-agency agreements and which are designed to improve or upgrade 

the USCG's ability to manage those resources. c. Planning and 

technical studies which do not contain recommendations for 

authorization or funding for future construction, but may recommend 

further study. This includes engineering efforts or environmental 

studies undertaken to define the elements of a proposal or alternatives 

sufficiently so that the environmental effects may be assessed and does 

not exclude consideration of environmental matters in the studies. 

 

AIR FORCE 

Reference: Air Force Instruction, January 24, 1995. 

A2.3. categorical exclusion List. 

A2.3.24. Study efforts that involve no commitment of resources other 

than personnel and funding allocations. 

A2.3.25. The analysis and assessment of the natural environment 

without altering it (inspections, audits, surveys, investigations). 

This categorical exclusion includes the granting of any permits 

necessary for such surveys, provided that the technology or procedure 

involved is well understood and there are no adverse environmental 

impacts anticipated from it. The EPF must document application of this 

categorical exclusion on AF Form 813. 

A2.3.26. Undertaking specific investigatory activities to support 

remedial action activities for purposes of cleanup of hazardous 

spillage or waste sites or contaminated groundwater or soil. These 

activities include soil borings and sampling, installation, and 

operation of test or monitoring wells. This categorical exclusion 

applies to studies that assist in determining final cleanup actions 

when they are conducted in accordance with interagency agreements, 

administrative orders, or work plans previously agreed to by EPA or 

state regulators. NOTE: This categorical exclusion does not apply to 

the selection of the remedial action. 

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Reference: 32CFR651 

Appendix B to Part 651--Categorical Exclusions 
25 

 Section II--List of CXs 

 (d) Cultural and natural resource management activities: 

 (4) Studies, data collection, monitoring and information gathering 

that do not involve major surface disturbance. Examples include 

topographic surveys, bird counts, wetland mapping, and other resources 

inventories (REC required). 

 (h) Hazardous materials/hazardous waste management and operations: 

 (1) Use of gauging devices, analytical instruments, and other 

devices containing sealed radiological sources; use of industrial 

radiography; use of radioactive material in medical and veterinary 

practices; possession of radioactive material incident to performing 

services such as installation, maintenance, leak tests, and 

calibration; use of uranium as shielding material in containers or 

devices; and radioactive tracers (REC required). 

 (3) Sampling, surveying, well drilling and installation, analytical 

testing, site preparation, and intrusive testing to determine if 

hazardous wastes, contaminants, pollutants, or special hazards (for 

example, asbestos, PCBs, lead-based paint, or unexploded ordnance) are 

present (REC required). 

 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

 Reference: 10CFR1021 

 Subpart D._Typical Classes of Actions 

 Sec. 1021.410 Application of categorical exclusions (classes of 

actions that normally do not require EAs or EISs). 

Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 1021--Categorical exclusions Applicable 

to General Agency Actions 

 A9 Information gathering (including, but not limited to, literature 

surveys, inventories, audits), data analysis (including computer 

modeling), document preparation (such as conceptual design or 

feasibility studies, analytical energy supply and demand studies), and 

dissemination (including, but not limited to, document mailings, 

publication, and distribution; and classroom training and informational 

programs), but not including site characterization or environmental 

monitoring. (Also see B3.1.) 

 B3. Categorical exclusions Applicable to Site Characterization, 

 Monitoring, and General Research 

 B3.1 Onsite and offsite site characterization and environmental 

monitoring, including siting, construction (or modification), 

operation, and dismantlement or closing (abandonment) of 

characterization and monitoring devices and siting, construction, and 

associated operation of a small-scale laboratory building or renovation 

of a room in an existing building for sample analysis. Activities 

covered include, but are not limited to, site characterization and 

environmental monitoring under CERCLA and RCRA. Specific activities 

include, but are not limited to: 

 (a) Geological, geophysical (such as gravity, magnetic, electrical, 

seismic, and radar), geochemical, and engineering surveys and mapping, 

including the establishment of survey marks; 
26 

 (b) Installation and operation of field instruments, such as 

stream-gauging stations or flow-measuring devices, telemetry systems, 

geochemical monitoring tools, and geophysical exploration tools; 

 (c) Drilling of wells for sampling or monitoring of groundwater or 

the vadose (unsaturated) zone, well logging, and installation of waterlevel recording devices in wells; 

 (d) Aquifer response testing; 

 (e) Installation and operation of ambient air monitoring equipment; 

 (f) Sampling and characterization of water, soil, rock, or 

contaminants; 

 (g) Sampling and characterization of water effluents, air 

emissions, or solid waste streams; 

 (h) Installation and operation of meteorological towers and 

associated activities, including assessment of potential wind energy 

resources; 

 (i) Sampling of flora or fauna; and 

 (j) Archeological, historic, and cultural resource identification 

in compliance with 36 CFR part 800 and 43 CFR part 7. 

 B3.3 Field and laboratory research, inventory, and information 

collection activities that are directly related to the conservation of 

fish or wildlife resources and that involve only negligible habitat 

destruction or population reduction. 

 B3.8 Outdoor ecological and other environmental research (including 

siting, construction, and operation of a small-scale laboratory 

building or renovation of a room in an existing building for sample 

analysis) in a small area (generally less than five acres)that would 

not result in any permanent change to the ecosystem. 

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Reference: Departmental Manual 516, Part 2, Appendix 1 

Departmental Categorical exclusions 

1.6 Nondestructive data collection, inventory (including 

field, aerial, and satellite surveying and mapping), study, research, 

and monitoring activities. 

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Fish and Wildlife Service 

Reference: Departmental Manual 516, Part 8 

8.5 Categorical exclusions. 

 B. Resource Management. Prior to carrying 

out these actions, the Service should coordinate with affected Federal 

agencies and State, tribal, and local governments. 

 (1) Research, inventory, and 

information collection activities directly related to the conservation 

of fish and wildlife resources which involve negligible animal 

mortality or habitat destruction, no introduction of contaminants, or 

no introduction of organisms not indigenous to the affected ecosystem. 

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, U.S. Geological Survey 

Reference: Departmental Manual 516, Part 9 

9.5 Categorical exclusions. 
27 

 A. Topographic, land use and land cover, 

geological, mineralogic, resources evaluation, and hydrologic mapping 

activities, including aerial topographic surveying, photography, and 

geophysical surveying. 

 D. Well logging, aquifer response testing, 

digital modeling, inventory of existing wells and water supplies, 

water-sample collection. 

 E. Operation, construction and installation 

of: (a) Water-level or water quality recording devices in wells; (b) 

pumps in wells; (c) surface-water flow measuring equipment such as 

weirs and stream-gaging stations, and (d) telemetry systems, including 

contracts therefor. 

 F. Routine exploratory or observation 

groundwater well drilling operations which do not require a special 

access road, and which use portable tanks to recycle and remove 

drilling mud, and create no significant surface disturbance. 

 G. Test or exploration drilling and downhole 

testing, including contracts therefor. 

 H. Establishment of survey marks, placement 

and operation of field instruments, and installation of any 

research/monitoring devices. 

 I. Digging of exploratory trenches 

requiring less than 20 cubic yards of excavation. 

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Reference: Departmental Manual 516, Part 10 

10.5 Categorical exclusions. 

 G. Minerals. 

 (1) Approval of permits for 

geologic mapping, inventory, reconnaissance and surface sample 

collecting. 

 K. Waste Management. 

 (2) Activities involving 

remediation of hazardous waste sites if done in compliance with 

applicable federal laws such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (P.L. 94-580), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act (P.L. 96-516) or Toxic Substances Control Act (P.L. 

94-469). 

 M. Other. 

 (1) Data gathering activities 

such as inventories, soil and range surveys, timber cruising, 

geological, geophysical, archeological, paleontological and cadastral 

surveys. 

 (2) Establishment of nondisturbance environmental quality monitoring programs and field 

monitoring stations including testing services. 

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Bureau of Land Management 

Reference: Departmental Manual 516, Part 11. 

11.5 Categorical exclusions. 
28 

 F. Solid Minerals. 

 (9) Digging of exploratory 

trenches for mineral materials, except in riparian areas. 

 

 H. Other. 

 (3) Conducting preliminary 

hazardous materials assessments and site investigations, site 

characterization studies and environmental monitoring. Included are 

siting, construction, installation and/or operation of small monitoring 

devices such as wells, particulate dust counters and automatic air or 

water samples. 

 (6) A single trip in a one 

month period to data collection or observation sites. 

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, National Park Service 

Reference: Departmental Manual 516, Part 12. 

12.5 Categorical exclusions. 

 A. Actions Related to General 

Administration. 

 (2) Land and boundary 

surveys, 

 B. Plans, Studies and Reports. 

 (9) Adoption or approval of 

surveys, studies, reports, plans and similar documents which will 

result in recommendations or proposed actions which would cause no or 

only minimal environmental impact. 

 E. Actions Related to Resource Management 

and Protection. 

 (1) Archeological surveys and 

permits involving only surface collection or small-scale test 

excavations. 

 (2) Day-to-day resource 

management and research activities. 

 (3) Designation of 

environmental study areas and research natural areas. 

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Office of Surface Mining 

Reference: Departmental Manual 516, Part 13. 

13.5 Categorical exclusions. 

 (14) Routine inspection and 

enforcement activities (517). 

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Bureau of Reclamation 

Reference: Departmental Manual 516, Part 14. 

14.5 Categorical exclusions. 

 

 A. General Activities. 

 (3) Research activities, such 

as nondestructive data collection and analysis, monitoring, modeling, 

laboratory testing, calibration, and testing of instruments or 

procedures and non-manipulative field studies. 
29 

 

 B. Planning Activities. 

 (1) Routine planning 

investigation activities where the impacts are expected to be 

localized, such as land classification surveys, topographic surveys, 

archeological surveys, wildlife studies, economic studies, social 

studies, and other study activity during any planning, preconstruction, 

construction, or operation and maintenance phases. 

 (3) Data collection studies 

that involve test excavations for cultural resources investigations or 

test pitting, drilling, or seismic investigations for geologic 

exploration purposes where the impacts will be localized. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Minerals Management Service 

Reference: Departmental Manual 516, Part 15 

15.4 Categorical exclusions. 

 A. General. 

 (1) Inventory, data, and 

information collection, including the conduct of environmental 

monitoring and nondestructive research programs. 

 

 B. Internal Program Initiatives. 

 (1) All resource evaluation 

activities including surveying, mapping, and geophysical surveying 

which do not use solid or liquid explosives. 

 (2) Collection of geologic 

data and samples including geologic, paleontologic, mineralogic, 

geochemical, and geophysical investigations which does not involve 

drilling beyond 50 feet of consolidated rock or beyond 300 feet of 

unconsolidated rock, including contracts therefor. 

 (3) Acquisition of existing 

geological or geophysical data from otherwise private exploration 

ventures. 

 (4) Well logging, digital 

modeling. inventory of existing wells, and installation of recording 

devices in wells. 

 (5) Establishment and 

installation of any research/monitoring devices. 

 

 C. Permit and Regulatory Functions. 

 (9) Approval of offshore 

geological and geophysical mineral exploration activities, except when 

the proposed activity includes the drilling of deep stratigraphic test 

holes or uses solid or liquid explosives. 

OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES 

B1 Research, development, testing, and evaluation activities, or laboratory operations 

conducted within existing enclosed facilities consistent with previously established safety 
30 

levels and in compliance with applicable Federal, tribal, state, and local requirements to 

protect the environment when it will result in no, or de minimus change in the use of the 

facility. If the operation will substantially increase the extent of potential environmental 

impacts or is controversial, an EA (and possibly an EIS) is required. 

Research, development, testing, and evaluation activities or laboratory 

operations contemplated by this categorical exclusion are those that would be 

undertaken within facilities that are operated under stringent requirements 

designed to protect the quality of the human environment. As exemplified by 

documents in the administrative record, these requirements include strict 

operating procedures governing laboratory operations and personnel 

responsibilities. Because of these controls, these types of laboratory 

activities have no potential for significant environmental impacts. Further, 

the Panel found that actions of a similar nature, scope, and intensity were 

performed in laboratories throughout Department. 

 

In addition, this categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing 

categorical exclusions and administrative records brought to Department by 

its components. Those components brought into Department from the Department 

of Agriculture (elements of the Agricultural Research Service and the Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service), and the U.S. Coast Guard had existing 

categorical exclusions for actions similar in nature, scope, and intensity to 

those contemplated by this categorical exclusion. 

 

The Panel specifically limited this categorical exclusion to actions 

conducted within existing enclosed facilities, actions consistent with 

previously established safety levels and in compliance with Federal, State, 

tribal, and local requirements to protect the environment, and actions 

conducted in a manner that will result in no, or de minimus change in the use 

of the facility. This was done to ensure that there would be no potential 

for significant environmental impacts contemplated by the application of this 

categorical exclusion. Further, this categorical exclusion expressly does 

not include actions that would substantially increase the extent of potential 

environmental impacts or is controversial. 

 

The Panel also noted that numerous other agencies have categorical exclusions 

for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that they 

demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by Department. 

In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, with very few 

limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the environment. The 

Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of other agencies, 

that the characteristics of the activities in Department were no different 

than those performed by other agencies in general, as well as specifically 

related to the environment. 

This categorical exclusion was slightly changed from the text published for 

public comment in that the phrase, “...federal, tribal, state, and local..” was 

modified to state, “...Federal, State, tribal, and local...” with no material 

changes and no other grammatical changes. 
31 

 

Through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the proposed 

categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that inherently do 

not have an individual or cumulative significant impact on the environment. 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

APHIS 

Reference: 7 CFR 372.5 (c) 

7CFR372.5 (c) (2) Research and development activities. (i) Activities 

that are carried out in laboratories, facilities or other areas 

designed to eliminate the potential for harmful environmental effects--

internal or external--and to provide for lawful waste disposal (ii) 

Examples of this category of actions include: (A) The development 

and/or production (including formulation, repackaging, movement, and 

distribution) of previously approved and/or licensed program materials, 

devices, reagents, and biologics; (B) Research, testing, and 

development of animal repellents; and (C) Development and production 

of sterile insects.

 

USDA-ARS 

Reference: 7 CFR 520.5 (b) 

(2) Research programs or projects of limited size and magnitude or with 

only short-term effects on the environment. Examples are: 

(i) Research operations conducted within any laboratory, greenhouse or 

other contained facility where research practices and safeguards 

prevent environment impacts such as the release of hazardous materials 

into the environment; 

(ii) Inventories, studies or other such activities that have limited 

context and minimal intensity in terms of changes in the environment; 

(iii) Testing outside of the laboratory, such as in small isolated 

field plots, which does not involve the use of control agents requiring 

containment or a special license or a permit from a regulatory agency.

 

USCG 

Reference: Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical Exclusions 

4. Operational Actions e. Contracts for activities conducted at 

established laboratories and facilities, to include contractor-operated 

laboratories and facilities, on USCG-owned property where all airborne 

emissions, waterborne effluents, external radiation levels, outdoor 

noise, and solid and bulk waste disposal practices are in compliance 

with existing applicable Federal, state, and local laws and 

regulations. (Checklist required.) 

 

ARMY 

Reference: 32 CF R651 Appendix B. Section II 

(h)(5) Research, testing, and operations conducted at existing enclosed 

facilities consistent with previously established safety levels and in 

compliance with applicable federal, state, and local standards. For 

facilities without existing NEPA analysis, including contractor-
32 

operated facilities, if the operation will substantially increase the 

extent of potential environmental impacts or is controversial, an EA 

(and possibly an EIS) is required.

 

AIR FORCE 

Reference: Air Force Instruction 32-7061, January 1995. 

A2.3. categorical exclusion list. 

A2.3.27. Normal or routine basic and applied scientific research 

confined to the laboratory and in compliance with all applicable 

safety, environmental, and natural resource conservation laws.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Reference: 40 CFR 6 Subpart G 

Sec. 6.704 Categorical exclusions. 

 (b) The following specialized categories of ORD actions are 

eligible for categorical exclusion from a detailed NEPA review: 

 (4) Projects conducted completely within a contained facility, such 

as a laboratory or other enclosed building, where methods are employed 

for appropriate disposal of laboratory wastes and safeguards exist 

against hazardous, toxic, and radioactive materials entering the 

environment. Laboratory directors or other appropriate officials must 

certify and provide documentation that the laboratory follows good 

laboratory practices and adheres to applicable Federal statutes, 

regulations and guidelines.

B2 Transportation of personnel, detainees, equipment, and evidentiary materials in 

wheeled vehicles over existing roads or jeep trails established by federal, tribal, state, or 

local governments, including access to permanent and temporary observation posts. 

 The use of wheeled vehicles on formally established roads and trails is 

necessary for the interdiction and removal of suspects who might otherwise 

use sensitive environments to evade capture, thereby causing damage to the 

human environment. The Panel did not contemplate that this categorical 

exclusion would encompass new construction or the expansion of transportation 

activities beyond the previously established network of motorized vehicle 

roads and trails. The Panel further considered that some activities similar 

to these, particularly along our borders, are civil and criminal law 

enforcement actions excluded from NEPA. The Panel recognized various 

components within Department, such as U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Secret Service, 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection, 

perform functions other than civil or criminal law enforcement of a similar 

nature, scope, and intensity that would fall within this categorical 

exclusion. In addition, activities defined by this categorical exclusion are 

supported by long-standing categorical exclusions and administrative records 

brought to Department by its components. 

 

The Panel also noted that numerous other Federal agencies have categorical 

exclusion for similar activities. In addition, the Panel recognized that all 

Federal agencies, with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements 
33 

to protect the environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or 

on behalf of other agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in 

Department were no different than those performed by other agencies in 

general, as well as specifically related to the environment. 

Categorical exclusion B2 was the subject of comments concerning the danger to 

the environment raised by access to observation posts, particularly about the 

risk that establishment of and access to observation posts might pose to the 

Sonoran Pronghorn. For example, one representative comment stated that, “...a 

well-established record overwhelmingly demonstrates that construction, use 

of, and access to such observation posts is clearly not appropriate for the 

[categorical exclusion]...” The Department considered these comment and 

notes that this categorical exclusion does not encompass the development of 

new access roads. To emphasize the Department’s concern in this area, the 

Panel specifically limited the categorical exclusion to, “...existing roads or 

established jeep trails...” In order to further stress the intent of the 

Department that this categorical exclusion not be extended to areas where 

there is potentially significant impacts on the quality of the human 

environment, the language of this categorical exclusion was modified to 

state, “...existing roads or jeep trails established by Federal, State, tribal, 

or local governments,” to expressly limit the use of jeep trails to those 

established by a governmental authority, i.e., ostensibly an authority with 

a duty to protect and enforce protection of the quality of the human 

environment on behalf of those with standing to seek redress against any such 

authority. 

In addition, Appendix A, Section 3.2 of the directive contains a list of 

conditions and extraordinary circumstances that must be satisfied in the 

application of this categorical exclusion to a specific program or activity 

within DHS. These conditions and extraordinary circumstances were developed 

in recognition that, while the vast majority of DHS activities in this 

category do not have potential for significant impacts to the environment, 

activity proponents within DHS need to be alert for rare and unique 

conditions that may require more extensive evaluation of the potential for 

environmental impacts under NEPA. This evaluation would include not only the 

immediate effect of the DHS decision, but also the potential environmental 

effects that may indirectly result from implementing the decision and the 

cumulative effects of the decision on the quality of the human environment. 

The Departmental Directive contains language that clearly prevents the use of 

the exclusion where there is “A potentially significant effect on species or 

habitats protected by the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, or the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act.” 

 

Through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the proposed 

categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that inherently 

have no individual or cumulative, significant impact on the environment. 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

U.S. Coast Guard 
34 

Reference: COMDTINST M16475.1D, Figure 2-1 

(24) Routine movement of personnel and equipment, and the routine 

movement, handling, and distribution of non-hazardous and hazardous 

materials and wastes in accordance with applicable regulations. 

 

FEMA 

Reference: 44 CFR PART 10_ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS-- 

 Subpart B_Agency Implementing Procedures 

Sec. 10.8 Determination of requirement for environmental review. 

 (d) Categorical exclusions (categorical exclusions). 

(xviii) The following planning and administrative activities in support 

of emergency and disaster response and recovery: 

 (C) Deployment of Urban Search and Rescue teams;

 

USBP 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Various Road Improvements 

from Canyon City, California to The Imperial County Line San Diego 

County, California U.S. Border Patrol, March 2003, resulting in a FONSI 

signed in March 2003 

The proposed actions consists of: 1) the placement of up to 50 portable 

lights, as needed, within 60 feet of the border from the Pacific Crest 

Trail to the Imperial County line; 2) night vision scope pad and access 

road construction; 3) installation/repair of four drainage structures; 

4) the installation of a 300-foot bollard fence section near Jacumba; 

5) blasting activities; and 6) the installation of two water wells and 

holding tanks by the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP). All activities would 

take place between Canyon City, California and the Imperial County line 

in San Diego County, California. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this analysis and assuming that 

all mitigation measures recommended herein are implemented, no 

significant adverse impacts would occur from the proposed action 

alternative.

 

AIR FORCE 

Reference: 32CFR989 Appendix B 

A2.3.22. Routine, temporary movement of personnel, including 

deployments of personnel on a TDY basis where existing facilities are 

used.

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Reference: 32CFR651 

Appendix B to Part 651--Categorical exclusions 

 Section II--List of CXs 

 (i) Training and testing: 

 (3) Intermittent on-post training activities (or off-post training 

covered by an ARNG land use agreement) that involve no live fire or 

vehicles off established roads or trails. Uses include, but are not 

limited to, land navigation, physical training; Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) approved aerial over flights, and small unit level 

training.
35 

B3 Proposed activities and operations to be conducted in an existing structure that 

would be compatible with and similar in scope to its ongoing functional uses and would be 

consistent with previously established safety levels and in compliance with applicable 

Federal, tribal, state, or local requirements to protect the environment. 

 Activities contemplated by this categorical exclusion are those that would be 

undertaken within structures in a manner that would be compliant with 

established public policy requirements to protect public safety and the 

quality of the human environment. This categorical exclusion is not intended 

to include laboratory operations covered by categorical exclusion B1. 

Examples of structures contemplated include towers, buildings, warehouses, 

hangars, etc. The Panel found that such actions are performed in structures 

throughout Department without any harm to the quality of the human 

environment. 

 

In addition, this categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing 

categorical exclusions and administrative records brought to Department by 

its components. Those components brought into Department from the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard had existing categorical 

exclusions similar to this one. 

 

The Panel specifically limited this categorical exclusion to actions 

conducted in an existing structure that would be compatible with and similar 

in scope to the ongoing functional uses of those structures and that would be 

consistent with previously established safety levels and in compliance with 

Federal, State, tribal, and local requirements to protect the environment. 

This was done to ensure that there would be no potential for significant 

environmental impacts contemplated by the application of this categorical 

exclusion. 

 

The Panel also noted that numerous other Federal agencies have categorical 

exclusions for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that 

they demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by Department. 

In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, with very few 

limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the environment. The 

Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of other Federal 

agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in Department were no 

different than those performed by other Federal agencies in general, as well 

as specifically related to the environment. 

This categorical exclusion was slightly changed from the text published for 

public comment in that the phrase, “...federal, tribal, state, and local...” was 

modified to state, “...Federal, State, tribal, or local...” with no material 

changes and no other grammatical changes. 

 
36 

Through its deliberations, the Panel determined that the proposed categorical 

exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that inherently do not have an 

individual or cumulative, significant impact on the environment. 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

FEMA 

Reference: 44 CFR 10.8 (d) (2) 

(xvii) Actions conducted within enclosed facilities where all airborne 

emissions, waterborne effluent, external radiation levels, outdoor 

noise, and solid and bulk waste disposal practices comply with existing 

Federal, state, and local laws and regulations. 

 

US Coast Guard 

 Reference: Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 141, Tuesday July 23, 

2002, page 48243 

g. Coast Guard use of real property under the 

administrative control of another DOT component or another Federal 

agency through a permit, use agreement, or similar arrangement where 

the proposed real property use is similar to existing uses. (Checklist 

and CED required.) 

m. Relocation of Coast Guard personnel into existing 

Federally owned or leased space where use does not change substantially 

and any attendant modifications to the facility would be minor. 

 

US-VISIT 

Reference: Nationwide Environmental Assessment for the Implementation 

at Passenger Cruise Ships at Ports of Entry, November 2003, resulting 

in a FONSI signed in December 2003. 

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Department) and the United 

States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) 

Program Office sought to analyze both entry and exit processing of NonImmigrant Visa holders (NIV) at fifteen (15) passenger cruise ship 

terminals. The proposed action will include a new arrival and departure 

process for twelve (12) of the fifteen (15) passenger cruise ship 

terminals and a new pre-inspection arrival process for three (3) 

terminals. The information to be captured at the self-service 

workstations for NIVs will include biographical data and fingerprints. 

For arrival, the Preferred Alternative will include the collection of 

fingerprint scans and a photograph for all NIVs by CBP staff at the 

existing arrival inspection checkpoint. This additional process will 

require the installation of nominal infrastructure (a small box 

measuring approximately 6x6x2-inches and a digital camera) at each 

existing CBP inspection booth. 

Analysis: It was determined that the deployment, installation, and 

maintenance requirements necessary to implement the Preferred 

Alternative will have no permanent impact on: land use patterns; local 

or regional plans; zoning; residential, commercial, or community 

services; children, low-income, or minority populations; 

socioeconomics; air, noise, cultural resources; vegetation or wildlife; 
37 

U.S. waters(including wetlands); threatened or endangered species; 

floodways or floodplains; hazardous waste sites; or utilities. 

Department has also concluded that the Preferred Alternative will not 

result in incremental impacts such that there would be a condition 

whereby individually minor but collectively significant impacts would 

result in a measurable impact nationwide. In accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 1969), this EA evaluated the 

impact on the natural, physical, and social environs as a result of 

implementing the proposed interim business process and associated 

technology. Results of this analysis demonstrate that there will be no 

significant impacts to the aforementioned resources. In summary, 

Department has determined that the proposed action will not result in 

significant direct, indirect, temporary, or cumulative impacts to the 

environment. 

 

Reference: Nationwide Environmental Assessment US-Visit Implementation 

at Air Ports of Entry, October 2003, resulting in a FONSI signed in 

November 2003 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluated the impact of implementing 

a proposed interim business process at 115 arrival and eighty departure 

airports nationwide. To this end, Department, through its US-VISIT 

Program, is proposing (Proposed Action) to modify both entry and exit 

processing of Non-Immigrant Visa holders (NIV) at airports nationwide. 

The US-VISIT program is proposing to collect biometric information for 

NIVs entering and exiting the U.S. through airports beginning in early 

January 2004. 

Analysis: It was determined that the deployment, installation, and 

maintenance requirements necessary to implement the Preferred 

Alternative will have no permanent impact on: land use patterns; local 

or regional plans; zoning; residential, commercial, or community 

services; children, low-income, or minority populations; 

socioeconomics; air, noise, cultural resources; vegetation and 

wildlife; waters of the U.S. including wetlands; threatened and 

endangered species; floodways and floodplains; hazardous waste sites; 

or utilities. Department has also concluded that the Preferred 

Alternative will not result in incremental impacts such that there 

would be a condition whereby individually minor but collectively 

significant impacts would result in a measurable impact nationwide. In 

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), this EA 

evaluated the impact on the social, natural, and physical environs as a 

result of implementing the proposed interim business process and 

associated technology. Results of this analysis demonstrate that there 

will be no significant impacts to the aforementioned resources. In 

summary, Department has determined that the Proposed Action will not 

result in significant direct, indirect, temporary, or cumulative 

impacts to the environment. 

 

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

Reference: PBS NEPA Deskguide, October 1999. 

5.3 AUTOMATIC categorical exclusions 
38 

The following are automatic categorical exclusions and require no 

checklist: 

(a) Outleases, licenses, and other arrangements for non-federal use of 

space in existing Federal office buildings, where such use is 

consistent with local planning and zoning, where Section 106 of the 

NHPA is complied with where applicable; and there is no evidence of 

community controversy or unresolved environmental issues. 

(b) Acquisition of space within an existing structure, either by 

purchase or lease, where no change in the general type of use and only 

minimal change from previous occupancy level is proposed (previous 

occupant need not have been a Federal tenant). 

(c) Relocation of employees into existing Federally controlled space, 

that does not involve a substantial change in the number of employees 

or motor vehicles. 

(f) Outlease or license of government controlled space, or sublease of 

government- leased space to a non-Federal tenant when the use will 

remain substantially the same.

 

 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Reference: 10CFR1021 

 Subpart D._Typical Classes of Actions 

Sec. 1021.410 Application of categorical exclusions (classes of 

actions that normally do not require EAs or EISs). 

Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 1021--Categorical exclusions Applicable 

to General Agency Actions 

B1.31 Relocation of machinery and equipment, such as analytical 

laboratory apparatus, electronic hardware, maintenance equipment, and 

health and safety equipment, including minor construction necessary for 

removal and installation, where uses of the relocated items will be 

similar to their former uses and consistent with the general missions 

of the receiving structure. 

B4 Provision of on-site technical assistance to non-DHS organizations to prepare plans, 

studies, or evaluations. Examples include, but are not limited to: 

(a) General technical assistance to assist with development and enhancement of Weapons 

of Mass Destruction (WMD) response plans, exercise scenario development and evaluation, 

facilitation of working groups, etc. 

(b) State strategy technical assistance to assist states in completing needs and threat 

assessments and in developing their domestic preparedness strategy. 

This categorical exclusion contemplates actions of an administrative nature 

that inherently have no potential for significant environmental impacts. The 

Office of Domestic Preparedness is the Departmental proponent for the 

distribution and management of the Homeland Security Grant Program and the 

Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Program. As stated in the awards from 

these programs, grantees are prohibited from conducting any of the following 

activities: new construction, renovation or remodeling of property listed on 
39 

the National Registry of Historic Places or located within a 100-year flood 

plain, renovations that change the basic prior use of a facility or 

significantly change its size, research and technology whose application 

could have adverse environmental effects, and any implementation of a program 

involving the use of chemicals. Furthermore, equipment purchases under these 

grants are restricted to a published authorized equipment list, and direct 

DHS participation is typically limited to sending DHS personnel to the State 

or local site. 

The Panel found that actions of a similar nature, scope, and intensity were 

performed primarily by coponents of the Transportation Security 

Administration, Federal Emergency Management Administration, and Preparedness 

Directorate. 

 

The Panel also noted that numerous other Federal agencies have categorical 

exclusions for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that 

they demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by Department. 

In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, with very few 

limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the environment. The 

Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of other Federal 

agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in Department were no 

different than those performed by other Federal agencies in general, as well 

as specifically related to the environment. 

 

The Panel determined that the use of examples in this particular categorical 

exclusion would be helpful to future users in clarifying the types of 

activities envisioned by the categorical exclusion. In providing examples, 

the Panel did not intend to extend the categorical exclusion to actions 

including extraordinary circumstances that may result in the activity having 

significant environmental effects. 

Categorical exclusion B4 was the subject of comments regarding the reference 

to training on specialized equipment. Specifically, the comment stated that 

the categorical exclusion should be limited to those activities that do not 

disturb the surface in any way and have no potential to disturb the 

environment. The Department considered the comments regarding the reference 

to training, noting that there existed redundant coverage of training with 

categorical exclusion G1. The references to training activities within the 

body and examples for this categorical exclusion have been deleted 

(specifically, the phrases, “...or to conduct training at sites currently used 

for such activities...” and “...(c) Training on use, maintenance, calibration, 

and/or refurbishing of specialized equipment...”). The response to comments on 

categorical exclusion G1 further addresses the concern regarding the 

reference to training on specialized equipment. 

 

Through its deliberations, the Panel determined that the proposed categorical 

exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that inherently do not have an 

individual or cumulative significant impact on the environment. 

 
40 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

USDA - ARS 

Reference: 7CFR1b.3 (a) 6. 

Activities which are advisory and consultative to other agencies and 

public and private entities, such as legal counseling and 

representation; and 

 

FAA 

Reference: FAA Order 1050.1E 

Administrative/General Actions 

307k. Agreements with foreign governments, foreign civil aviation 

authorities, international organizations, or U.S. Government 

departments calling for cooperative activities or the provision of 

technical assistance, advice, equipment, or services to those parties, 

and the implementation of such agreements; negotiations and agreements 

to establish and define bilateral aviation safety relationships with 

foreign governments, and the implementation of such agreements; 

attendance at international conferences and the meetings of 

international organizations, including participation in votes and other 

similar actions. 

 

FHWA 

Reference: 23 CFR 771.117 (c) (16) 

Program administration, technical assistance activities, and operating 

assistance to transit authorities to continue existing service or 

increase service to meet routine changes in demand. 

USAID 

Reference: 22 CFR 216.2 (c)(2)(i) 

Education, technical assistance or training programs except to the 

extent such programs include activities directly affecting the 

environment (such as construction of facilities, etc.) 

 

DOL 

Reference: 29 CFR 11.10 (c)(2) 

Apprenticeship activities and related certification and technical 

assistance actions

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, National Park Service 

Reference: : Departmental Manual 516, Part 12. 

12.5 Categorical exclusions. 

K. Technical assistance to other federal, state, and local agencies or 

the general public.

B5 Support for or participation in community projects that do not involve construction, 

significant physical alteration of the environment. Examples include, but are not limited 

to: 

(a) Earth Day activities, 
41 

(b) Adopting schools. 

(c) Cleanup of rivers and parkways, and, 

(d) Repair and alteration of housing. 

 The types of support for projects involving community participation 

contemplated by this categorical exclusion are those that would be undertaken 

to benefit the communities in which the components of the Department 

operate. Participation in these projects would normally be under the 

governance of a charitable organization, a governmental program, such as 

Adopt-a-School, or associated with a celebration, e.g., Earth Day. These 

activities are generally performed to provide a benefit to both the 

environment and to the communities that the Department serves. 

 

The Panel found that such actions are performed throughout the Department 

without any harm to the quality of the human environment. For example, the 

Panel noted that the U.S. Coast Guard has been participating in Earth Day and 

river cleanup events for several years with no harm to the quality of the 

human environment. 

 

The Panel determined that the use of examples in this particular categorical 

exclusion would be helpful to future users in clarifying the types of 

activities envisioned by the categorical exclusion. In providing examples, 

the Panel did not intend to extend the categorical exclusion to actions 

including extraordinary circumstances that may result in the activity having 

significant environmental effects. 

 

The Panel also noted that other Federal agencies have categorical exclusions 

for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that they 

demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by the 

Department. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, 

with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of 

other Federal agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in 

Department were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies 

in general, as well as specifically related to the environment. 

This categorical exclusion was changed from the text published for public 

comment in that the phrase, “...Support for community participation projects...,” 

was modified to state, “...Support for or participation in community 

projects....” The Department is inherently dependent upon community 

involvement in providing the homeland security services required of it, and 

the public community is a key customer, beneficiary, and stakeholder for the 

products and services that the Department provides. It is essential that the 

Department engage in civic and community events that both serve the public 

and common-good as well as provide a degree of access to and credibility with 

its private sector customers. This change clarifies the nature of events and 

actions contemplated by this categorical exclusion that may be undertaken for 

such purposes. 
42 

This categorical exclusion was also changed from the text published for 

public comment in that the phrase, “...that do not involve construction, 

significant physical alteration of the environment...,” was added as a limit on 

the nature of activities contemplated by this categorical exclusion. 

Although this categorical exclusion was not the subject of any public 

comments, it was determined that this limitation would serve to focus the 

activities undertaken by the Department to ensure that there would be no 

potential for significant environmental impacts from actions contemplated by 

the application of this categorical exclusion. 

 

Through its deliberations, the Panel determined that the proposed categorical 

exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that inherently do not have an 

individual or cumulative significant impact on the environment. 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

ARMY 

Reference: 32CFR651 Appendix B. Section II 

(b)(10). Non-construction activities in support of other 

agencies/organizations involving community participation projects and 

law enforcement activities 

 

NAVY 

Reference: 32CFR775 Chapter VI 

Sec. 775.6 Planning considerations. 

 (f) Categorical exclusions. (24) Hosting or participating in public 

events (e.g., air shows, open houses, Earth Day events, and athletic 

events) where no permanent changes to existing infrastructure (e.g., 

road systems, parking and sanitation systems) are required to 

accommodate all aspects of the event;

 

AIR FORCE 

Reference: 32CFR989 Appendix B 

A2.3.37. Participating in "air shows" and fly-overs by Air Force 

aircraft at non-Air Force public events after obtaining FAA 

coordination and approval.

B6 Approval of recreational or public activities or events at a location typically used for 

that type and scope (size and intensity) of activity that would not involve significant 

physical alteration of the environment or increased human disturbance in sensitive natural 

habitats. Examples include, but are not limited to: 

(a) Picnics, 

(b) Encampments, and, 

(c) Interpretive programs for historic and cultural resources, such as programs in 

conjunction with state and tribal Historic Preservation Officers, or with local historic 

preservation or re-enactment groups. 
43 

The activities contemplated by this categorical exclusion are limited to 

recreational or public events at locations typically used for such 

activities. The Panel found that actions of a similar nature, scope, and 

intensity have been performed by various Department components without 

significant environmental impact. For example, the Panel noted that picnics 

and other office functions most frequently occur within elements of the 

Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Coast Guard, while other components of 

the Department also engage in these activities, possibly with less 

frequency. In addition, interpretive programs are among the activities 

required by Presidential policy designed to preserve our Nation’s heritage by 

actively advancing the protection, enhancement, and contemporary use of 

historic properties. 

 

The Panel noted that at least two other Federal agencies have a categorical 

exclusion for activities similar to those contemplated by this categorical 

exclusion. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, with 

very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of 

other Federal agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in 

Department were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies 

in general, as well as specifically related to the environment. 

 

The Panel specifically limited the categorical exclusion to locations 

typically used for the type and scope (size and intensity) of the activity to 

ensure that there would be no potential for significant environmental 

impacts. This categorical exclusion was also specifically limited beyond 

what was published for public comment with the replacement of the phrase, 

“...of that activity,” with the phrase, “...of activity that would not involve 

significant physical alteration of the environment.” This was done to ensure 

that there would be no potential for significant environmental impacts 

contemplated by the application of this categorical exclusion. 

 

The Panel determined that the use of examples in this particular categorical 

exclusion would be helpful to future users in clarifying the types of 

activities envisioned by the categorical exclusion. In providing examples, 

the Panel did not intend to extend the categorical exclusion to actions 

including extraordinary circumstances that may result in the activity having 

significant environmental effects. 

 

Through its deliberations, the Panel determined that the proposed categorical 

exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that inherently do not have an 

individual or cumulative significant impact on the environment. 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

USCG

Reference: COMDTINST M16475.1D Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical 

Exclusions 
44 

1. Administrative Actions: f. Approval of recreational activities or 

events (such as a Coast Guard unit picnic) at a location developed or 

created for that type of activity. 

Reference: 2.B.2.b (35) 

Approvals of regatta and marine parade event permits for the following 

events: (1) Events that are not located in, proximate to, or above an 

area designated environmentally sensitive by an environmental agency of 

the Federal, state, or local government. For example, environmentally 

sensitive areas may include such areas as critical habitats or 

migration routes for endangered or threatened species or important fish 

or shellfish nursery areas. (2) Events that are located in, proximate 

to, or above an area designated as environmentally sensitive by an 

environmental agency of the Federal, state, or local government and for 

which the USCG determines, based on consultation with the Governmental 

agency, that the event will not significantly affect the 

environmentally sensitive area. (Checklist and CED required) 

Executive Order 13287, Preserve America 

Section 4, Improving Federal Stewardship of Historic Properties 

Section 5, Promoting Preservation through Heritage Tourism

 

NAVY 

Reference: 32 CFR 775.6 

(31) Approval of recreational activities which do not involve 

significant physical alteration of the environment or increase human 

disturbance in sensitive natural habitats and which do not occur in or 

adjacent to areas inhabited by endangered or threatened species. 

 

ARMY 

Reference: 32 CFR 651 Appendix B. Section II 

(b)(6) Routinely conducted recreation and welfare activities not 

involving off-road recreational vehicles. 

B7 Initial assignment or realignment of mobile assets, including vehicles, vessels and 

aircraft, to existing operational facilities that have the capacity to accommodate such assets 

or where supporting infrastructure changes will be minor in nature to perform as new 

homeports or for repair and overhaul. 

 

This categorical exemption was proposed and adopted from a pre-existing one 

brought to the Department by the United States Coast Guard (USCG). Review of 

the Customs and Border Protection mission and operations found that this 

component also engaged in the realignment and home porting of small boats and 

aircraft in a similar manner, albeit in a much smaller scale, and environment 

than that of the USCG. Further, a review of the mission and operational 

activities of all other Department components likewise indicated that nearly 

all Department components operate mobile assets and realign those assets in a 

similar manner and environment as the USCG. For example, the Customs and 

Border Protection maintains aircraft and may realign those aircraft to 

existing facilities as required for repair or to accommodate the requirements 
45 

of the mission. In like manner, Department components with commercial 

vehicles and other rolling stock may relocate vehicles for repair or to 

accommodate changing mission requirements. Most non-law enforcement vehicles 

in the Department are leased from GSA and are managed according to GSA 

requirements. Based on this analysis, the Panel determined that the 

activities contained in categorical exclusion B7 should be, absent 

extraordinary circumstances, excluded from further analysis and documentation 

in an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement 

(EIS) for Department and all of its components. 

 

The Panel specifically limited this categorical exclusion to realignment or 

initial home porting at existing operational facilities that have the 

capacity to accommodate such assets or where supporting infrastructure 

changes will be minor. These limitations were applied to ensure that there 

would be no potential for significant environmental impacts contemplated by 

the application of this categorical exclusion. 

 

The Panel also noted that numerous other Federal agencies have categorical 

exclusions for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that 

they demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by Department. 

In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, with very few 

limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the environment. The 

Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of other Federal 

agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in Department were no 

different than those performed by other Federal agencies in general, and 

similarly had negligible impacts on the human environment. 

The text of this categorical exclusion was modified from that published for 

public comment in that the phrase, “...Realignment or initial home porting of...” 

was replaced with the clarification, “...Initial assignment or realignment 

of...” in order to more clearly and correctly define the activities 

associated with this categorical exclusion. 

 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

USCG 

Reference: COMSTINST M16475.1D Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical 

exclusions 

4. Operational Actions a. Realignment or initial home porting of 

mobile assets, including vessels and aircraft, to existing operational 

facilities that have the capacity to accommodate such assets or where 

supporting infrastructure changes will be minor in nature to perform as 

new homeports or for repair and overhaul. Note. If the realignment 

or home porting would result in more than a one for one replacement of 

assets at an existing facility, then the checklist required for this CE 

must specifically address whether such an increase in assets could 

trigger the potential for significant impacts to protected species or 

habitats before use of the CE can be approved. (Checklist and CED 

required.) 
46 

 

NAVY 

Reference: 32 CFR 775--POLICIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT WITHIN THE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

Sec. 775.6 Planning considerations. 

 (f) Categorical exclusions. 

(11) Routine movement of mobile assets (such as ships and aircraft) for 

homeport for repair/overhaul, or to train/perform as operational groups 

where no new support facilities are required; 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Addition of Two P-3 

Aircraft to the U.S. Customs Service’s Air And Marine Interdiction 

Division at Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas, resulting in a 

FONSI 

The proposed action is to add two P-3 Orion aircraft to the USCS Air 

and Marine Interdiction Division at NAS Corpus Christi, Texas The 

additional two aircraft will increase to ten the number of aircraft 

used by USCS at NAS Corpus Christi to accomplish their mission of drug 

interdiction and homeland defense. Additional parking apron will be 

constructed for the aircraft. Twenty-two new support personnel will 

join the USCS staff. The existing on-base and off-base utility systems 

(water, sanitary sewer, telephone, and electric) have adequate capacity 

to accommodate the proposed activities and personnel. 

Analysis: Based on the information gathered during preparation of the 

EA, the Navy and the U.S. Customs Service finds that adding two P-3 

aircraft to the USCS Air and Marine Interdiction Division at Naval Air 

Station Corpus Christi, Texas, will not significantly impact the 

environment.

AIR FORCE 

Reference: 32 CFR 989 Appendix B 

A2.3.31. Relocating a small number of aircraft to an installation with 

similar aircraft that does not result in a significant increase of 

total flying hours or the total number of aircraft operations, a change 

in flight tracks, or an increase in permanent personnel or logistics 

support requirements at the receiving installation. Repetitive use of 

this categorical exclusion at an installation requires further analysis 

to determine there are no cumulative impacts. The EPF must document 

application of this categorical exclusion on AF Form 813.

USBP 

Reference: Environmental Assessment Expansion of U.S. Border Patrol Air 

Operations and Facilities, U.S. Border Patrol Tucson Sector, Arizona, 

April 2003, resulting in a FONSI signed in April 2003 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared to analyze the 

potential for significant environmental impacts associated with the 

proposed expansion of United States Border Patrol (USBP) air operations 

and facilities in Southeastern Arizona. 

The USBP proposes to expand air operation origination out of Sierra 

Vista, Arizona. The only airport capable of supporting increased USBP 
47 

air operations in the area is the Joint Use Libby Army Airfield/Sierra 

Vista Municipal Airport (LAAF/SVMA) The USBP could lease or build new 

facilities at LAAF or SVMA. These additional facilities would include 

an aircraft hangar, office space, and enough parking for 20 vehicles. 

As many as 15 full-time USBP personnel could be assigned to the 

expanded facility. Of these 15 positions, 7 are already stationed at 

LAAF. As many as 16 aircraft could be stationed at the new facility. Of 

these 16 aircraft (15 rotary-wing and 1 fixed-wing) 6 aircraft (4 

rotary-wing and 2 fixed wing) are already based at LAAF. As a result 

there could be an estimated 150% increase in USBP air operations at 

LAAF/SVMA. Additional maintenance activities in the new hangar would be 

required to support the new aircraft. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

B8* Acquisition, installation, maintenance, operation, or evaluation of security 

equipment to screen for or detect dangerous or illegal individuals or materials at existing 

facilities and the eventual removal and disposal of that equipment in compliance with 

Applicable Federal, tribal, state, and local requirements to protect the environment. 

Examples of the equipment include, but are not limited to: 

(a) Low-level x-ray devices, 

(b) Cameras and biometric devices, 

(c) Passive inspection devices, 

(d) Detection or security systems for explosive, biological, or chemical substances, and, 

(e) Access controls, screening devices, and traffic management systems. 

The uses of security equipment contemplated by this categorical exclusion are 

those that would be undertaken at facilities that are operated under 

stringent requirements designed to protect the quality of the human 

environment. The security equipment may be stationary, mobile, or hand 

held. The Panel found that actions of a similar nature, scope, and intensity 

were performed throughout Department in compliance with federal, tribal, 

state, or local law and/or regulatory policy by DHS component entities with a 

history that pre-dates the Department. The Panel further noted that these 

actions resulted in no harm to the environment. 

 

All security equipment used within the Department must meet the requirements 

of either the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA). In addition, most of the security equipment consists 

of commercially available products that are also in use by private industry 

and other government agencies. 

Some of the security equipment contains trace amounts of chemical or 

radiological substances or produce X-rays as part of the screening process. 

These chemical and radiological substances and X-rays are encapsulated, 

shielded, and secured within the interior of the equipment. All Department 

security systems must meet requirements for allowable levels of radiation 
48 

emissions. There are no biological substances in the security equipment. In 

addition, the Department agencies perform periodic radiation surveys or tests 

of equipment that contains a small radioactive source to ensure compliance 

with NRC licensing requirements and appropriate regulations. The systems are 

also surveyed and inspected whenever they are relocated or maintenance is 

performed on the X-ray components and shielding. 

The Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML) performs observations and 

training of police officers at the Bridges and tunnels, and port venues of 

the Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey (PANYNJ) Counter Measures Test Bed 

who are using radioisotope identifiers. The test bed employs portal monitors 

that contain sealed radiological sources to detect radioactive substances in 

cars, trucks, etc. One brand of handheld isotope identifier does have a 

source in it, specifically, 0.15 micro Curies of Cs137, an exempt source way 

below NRC regulatory limit of 10 micro Curies for Cs. 

 

Disposal of security equipment is consistent with the Federal regulations (41 

CFR 102). Furthermore, the Department complies with requirements to minimize 

disposal through maximum reutilization and specialized sales. The Department 

also ensures that maximum attainable recycling and recovery are achieved in 

accordance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and it 

participates in the Department of Energy Homeland Defense Equipment 

Reutilization (HDER) Program.

The Department has an agreement with DOE to refurbish, calibrate, and issue 

radiological detection equipment to local jurisdictions that request to 

participate in the HDER Program. No radioactive test sources are issued with 

this equipment, thereby limiting the potential for any radiological 

contamination. If DOE determines that equipment is not fit to refurbish, DOE 

is responsible for the disposition. 

 

The Panel determined that the use of examples in this particular categorical 

exclusion would be helpful to future users in clarifying the types of 

activities envisioned by the categorical exclusion. In providing examples, 

the Panel did not intend to extend the categorical exclusion to actions 

including extraordinary circumstances that may result in the activity having 

significant environmental effects. 

 

The Panel defined this categorical exclusion to be sufficiently related to 

actions that may involve one or more extraordinary circumstances. To ensure 

that only those actions having negligible impacts on the human environment 

are contemplated by this categorical exclusion, the Panel proposed that a 

Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) be prepared to document the 

determination whether the action is either appropriately categorically 

excluded or whether it requires further analysis through an EA or EIS 

process.

 

In addition, this categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing 

categorical exclusions and administrative records brought to Department by 

its components. Those components brought into Department from the Department 

of Agriculture (elements of the Agricultural Research Service and the Animal 
49 

and Plant Health Inspection Service), and the U.S. Coast Guard had existing 

categorical exclusions similar to this one. 

 

The Panel also noted that numerous other Federal agencies have categorical 

exclusions for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that 

they demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by Department. 

In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, with very few 

limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the environment. The 

Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of other Federal 

agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in Department were no 

different than those performed by other Federal agencies in general, as well 

as specifically related to the environment. 

Categorical exclusion B8 was the subject of comments regarding the NEPA 

review of security equipment. Specifically, the comments generally stated 

that there are many security devices, including x-rays and detection devices, 

that include the use of dangerous chemical, biological and radiological 

substances. These comments expressed the concern that the evaluation and 

disposal of these devices could pose an environmental risk. 

The Department considered the comments regarding the security equipment. All 

security equipment used within the department must meet the requirements of 

either the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA). In addition, most of the security equipment consists 

of commercially available products that are also in use by private industry 

and other government agencies. 

Some of the security equipment contains trace amounts of chemical or 

radiological substances or produce X-rays as part of the screening process. 

These chemical and radiological substances and X-rays are encapsulated, 

shielded, and secured within the interior of the equipment. All of the 

Department’s security systems must meet requirements for allowable levels of 

radiation emissions. There are no biological substances in the security 

equipment. In addition, all Department agencies perform periodic radiation 

surveys or wipe tests of all X-ray producing equipment or equipment that 

contains a small radioactive source to ensure compliance with 21 CFR 1020.40, 

Cabinet X-ray Systems and NRC licensing requirements. The systems are also 

surveyed and inspected whenever they are relocated or maintenance is 

performed on the X-ray components and shielding. 

 

This categorical exclusion was changed from the text published for public 

comment in that the phrase, “...removal or disposal,” was removed and replaced 

with the phrase, “...and the eventual removal and disposal of that equipment in 

compliance with applicable Federal, State, tribal, and local requirements to 

protect the environment...” to further demonstrate the extent to which the 

Department must contemplate regulatory requirements when determining whether 

the removal or disposal of equipment has the potential to significantly 

impact the quality of the human environment. 

 
50 

Through its deliberations, the Panel determined that the proposed categorical 

exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that inherently do not have an 

individual or cumulative significant impact on the environment. 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

FAA 

Reference: FAA Order 5050.4A Chapter 3, Section 23. 

(b) (2) Acquisition of: security equipment required by rule or 

regulation for the safety or security of personnel and property on the 

airport (14 CFR Part 107), safety equipment required by rule or 

regulation for certification of an airport (14 CFR Part 139) or snow 

removal equipment. 

 

Reference: FAA Order 1050.1E 

Equipment and Instrumentation Actions 

9. Acquisition of security equipment required by rule or regulation for 

the safety or security of personnel and property on the airport or 

launch facility (14 CFR part 107, Airport Security), safety equipment 

required by rule or regulation for certification of an airport (14 CFR 

part 139, Certification and Operation: Land Airports Serving Certain 

Air Carriers) or licensing of a launch facility, or snow removal 

equipment. (APP, AST) 

Equipment and Instrumentation Actions (end) Note: Categorically 

excluded actions proposed under this notice and public procedure are 

depicted in italics. 

 

U.S. COAST GUARD 

Reference: Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 141, Tuesday July 23, 2002, 

page 48243 

(p) Determination by the Coast Guard that Coast Guard controlled 

personal property, including vessels and aircraft, is "excess 

property," as that term is defined in the Federal Property and 

Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 472(e)), and any 

subsequent transfer of such property to another Federal agency's 

administrative control or conveyance of the United States' title in 

such property to a non-Federal entity. (Checklist and CED required.) 

 

AIR FORCE 

Reference: 32CFR989 Appendix B 

A2.3.14. Installing on previously developed land, equipment that does 

not substantially alter land use (i.e., land use of more than one 

acre). This includes outgrants to private lessees for similar 

construction. The EPF must document application of this categorical 

exclusion on AF Form 813. 

 

NAVY 

Reference: 32CFR775.6 

(7) Alteration of and additions to existing structures to conform or 

provide conforming use specifically required by new or existing 
51 

applicable legislation or regulations, e.g., hush houses for aircraft 

engines and scrubbers for air emissions. 

CBP 

Reference: Programmatic Environmental Assessment for GAMMA Imaging 

Inspection Systems, resulting in a FONSI. 

In March 2004, the U.S.Customs and Border Protection (CBP), analyzed A 

new method of conducting inspections involves the use of Non-Intrusive 

Inspection (NII) equipment based on technologies such as low-energy Xray or low-energy gamma radiation sources to “see” into cargo 

containers and identify potential contraband. The Applied Technology 

Division (ATD) of CBP has examined gamma-imaging technologies for their 

suitability as parts of CBP’s inspection program. 

The Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) documents a top-level 

evaluation of the potential environmental consequences resulting from 

deploying, installing, and operating of gamma imaging systems to 

inspect cargoes at air, sea and land ports of entry (POEs) throughout 

the U.S. and Puerto Rico. 

Analysis: After considering all relevant factors and issues, the PEA 

concluded that Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) equipment would not 

significantly affect the physical, cultural, and socioeconomic 

environments. However, this PEA mentioned that site-specific analyses 

will be performed for each location in the U.S. or Puerto Rico, where 

CBP installs VACIS II, Mobile VACIS, Pallet VACIS and/or Rail VACIS. 

Each site-specific analysis will be reported in a Supplemental 

Environmental Document, which will tier off of this PEA in accordance 

with 40 CFR Part 1508.28. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for Pulsed Fast Neutron Analysis 

Cargo Inspection System Test Facility at Ysleta Port of Entry 

Commercial Cargo Facility, El Paso, Texas, 2003, resulting in a FONSI. 

This EA analyzed an extended real-life trial of Pulsed Fast Neutron 

Analysis (PFNA) system, a radiation-based method of Non-Intrusive 

Inspection Technology that allows CBP to examine cargoes without having 

to physically unload the cargo containers. Based on a review of 

candidate locations having a high volume of incoming commercial 

traffic, the Ysleta Commercial Cargo Facility in El Paso, Texas was 

identified as the best test site. Under the proposed action, the 

government will construct a test facility (approximately nine months) 

and operate it with the commercial stream-of-commerce (for a maximum 

period of 6 months). 

Analysis: The EA analyzed the many potential environmental consequences 

and determined that all impacts would be negligible or minor. With the 

exception of radiation, the effects and consequences of the proposed 

action are not unlike constructing and operating a drive-through 

tollbooth plaza. With regard to radiation and air quality, a very 

small amount (a fraction of 1 percent of EPA’s allowable threshold) is 

released to the atmosphere. A small amount of solid radioactive waste 

will be disposed of using licensed contractors who typically handle 

hospital waste. Analyses have shown that the system is safe to 

operators, cargo and the general public. A stowaway in the cargo 
52 

vehicle would be subjected to a maximum radiation dose, the same as 

OSHA allows for general public over the course of a year. Analysis of 

possible accidents shows that worst-case radiation doses are below 

acceptable standards. The EA concluded that this trial would not 

significantly affect the physical, cultural, and socioeconomic 

environments. 

 

Reference: Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Gamma Imaging 

Inspection Systems, Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs 

and Border Protection, Applied Technology Division, March 12, 2004, 

resulting in a FONSI 

Customs and Border Protection conducted this PEA to analyze the use of 

Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) equipment based on technologies such as 

low-energy X-ray or low-energy gamma radiation sources to “see” into 

cargo containers and identify potential contraband. The PEA evaluated 

potential environmental consequences resulting from deploying, 

installing, and operating the four different configurations of gamma 

imaging systems [known as the Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System 

(VACIS)] to inspect cargoes at air, sea and land ports of entry (POEs) 

throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico. 

Analysis: The PEA analyzed the likely environmental consequences, 

including the radiological consequences, and concluded that VACIS is 

not expected to significantly affect the physical, cultural, and 

socioeconomic environments. 

 

US-VISIT 

Reference: Nationwide Environmental Assessment for the Implementation 

at Passenger Cruise Ships at Ports 0f Entry, November 2003. resulting 

in a FONSI signed in December 2003. 

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the United States 

Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program 

Office sought to analyze both entry and exit processing of NonImmigrant Visa holders (NIV) at fifteen passenger cruise ship 

terminals. The Proposed Action will include a new arrival and departure 

process for twelve of the fifteen passenger cruise ship terminals and a 

new pre-inspection arrival process for three terminals. 

The information to be captured at the self-service workstations for 

NIVs will include biographical data and fingerprints. For arrival, the 

Preferred Alternative will include the collection of fingerprint scans 

and a photograph for all NIVs by CBP staff at the existing arrival 

inspection checkpoint. This additional process will require the 

installation of nominal infrastructure (a small box measuring 

approximately 6x6x2-inches and a digital camera) at each existing CBP 

inspection booth. 

Analysis: It was determined that the deployment, installation, and 

maintenance requirements necessary to implement the Preferred 

Alternative will have no permanent impact on: land use patterns, local 

or regional plans, zoning, residential, commercial or community 

services, children, low-income or minority populations, socioeconomics, 

air, noise, cultural resources, vegetation or wildlife, waters of the 
53 

U.S.(including wetlands), threatened or endangered species, floodways 

or floodplains, hazardous waste sites, or utilities. 

DHS has also concluded that the Preferred Alternative will not result 

in incremental impacts such that there would be a condition whereby 

individually minor but collectively significant impacts would result in 

a measurable impact nationwide. In accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, this EA evaluated the impact on the natural, 

physical, and social environs as a result of implementing the proposed 

interim business process and associated technology. Results of this 

analysis demonstrate that there will be no significant impacts to the 

aforementioned resources. In summary, DHS has determined that the 

proposed action will not result in significant direct, indirect, 

temporary, or cumulative impacts to the environment. 

 

Reference: Nationwide Environmental Assessment US-Visit Implementation 

at Air Ports of Entry, October 2003, resulting in a FONSI signed in 

November 2003 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluated the impact of implementing 

a proposed interim business process at 115 arrival and 80 departure 

airports nationwide. To this end, DHS, through its US-VISIT Program, is 

proposing (Proposed Action) to modify both entry and exit processing of 

Non-Immigrant Visa holders (NIV) at airports nationwide. The US-VISIT 

program is proposing to collect biometric information for NIVs entering 

and exiting the U.S. through airports beginning in early January 2004. 

Analysis: It was determined that the deployment, installation, and 

maintenance requirements necessary to implement the Preferred 

Alternative will have no permanent impact on: land use patterns; local 

or regional plans; zoning; residential, commercial, or community 

services; children, low-income, or minority populations; 

socioeconomics; air, noise, cultural resources; vegetation and 

wildlife; waters of the U.S. including wetlands; threatened and 

endangered species; floodways and floodplains; hazardous waste sites; 

or utilities. DHS has also concluded that the Preferred Alternative 

will not result in incremental impacts such that there would be a 

condition whereby individually minor but collectively significant 

impacts would result in a measurable impact nationwide. In accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), this EA evaluated 

the impact on the social, natural, and physical environs as a result of 

implementing the proposed interim business process and associated 

technology. Results of this analysis demonstrate that there will be no 

significant impacts to the aforementioned resources. In summary, DHS 

has determined that the Proposed Action will not result in significant 

direct, indirect, temporary, or cumulative impacts to the 

environment. 

AIR FORCE 

Reference: 32CFR989 Appendix B 

A2.3.27. Normal or routine basic and applied scientific research 

confined to the laboratory and in compliance with all applicable 

safety, environmental, and natural resource conservation laws. 

 
54 

ARMY 

Reference: 32CFR651 Appendix B. Section II 

(h)(1) Use of gauging devices, analytical instruments, and other 

devices containing sealed radiological sources; use of industrial 

radiography; use of radioactive material in medical and veterinary 

practices; possession of radioactive material incident to performing 

services such as installation, maintenance, leak tests, and 

calibration; use of uranium as shielding material in containers or 

devices; and radioactive tracers (REC required). 

 

USBP 

Reference: Programmatic Environmental Assessment for GAMMA Imaging 

Inspection Systems, resulting in a FONSI. 

In March 2004, The United States (U.S.) Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP), analyzed A new method of conducting inspections involves the use 

of Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) equipment based on technologies such 

as low-energy X-ray or low-energy gamma radiation sources to “see” into 

cargo containers and identify potential contraband. The Applied 

Technology Division (ATD) of CBP has examined gamma-imaging 

technologies for their suitability as parts of CBP’s inspection 

program. 

The Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) documents a top-level 

evaluation of the potential environmental consequences resulting from 

deploying, installing, and operating of gamma imaging systems to 

inspect cargoes at air, sea and land ports of entry (POEs) throughout 

the U.S. and Puerto Rico. 

Analysis: After considering all relevant factors and issues, the PEA 

concluded that Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) equipment would not 

significantly affect the physical, cultural, and socioeconomic 

environments. However, this PEA mentioned that site-specific analyses 

will be performed for each location in the U.S. or Puerto Rico, where 

CBP installs VACIS II, Mobile VACIS, Pallet VACIS and/or Rail VACIS. 

Each site-specific analysis will be reported in a Supplemental 

Environmental Document, which will tier off of this PEA in accordance 

with 40 CFR Part 1508.28. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for Pulsed Fast Neutron Analysis 

Cargo Inspection System Test Facility at Ysleta Port of Entry 

Commercial Cargo Facility, El Paso, Texas, 2003 resulting in a FONSI 

This EA analyzed an extended real-life trial of the Pulsed Fast Neutron 

Analysis (PFNA) system, a radiation-based method of Non-Intrusive 

Inspection Technology that allows CBP to examine cargoes without having 

to physically unload the cargo containers. Based on a review of 

candidate locations having a high volume of incoming commercial 

traffic, the Ysleta Commercial Cargo Facility in El Paso, Texas was 

identified as the best test site. Under the proposed action, the 

government will construct a test facility (approximately nine months) 

and operate it with the commercial stream-of-commerce (for a maximum 

period of six months). 

Analysis: The EA analyzed the many potential environmental consequences 

and determined that all impacts would be negligible or minor. With the 
55 

exception of radiation, the effects and consequences of the proposed 

action are not unlike constructing and operating a drive-through 

tollbooth plaza. With regard to radiation and air quality, a very 

small amount (a fraction of one percent of EPA’s allowable threshold) 

is released to the atmosphere. A small amount of solid radioactive 

waste will be disposed of using licensed contractors who typically 

handle hospital waste. Analyses have shown that the system is safe to 

operators, cargo and the general public. A stowaway in the cargo 

vehicle will be subjected to a maximum radiation dose the same as OSHA 

allows for general public over the course of a year. Weapons of mass 

destruction will not be initiated by the system. Analysis of possible 

accidents shows that worst-case radiation doses are below acceptable 

standards. The EA concluded that this trial would not significantly 

affect the physical, cultural, and socioeconomic environments. 

 

Reference: Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Gamma Imaging 

Inspection Systems, Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs 

and Border Protection, Applied Technology Division, March 12, 2004, 

resulting in a FONSI 

Customs and Border Protection wrote this PEA to analyze the use of NonIntrusive Inspection (NII) equipment based on technologies such as lowenergy X-ray or low-energy gamma radiation sources to “see” into cargo 

containers and identify potential contraband. The PEA evaluated 

potential environmental consequences resulting from deploying, 

installing, and operating the four different configurations of gamma 

imaging systems [known as the Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System 

(VACIS)] to inspect cargoes at air, sea and land ports of entry (POEs) 

throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico. 

Analysis: The PEA analyzed the likely environmental consequences, 

including the radiological consequences, and concluded that VACIS is 

not expected to significantly affect the physical, cultural, and 

socioeconomic environments. 

 

DOE 

Reference: 10CFR1021 Subpart D Appendix B 

B2.6 Packaging, transportation, and storage of radioactive materials 

from the public domain, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act upon a 

request by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or other cognizant agency, 

which would include a State that regulates radioactive materials under 

an agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or other agencies 

that may, under unusual circumstances, have responsibilities regarding 

the materials that are included in the categorical exclusion. Covered 

materials are those for which possession and use by Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission licensees has been categorically excluded under 10 CFR 

51.22(14) or its successors. Examples of these radioactive materials 

(which may contain source, byproduct or special nuclear materials) are 

density gauges, therapeutic medical devices, generators, reagent kits, 

irradiators, analytical instruments, well monitoring equipment, uranium 

shielding material, depleted uranium military munitions, and packaged 

radioactive waste not exceeding 50 curies. 

 
56 

B3.12 Siting, construction (or modification), operation, and 

decommissioning of microbiological and biomedical diagnostic, treatment 

and research facilities (excluding Biosafety Level-3 and Biosafety 

Level-4; reference: Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical 

Laboratories, 3rd Edition, May 1993, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services Public Health Service, Centers of Disease Control and 

Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health (HHS Publication No. 

(CDC) 93-8395)) including, but not limited to, laboratories, treatment 

areas, offices, and storage areas, within or contiguous to an already 

developed area (where active utilities and currently used roads are 

readily accessible). Operation may include the purchase, installation, 

and operation of biomedical equipment, such as commercially available 

cyclotrons that are used to generate radioisotopes and 

radiopharmaceuticals, and commercially available biomedical imaging and 

spectroscopy instrumentation. 

 

B7.2 Approval of import or export of small quantities of special 

nuclear materials or isotopic materials in accordance with the Nuclear 

Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 and the ``Procedures Established Pursuant 

to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Act of 1978'' (43 FR 25326, June 9, 

1978). 

 

NRC 

Reference: 10CFR51.22 

14) Issuance, amendment, or renewal of materials licenses issued 

pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40 or part 70 

authorizing the following types of activities: 

(i) Distribution of radioactive material and devices or products 

containing radioactive material to general licensees and to persons 

exempt from licensing. 

(ii) Distribution of radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent kits 

and/or sealed sources to persons licensed pursuant to 10 CFR 35.18. 

(iii) Nuclear pharmacies. 

(iv) Medical and veterinary. 

(v) Use of radioactive materials for research and development and for 

educational purposes. 

(vi) Industrial radiography. 

(vii) Irradiators. 

(viii) Use of sealed sources and use of gauging devices, analytical 

instruments and other devices containing sealed sources. 

(ix) Use of uranium as shielding material in containers or devices. 

(x) Possession of radioactive material incident to performing services 

such as installation, maintenance, leak tests and calibration. 

(xi) Use of sealed sources and/or radioactive tracers in well-logging 

procedures. 

(xii) Acceptance of packaged radioactive wastes from others for 

transfer to licensed land burial facilities provided the interim 

storage period for any package does not exceed 180 days and the total 

possession limit for all packages held in interim storage at the same 

time does not exceed 50 curies. 
57 

(xiii) Manufacturing or processing of source, byproduct, or special 

nuclear materials for distribution to other licensees, except 

processing of source material for extraction of rare earth and other 

metals. 

(xiv) Nuclear laundries. 

(xv) Possession, manufacturing, processing, shipment, testing, or other 

use of depleted uranium military munitions. 

(xvi) Any use of source, byproduct, or special nuclear material not 

listed above which involves quantities and forms of source, byproduct, 

or special nuclear material similar to those listed in paragraphs 

(c)(14) (i) through (xv) of this section (Category 14). 

 

NEPA WORKING GROUP 

As an R&D lab Environmental Measurements Laboratory uses instruments 

that have sealed sources such as Gas Chromatographs that have a Ni 

source. These instruments are found in commercial labs, hospital labs, 

and teaching institutions. When such an instrument is discarded, the 

source is removed and disposed of as radioactive waste. The use of 

analytical instruments should not require an EA. As part of the 

instrument design process, the engineers follow Design in Safety 

Protocol. The instrument is designed to minimize or protect the worker 

(user) and the environment (public) from adverse health effects or 

physical injury including pollution prevention and waste minimization 

in the design process. Environmental Safety & Health is part of the 

design process, not an after thought. We also calibrate instruments or 

devices with known quantified radiological sources. There are Standard 

Operating Procedures to perform this work that eliminate any adverse 

effects to the worker or the environment. 

 

Alfred Crescenzi 

Industrial Hygienist-Laboratory 

Safety Officer 

United States Department of 

Homeland Security

B9* Acquisition, installation, operation, or evaluation of physical security devices, or 

controls to enhance the physical security of existing critical assets and the eventual removal 

and disposal of that equipment in compliance with applicable requirements to protect the 

environment. Examples include, but are not limited to: 

(a) Motion detection systems, 

(b) Use of temporary barriers, fences, and jersey walls on or adjacent to existing facilities 

or on land that has already been disturbed or built upon, 

(c) Impact resistant doors and gates, 

(d) X-ray units, 

(e) Remote video surveillance systems, 

(f) Diver/swimmer detection systems, except sonar, 

(g) Blast/shock impact-resistant systems for land based and waterfront facilities, 

(i) Column and surface wraps, and, 
58 

(j) Breakage/shatter-resistant glass. 

The Panel found that physical security devices or controls contemplated by 

this categorical exclusion were used throughout Department by component 

entities with a history that pre-dates the Department. The Panel further 

noted that these actions resulted in no harm to the environment. 

 

Most of the physical security devices or controls consist of commercially 

available products purchased in compliance with Federal Acquisition 

Regulations. These products are also in use by private industry and other 

government agencies. 

 

Furthermore, the Department is also required to minimize disposal through 

maximum reutilization and specialized sales, and will ensure that maximum 

attainable recycling and recovery are achieved in accordance with the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

 

The Panel specifically limited the categorical exclusion to areas that are 

not environmentally sensitive. This limitation was applied to ensure that 

there would be no potential for significant environmental impacts 

contemplated by the application of this categorical exclusion. 

 

The Panel determined that the use of examples in this particular categorical 

exclusion would be helpful to future users in clarifying the types of 

activities envisioned by the categorical exclusion. In providing examples, 

the Panel did not intend to extend the categorical exclusion to actions 

including extraordinary circumstances that may result in the activity having 

significant environmental effects. 

 

The Panel defined this categorical exclusion to be sufficiently related to 

actions that may involve one or more extraordinary circumstances. To ensure 

that only those actions having negligible impacts on the human environment 

are contemplated by this categorical exclusion, the Panel proposed that a REC 

be prepared to document the determination whether the action is either 

appropriately categorically excluded or whether it requires further analysis 

through an EA or EIS process. 

 

In addition, this categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing 

categorical exclusions and administrative records brought to Department by 

its components. 

 

The Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, with very few limitations, 

must meet the same requirements to protect the environment. The Panel 

determined from their experience in or on behalf of other Federal agencies, 

that the characteristics of the activities in Department were no different 

than those performed by other Federal agencies in general, as well as 

specifically related to the environment. 

Categorical exclusion B9 was the subject of comments regarding the temporary 

use of barriers and jersey walls. Specifically, comments sought 
59 

clarification of the term “temporary.” “Temporary,”as contemplated in this 

categorical exclusion, means that the barrier is easily installed with no 

need to disturb soils or the surrounding areas, and that it can be easily 

removed or moved to another area. Additional comments indicated that 

“temporary” should be limited to a term of time, with a week or less provided 

as a suggested option. The Department does not deem “temporary" regarding 

the use of barriers, fences, and jersey walls to mean one week or less. The 

term temporary as used by the Department to refer to structures that are not 

permanent and that, depending upon mission concerns, is eventually removed. 

The Department views the reference to the temporary use of barriers, fences, 

and jersey walls as sufficiently narrow in that only barriers, fences, and 

jersey walls on or adjacent to existing facilities are included in 

Categorical Exclusion B9. A barrier, fence or jersey wall attached to, or 

set adjacent to, an existing facility will not normally have an adverse 

effect on the natural environments since the construction and location of the 

barrier will take place on land that has already been disturbed and built 

upon. 

In addition to concerns regarding the barriers, comments on categorical 

exclusion B9 included concerns regarding: (1) the inclusion of diver/swimmer 

devices that could harm marine species and habitat, (2) the evaluation of 

blast/shock impact resistant systems in manners that could pose a risk to 

migratory birds, endangered species, and air quality, and (3) the reference 

to remote video surveillance systems that could cause significant surface 

disturbance. 

The Department considered each of these comments and the concerns that they 

detailed. The Department notes that Section 3.2 in Appendix A of the 

directive contains a list of conditions and extraordinary circumstances that 

must be satisfied in the application of this categorical exclusion to a 

specific program or activity within the Department. These conditions and 

extraordinary circumstances were developed in recognition that, while the 

vast majority of Department activities in this category do not have potential 

for significant impacts to the environment, activity proponents within the 

Department need to be alert for rare and unique conditions that may require 

more extensive evaluation of the potential for environmental impacts under 

NEPA. This evaluation would include not only the immediate effect of the 

Department’s decision, but also the potential environmental effects that may 

indirectly result from implementing the decision and the cumulative effects 

of the decision on the quality of the human environment. 

Through its deliberations, the Panel determined that the proposed categorical 

exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that inherently do not have an 

individual or cumulative significant impact on the environment. 

 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

U.S. COAST GUARD 

Reference: Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 141, Tuesday July 23, 2002, 

page 48243 
60 

(p) Determination by the Coast Guard that Coast Guard controlled 

personal property, including vessels and aircraft, is "excess 

property," as that term is defined in the Federal Property and 

Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 472(e)), and any 

subsequent transfer of such property to another Federal agency's 

administrative control or conveyance of the United States' title in 

such property to a non-Federal entity. (Checklist and CED required.)

 

FAA 

Reference: FAA Order 5050.4A Chapter 3, Section 23 

(a) (3) Installation of miscellaneous items including segmented 

circles, wind or landing direction indicators or measuring devices, or 

fencing. 

(a) (7) Landscaping generally, and landscaping or construction of 

physical barriers to diminish impact of airport blast and noise. 

(b) (2) Acquisition of: security equipment required by rule or 

regulation for the safety or security of personnel and property on the 

airport (14 CFR Part 107), safety equipment required by rule or 

regulation for certification of an airport (14 CFR Part 139) or snow 

removal equipment. 

 

Reference: FAA Order 1050.1E 

Equipment and Instrumentation Actions 

9. Acquisition of security equipment required by rule or regulation for 

the safety or security of personnel and property on the airport or 

launch facility (14 CFR part 107, Airport Security), safety equipment 

required by rule or regulation for certification of an airport (14 CFR 

part 139, Certification and Operation: Land Airports Serving Certain 

Air Carriers) or licensing of a launch facility, or snow removal 

equipment. (APP, AST) 

Equipment and Instrumentation Actions (end) Note: Categorically 

excluded actions proposed under this notice and public procedure are 

depicted in italics.

 

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

Reference: PBS NEPA Deskguide, October 1999 

5.3 AUTOMATIC categorical exclusions 

The following are automatic categorical exclusions and require no 

checklist: 

 (k) Other repair and alteration projects where: 

No toxic or hazardous substances are involved with the project or exist 

in or on the property where the project takes place; 

No properties listed on or eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places are involved; 

The building footprint or envelope will not be increased; 

There is no evidence of community controversy; and 

There is no evidence of other unresolved environmental issues. 

(m) Repair to or replacement in kind of equipment or components in GSA 

controlled facilities without change in location, e.g. HVAC, electrical 

distribution systems, windows, doors or roof where there is no evidence 

of unresolved environmental issues. 
61 

 

AIR FORCE 

Reference: 32CFR989 Appendix B 

A2.3.8. Performing interior and exterior construction within the 5-

foot line of a building without changing the land use of the existing 

building. 

A2.3.9. Repairing and replacing real property installed equipment. 

A2.3.10. Routine facility maintenance and repair that does not involve 

disturbing significant quantities of hazardous materials such as 

asbestos.

 

DOE 

Reference: 10CFR1021 Subpart D Appendix B 

B1.11 Installation of fencing, including that for border marking, that 

will not adversely affect wildlife movements or surface water flow.

 

NAVY 

Reference: 32CFR775.6 

(8) Routine actions normally conducted to operate, protect, and 

maintain Navy-owned and/or controlled properties, e.g., maintaining law 

and order, physical plant protection by military police and security 

personnel, and localized pest management activities on improved and 

semi-improved lands conducted in accordance with applicable federal and 

state directives.

B10 Identifications, inspections, surveys, or sampling, testing, seizures, quarantines, 

removals, sanitization, and monitoring of imported products that cause little or no physical 

alteration of the environment. This CATEX would primarily encompass a variety of daily 

activities performed at the borders and ports of entry by various elements of the Customs 

and Border Protection and Transportation Security Administration. 

 

This categorical exclusion was originally published for notice and comment as 

categorical exclusion B11. It has been renumbered categorical exclusion B10 

because the categorical exclusion that was published for notice and comment 

as categorical exclusion B10 was deleted. The former B10 was determined to 

(1) include only ongoing aircraft operations for which NEPA had likely 

already been completed, and (2) not involve a decision for which NEPA could 

inform. Accordingly, the Department deleted the categorical exclusion 

formerly published as B10. The only change between this categorical 

exclusion B10 and the formerly published categorical exclusion B11 is the 

deletion of the word “and” inadvertently placed in the originally published 

text. 

The Panel realized that the activities contemplated by this categorical 

exclusion represent a mix of functional activities that, depending on a 

specific action at a specific point in time, could be entirely for law 

enforcement purposes that would be otherwise excluded from NEPA. 

Nevertheless, many of these actions occur on a daily basis at various ports 
62 

of entry as a part of routine monitoring of imports for homeland security 

purposes. The Panel considered that this categorical exclusion contemplated 

activities that were independent of law enforcement actions otherwise 

excluded from NEPA. 

 

The Panel recognized that certain components within Department, the U.S. 

Coast Guard, the Customs and Border Protection, and the Transportation 

Security Administration, primarily performed these types of activities. 

These activities always occur at facilities with properly trained staff and 

the necessary equipment to perform these activities. For example, the 

Transportation Security Administration regularly inspects luggage and cargo 

coming into airports from international flights, while the U.S. Border Patrol 

inspects vehicles entering the country from Mexico or Canada at established 

entry points. The Panel concurred that these types of activities have been 

performed for many years on land and in the maritime environment with no 

significant harm to the human environment. 

 

It is also important to note that many of these activities achieve a 

significant environmental protection purpose. For example, Customs and 

Border Protection activities prevent the importation of non-indigenous 

species that could cause significant ecological and agricultural damage in 

this country. Likewise, these activities in Customs and Border Protection 

intercept illegal trafficking in antiquities. 

 

In addition, activities defined by this categorical exclusion are supported 

by long-standing categorical exclusion and administrative records brought to 

Department by its components. 

 

Through its deliberations, the Panel determined that the proposed categorical 

exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that inherently do not have an 

individual or cumulative significant impact on the environment. 

 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

APHIS 

Reference: 7CFR372.5 (c) 

 (c) (1) Routine measures. (i) Routine measures, such as 

identifications, inspections, surveys, sampling that does not cause 

physical alteration of the environment, testing, seizures, quarantines, 

removals, sanitizing, inoculations, control, and monitoring employed by 

agency programs to pursue their missions and functions. Such measures 

may include the use--according to any label instructions or other 

lawful requirements and consistent with standard, published program 

practices and precautions--of chemicals, pesticides, or other 

potentially hazardous or harmful substances, materials, and targetspecific devices or remedies, provided that such use meets all of the 

following criteria (insofar as they may pertain to a particular 

action): (A) The use is localized or contained in areas where humans 

are not likely to be exposed, and is limited in terms of quantity, 

i.e., individualized dosages and remedies; (B) The use will not cause 
63 

contaminants to enter water bodies, including wetlands; (C) The use 

does not adversely affect any federally protected species or critical 

habitat; and (D) The use does not cause bioaccumulation. (ii) Examples 

of routine measures include: (A) Inoculation or treatment of discrete 

herds of livestock or wildlife undertaken in contained areas (such as a 

barn or corral, a zoo, an exhibition, or an aviary) 

 

CBP 

Reference: Programmatic Environmental Assessment for GAMMA Imaging 

Inspection Systems ,March 2004, resulting in a FONSI 

 The U.S.Customs and Border Protection (CBP), analyzed a new method of 

conducting inspections that involves the use of Non-Intrusive 

Inspection (NII) equipment based on technologies such as low-energy Xray or low-energy gamma radiation sources to “see” into cargo 

containers and identify potential contraband. The Applied Technology 

Division (ATD) of CBP has examined gamma-imaging technologies for their 

suitability as parts of CBP’s inspection program. 

The Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) documents a top-level 

evaluation of the potential environmental consequences resulting from 

deploying, installing, and operating of gamma imaging systems to 

inspect cargoes at air, sea and land ports of entry (POEs) throughout 

the U.S. and Puerto Rico. 

Analysis: After considering all relevant factors and issues, the PEA 

concludes that Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) equipment would not 

significantly affect the physical, cultural, and socioeconomic 

environments. However this PEA mentioned that site-specific analyses 

will be performed for each location in the U.S. or Puerto Rico, where 

CBP installs VACIS II, Mobile VACIS, Pallet VACIS and/or Rail VACIS. 

Each site-specific analysis will be reported in a Supplemental 

Environmental Document, which will tier off of this PEA in accordance 

with 40 CFR Part 1508.28. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Pulsed Fast Neutron 

Analysis Cargo Inspection System Test Facility at Ysleta Port of Entry 

Commercial Cargo Facility, El Paso, Texas, 2003, resulting in a FONSI 

This EA analyzed an extended real-life trial of Pulsed Fast Neutron 

Analysis (PFNA) system, a radiation-based method of Non-Intrusive 

Inspection Technology that allows CBP to examine cargoes without having 

to physically unload the cargo containers. Based on a review of 

candidate locations having a high volume of incoming commercial 

traffic, the Ysleta Commercial Cargo Facility in El Paso, Texas was 

identified as the best test site. Under the proposed action, the 

government will construct a test facility (approximately 9 months) and 

operate it with the commercial stream-of-commerce (for a maximum period 

of 6 months). 

Analysis: The EA analyzed the many potential environmental consequences 

and determined that all impacts would be negligible or minor. With the 

exception of radiation, the effects and consequences of the proposed 

action are not unlike constructing and operating a drive-through 

tollbooth plaza. With regard to radiation and air quality, a very 

small amount (a fraction of 1 percent of EPA’s allowable threshold) is 
64 

released to the atmosphere. A small amount of solid radioactive waste 

will be disposed of using licensed contractors who typically handle 

hospital waste. Analyses have shown that the system is safe to 

operators, cargo and the general public. A stowaway in the cargo 

vehicle will be subjected to a maximum radiation dose the same as OSHA 

allows for general public over the course of a year. Weapons of mass 

destruction will not be initiated by the system. Analysis of possible 

accidents shows that worst-case radiation doses are below acceptable 

standards. The EA concluded that this trial would not significantly 

affect the physical, cultural, and socioeconomic environments. 

 

Reference: Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Gamma Imaging 

Inspection Systems, Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs 

and Border Protection, Applied Technology Division, March 12, 2004, 

resulting in a FONSI 

Customs and Border Protection wrote this PEA to analyze the use of NonIntrusive Inspection (NII) equipment based on technologies such as lowenergy X-ray or low-energy gamma radiation sources to “see” into cargo 

containers and identify potential contraband. The PEA evaluated 

potential environmental consequences resulting from deploying, 

installing, and operating the four different configurations of gamma 

imaging systems [known as the Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System 

(VACIS)] to inspect cargoes at air, sea and land ports of entry (POEs) 

throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico. 

Analysis: The PEA analyzed the likely environmental consequences, 

including the radiological consequences, and concluded that VACIS is 

not expected to significantly affect the physical, cultural, and 

socioeconomic environments. 

B11 Routine monitoring and surveillance activities that support law enforcement or 

homeland security and defense operations, such as patrols, investigations, and intelligence 

gathering, but not including any construction activities (construction activities are 

addressed in Subsection F of these CATEX). This CATEX would primarily encompass a 

variety of daily activities performed by the components of U.S. Coast Guard, Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, Transportation Security 

Administration, and the U.S. Secret Service.

This categorical exclusion was originally published for notice and comment as 

categorical exclusion B12. It has been renumbered as B11 because the 

categorical exclusion that was published for notice and comment as 

categorical exclusion B10 was deleted and the Department renamed the 

categorical exclusions formerly published as B11 and B12 with the names B10 

and B11 respectively. 

The only change between this categorical exclusion B11 and the formerly 

published categorical exclusion B11 is the deletion of the phrase, “...except 

those set forth in subsection F of these categorical exclusions...” and 
65 

replacing it with the clarifying parenthetical phrase, “...(construction 

activities are addressed in subsection F of these categorical exclusions)...” 

The types of routine monitoring and surveillance activities contemplated by 

this categorical exclusion must otherwise comply with all requirements to 

protect privacy and the rights of U.S. citizens. The Panel did not 

anticipate that this categorical exclusion would somehow exempt these 

activities from compliance with other laws and requirements. 

 

For example, the Department monitors Internet to gather information to help 

locate and capture persons suspected of terrorist activities or trafficking 

in child pornography. The monitoring of vessel traffic into and out of major 

U.S. seaports helps ensure safe passage for these vessels. The Panel did not 

contemplate that this categorical exclusion would encompass construction 

activities other than those otherwise addressed with categorical exclusions 

in subsection F. 

 

The Panel further considered that this categorical exclusion contemplated 

activities that were independent of emergency civil and criminal law 

enforcement actions otherwise excluded from NEPA. The Panel recognized 

various components within the Department, such as the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. 

Secret Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Customs and 

Border Protection may perform these routine monitoring and surveillance 

activities. 

 

The Panel specifically limited the categorical exclusion to activities that 

would not include construction. These limitations were applied to ensure 

that there would be no potential for significant environmental impacts 

contemplated by the application of this categorical exclusion. 

 

The types of routine monitoring and surveillance activities contemplated by 

this categorical exclusion are those that would normally occur from formally 

established or publicly accessible locations. Categorical exclusion B11 

(formerly B12) was the subject of comments regarding the impact of routine 

monitoring patrols. Specifically, the comment indicated concern that routine 

monitoring patrols can have an impact on the environment depending on the 

intensity and number of persons involved in the patrols. The comment further 

justified this concern by stating that this concern is particularly important 

in the case of patrols occurring in sensitive areas such as wilderness areas 

that may be habitat to endangered species. 

The Department considered the concerns associated with this comment and noted 

that illegal entrants, smugglers, and potential terrorists do not recognize 

or provide for the maintenance or preservation of the national assets in 

protected wilderness, national wildlife refuges, national forests, national 

monuments, marine sanctuaries, or critical habitat for marine mammals or 

endangered species. The patrols contemplated by this categorical exclusion 

would only be those not involving extraordinary circumstances, and could 

serve as a deterrent to these individuals and lessen their intrusions in 

critical wildlife areas. 
66 

In addition, Section 3.2 in Appendix A of the directive contains a list of 

conditions and extraordinary circumstances that must be satisfied in the 

application of this categorical exclusion to a specific program or activity 

within the Department. These conditions and extraordinary circumstances were 

developed in recognition that, while the vast majority of Department 

activities in this category do not have potential for significant impacts to 

the environment, activity proponents within DHS need to be alert for rare and 

unique conditions that may require more extensive evaluation of the potential 

for environmental impacts under NEPA. This evaluation would include not only 

the immediate effect of the Department’s decision, but also the potential 

environmental effects that may indirectly result from implementing the 

decision and the cumulative effects of the decision on the quality of the 

human environment. 

 

In addition, activities defined by this categorical exclusion are supported 

by long-standing categorical exclusion and administrative records brought to 

Department by its components. 

 

The Panel also noted that other Federal agencies have categorical exclusion 

for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that they 

demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by Department. 

In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, with very few 

limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the environment. The 

Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of other Federal 

agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in Department were no 

different than those performed by other Federal agencies in general, as well 

as specifically related to the environment. 

 

Through its deliberations, the Panel determined that the proposed categorical 

exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that inherently do not have an 

individual or cumulative significant impact on the environment. 

 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

USDA-ARS APHIS 

Reference: 7CFR1b.3 (a) 

 (a) (5) Civil and criminal law enforcement and investigative 

activities 

 

FEMA 

Reference: 44CFR10.8 (d) (2) 

(iv)Inspection and monitoring activities, granting of variances, and 

actions to enforce Federal, state, or local codes, standards or 

regulations

 

USBP 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Airboat Patrols on the Rio 

Grande River, Del Rio Sector, Texas, June 2001, resulting in a FONSI 

signed in June 2001 
67 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential effects, 

beneficial and adverse, of the proposed increase of U.S. Border Patrol 

(USBP) airboat patrols on the Rio Grande River within the Del Rio 

Sector, Texas. The purpose for the increased patrols on the river is 

to deter illegal crossings at their point of origin. Such patrols would 

also serve the purpose of avoiding unnecessary drowning deaths by 

deterring the illegal activity and/or providing rescue of illegal 

aliens, 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the proposed action. Increased or 

enhanced interdiction of illegal and drug entry and activities would 

have positive, indirect socioeconomic benefits.

 

ARMY 

Reference: 32CFR 651 Appendix B Section II 

(b)(1) Routine law and order activities performed by military/military 

police and physical plant protection and security personnel, and 

civilian natural resources and environmental law officers.

REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 

C1 Acquisition of an interest in real property that is not within or adjacent to 

environmentally sensitive areas, including interests less than a fee simple, by purchase, 

lease, assignment, easement, condemnation, or donation, which does not result in a change 

in the functional use of the property. 

The Panel found that the activity of real property acquisition through 

purchase, lease, assignment, easement, condemnation, or donation contemplated 

under this categorical exclusion are often performed by components with real 

property management responsibilities. The Panel also found that real 

property acquisitions may involve either continued use of a property for its 

existing purposes or changed use of the property. Since changing the 

functional use of a property could involve numerous considerations, the Panel 

limited the scope of acquisitions of real property to those that would not 

change the functional use of the property. Furthermore, the Panel limited 

the scope of the potential acquisition activities to avoid real property that 

is within or adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas to ensure that the 

subsequent use of the property by the Department would avoid potential to 

cause harm to the human environment. As a result of those limitations, the 

Panel determined that this categorical exclusion contemplated activities that 

would inherently have no potential for significant impacts to the human 

environment. 

 

In addition, this categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing 

categorical exclusion’s and administrative records brought to Department by 

its components that themselves would have only been developed through a 

process consistent with NEPA regulatory requirements. In particular, the 

Panel identified the categorical exclusions of the U.S. Coast Guard, the 

manager of the largest number of real properties in Department. Further, the 
68 

Panel found that actions of a similar nature, scope, and intensity were 

performed throughout Department without significant environmental impacts. 

 

The Panel of interdisciplinary experts also noted that numerous other Federal 

agencies have categorical exclusion for similar activities that are 

sufficiently descriptive such that they demonstrated to the Panel that those 

activities were similar in nature, scope, and impact on the human environment 

to those performed by Department. In addition, the Panel recognized that all 

Federal agencies, with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements 

to protect the environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or 

on behalf of other Federal agencies, that the characteristics of the 

activities in Department were no different than those performed by other 

Federal agencies in general, as well as specifically related to the 

environment. 

 

Accordingly, through its deliberations, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently did not have individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

human environment. 

 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

FEMA 

Reference: 44CFR10.8 (d) (2) 

(viii) Acquisition or lease of existing facilities where planned uses 

conform to past use or local land use requirements; 

 

FLETC 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Acquisition of a Warehouse 

Facility in Brunswick, Georgia, resulting in a FONSI 

This FLETC project analyzed the purchase of a warehouse facility that 

had been leased by FLETC since March 2000. FLETC had already installed 

a concrete barricade gate system for security. The 51,000 square foot 

building was constructed in 1986. 

Analysis: It was determined that the proposed acquisition of the 

warehouse facility does not constitute a “major federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” when 

considered individually or cumulatively in the context of NEPA, 

including both direct and indirect impacts. 

 

USCG 

Reference: COMDTINST M16475.1D Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical 

exclusions 

2. Real and Personal Property Related Actions b. The grant of a 

license to a non-Federal party to perform specified acts upon Coast 

Guard-controlled real property or the amendment, renewal, or 

termination of such license where the proposed real property use is 

similar to existing uses. (Checklist and CED required.) c. Allowing 

another Federal agency to use Coast Guard-controlled real property 

under a permit, use agreement, or similar arrangement or the amendment, 
69 

renewal, or termination of such permit or agreement where the real 

property use is similar to existing uses. (Checklist and CED 

required.) e. Acquisition of real property (including fee simple 

estates, leaseholds, and easements) improved or unimproved, and related 

personal property from a non-Federal party by purchase, lease, 

donation, or exchange where the proposed real property use is similar 

to existing uses for the foreseeable future (acquisition through 

condemnation not covered). (Checklist and CED required.) g. Coast 

Guard use of real property under the administrative control of another 

DOT component or another Federal agency through a permit, use 

agreement, or similar arrangement where the proposed real property use 

is similar to existing uses. (Checklist and CED required.) 

 

USBP 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Construction of 

the U.S. Border Patrol Station in Laredo, Webb County, Texas, May 1998, 

resulting in a FONSI, signed in May 1998. 

This Environmental Assessment was prepared for the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) proposed land purchase, construction of a 

U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) station, and relocation of agents to the new 

facility that is located on an approximately 10-acre tract at the 

southeast corner of Grand Central Boulevard and the McPherson Road 

extension in Laredo, Webb County, Texas. 

The INS proposed to purchase an approximately 10-acre tract of land 

from a private landowner in order to construct a USBP station at the 

southeast corner of Grand Central Boulevard and the McPherson Boulevard 

extension in Laredo, Webb County, Texas. The USBP agents stationed at 

the currently leased Laredo North Station would relocate to the new 

facility when construction is complete. The new station would consist 

of the following structures or components: a single- story building 

(30,500 square feet [with a detention area (2,500 sf)]; three 

aboveground storage tanks (two 10,000-gallon gasoline tanks and one 

12,000-gallon diesel tank); a 2,500-sf drive/parking area; a dog kennel 

for 26 dogs; and a radio tower. 

Analysis: The proposed action is not anticipated to have any 

significant adverse impacts to soils, water, biological resources, or 

cultural resources. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated to 

land use, socioeconomics, hazardous materials and waste, air quality, 

or noise. In addition, the proposed action is not anticipated to have 

any long-term adverse impacts to the environment. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Construction of 

the U.S. Border Patrol Station in Sanderson, Terrell County, Texas, 

February 12, 2001, resulting in a FONSI signed in February 2001. 

This EA addresses the potential impacts of the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) proposed property purchase, construction 

of a U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) station, and relocation of agents from 

an existing facility to the new facility. The proposed facility would 

be located on an approximately 33-acre tract north of U.S. Highway 90 

and west of Highland Plaza Ave. in Sanderson, Terrell County, Texas. 
70 

The purpose is to construct a new facility to accommodate an increased 

number of agents who will be assigned to the Marfa Sector, Sanderson 

Station. The current Sanderson Station can accommodate up to five 

personnel, but has inadequate ancillary facilities which cannot be 

expanded. A new station would allow for increased staff, as well as 

more efficient and effective operations in a modem facility that can 

best support the USBP mission. The new station would consist of the 

following structures or components: a single-story building (14,000 

square feet); one aboveground gasoline storage tank; a 39,858 sf 

drive/parking area; a dog kennel; and a radio tower. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

environment.

 

C2 Lease extensions, renewals, or succeeding leases where there is no change in the 

facility's use and all environmental operating permits have been acquired and are current. 

The Panel found that the activities of lease extensions, renewals, or 

succeeding leases are often performed by components with real property 

management responsibilities (nearly the whole of the Department). The Panel 

also found that these leasing activities may involve either continued use of 

a property for its existing purposes or changed use of the property. Since 

changing the functional use of a property could involve numerous 

considerations, the Panel limited the scope of these leasing activities 

contemplated for Department purposes to those that would not change the 

functional use of the property. Furthermore, the Panel limited the scope of 

the potential leasing activities to include only those where all 

environmental operating permits have been acquired and are current to ensure 

that the subsequent Department use of the property would avoid any potential 

to cause harm to the human environment. As a result of these limitations, 

the Panel determined that this categorical exclusion contemplated activities 

that would inherently have no potential for significant impacts to the human 

environment. 

 

In addition, this categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing 

categorical exclusions and administrative records brought to the Department 

by its components that themselves would have only been developed through a 

process consistent with NEPA regulatory requirements. In particular, the 

Panel identified the categorical exclusions of the U.S. Coast Guard, the 

manager of the largest number of real properties in the Department. Further, 

the Panel found that actions of a similar nature, scope, and intensity were 

performed throughout Department without significant environmental impacts. 

 

The Panel also noted that numerous other Federal agencies have categorical 

exclusion for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that 

they demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by the 

Department. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, 

with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of 
71 

other Federal agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in 

Department were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies 

in general, as well as specifically related to the environment. 

 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently did not have individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

human environment. 

 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

FEMA 

Reference: 44CFR10.8 (d) (2) 

(viii) Acquisition or lease of existing facilities where planned uses 

conform to past use or local land use requirements;

USCG 

Reference: COMDTINST M16475.1D Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical 

exclusions 

2. Real and Personal Property Related Actions b. The grant of a 

license to a non-Federal party to perform specified acts upon Coast 

Guard-controlled real property or the amendment, renewal, or 

termination of such license where the proposed real property use is 

similar to existing uses. (Checklist and CED required.) c. Allowing 

another Federal agency to use Coast Guard-controlled real property 

under a permit, use agreement, or similar arrangement or the amendment, 

renewal, or termination of such permit or agreement where the real 

property use is similar to existing uses. (Checklist and CED 

required.) e. Acquisition of real property (including fee simple 

estates, leaseholds, and easements) improved or unimproved, and related 

personal property from a non-Federal party by purchase, lease, 

donation, or exchange where the proposed real property use is similar 

to existing uses for the foreseeable future (acquisition through 

condemnation not covered). (Checklist and CED required.) g. Coast 

Guard use of real property under the administrative control of another 

DOT component or another Federal agency through a permit, use 

agreement, or similar arrangement where the proposed real property use 

is similar to existing uses. (Checklist and CED required.) 

 

USBP 

Environmental Assessment for the Expansion of U.S. Border Patrol Air 

Operations and Facilities, U.S. Border Patrol Tucson Sector, Arizona, 

April 2003, resulting in a FONSI signed in April 2003 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared to analyze the 

potential for significant environmental impacts associated with the 

proposed expansion of United States Border Patrol (USBP) air operations 

and facilities in Southeastern Arizona. 

The USBP proposes to expand air operation origination out of Sierra 

Vista, Arizona. The only airport capable of supporting increased USBP 

air operations in the area is the Joint Use Libby Army Airfield/Sierra 
72 

Vista Municipal Airport (LAAF/SVMA) The USBP could lease or build new 

facilities at LAAF or SVMA. These additional facilities would include 

an aircraft hangar, office space, and enough parking for twenty 

vehicles. 

As many as fifteen full-time USBP personnel could be assigned to the 

expanded facility. Of these fifteen positions, seven are already 

stationed at LAAF. As many as 16 aircraft could be stationed at the new 

facility. Of these sixteen aircraft (fifteen rotary-wing and one fixedwing) six aircraft (four rotary-wing and two fixed-wing) are already 

based at LAAF. As a result, there could be an estimated 150% increase 

in USBP air operations at LAAF/SVMA. Additional maintenance activities 

in the new hangar would be required to support the new aircraft. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

ARMY 

Reference: 32CFR Part 651 Appendix B. Section II 

(f)(1) Grants or acquisitions of leases, licenses, easements, and 

permits for use of real property or facilities in which there is no 

significant change in land or facility use. Examples include, but are 

not limited to, Army controlled property and Army leases of civilian 

property to include leases of training, administrative, general use, 

special purpose, or warehouse space (REC required). 

 

Reference: 33CFR Part 230.9 Categorical exclusions 

(l) Renewal and minor amendments of existing real estate grants 

evidencing authority to use Government owned real property.

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Bureau of Land Management 

Reference: Departmental Manual 516 

5.4 Categorical exclusions 

E. Realty (9) Renewals and assignments of leases, permits or rights-ofway where no additional rights are conveyed beyond those granted by the 

original authorizations. 

C3 Reassignment of real property, including related personal property within the 

Department (e.g., from one Departmental element to another) that does not result in a 

change in the functional use of the property. 

The Panel noted that the activity of reassigning property management 

responsibilities, where the functional use of a property would not change, 

would be a strictly administrative function. Since the Department is new, , 

it is difficult to predict where and when these types of actions may occur or 

their frequency. Nevertheless, the Panel recognized that as the Department 

matures and organizes to more effectively perform its missions, reassignments 

of real property management responsibilities will necessarily occur to 

complement realigned mission responsibilities. 
73 

 

This categorical exclusion only contemplates real property reassignments that 

do not change the functional use of a property. The Panel included this 

limitation to reflect its determination that this categorical exclusion would 

not be appropriate for planning of new mission requirements that could 

require property modifications. With this limitation, the reassignment would 

not, in any way, alter the property management requirements or the 

environmental protection requirements that the functional use of the property 

would otherwise have to meet. As a result of these limitations, the Panel 

determined that this categorical exclusion contemplated activities that would 

inherently have no potential for significant impacts to the human 

environment. 

 

In addition, this categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing 

categorical exclusion’s and administrative records brought to the Department 

by its components that themselves would have only been developed through a 

process consistent with NEPA regulatory requirements. In particular, the 

Panel identified the categorical exclusions of the U.S. Coast Guard, the 

manager of the largest number of real properties in the Department. Further, 

the Panel found that actions of a similar nature, scope, and intensity were 

performed throughout the Department without significant environmental 

impacts. 

 

The Panel also noted that other Federal agencies have categorical exclusions 

for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that they 

demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by the 

Department. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, 

with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of 

other Federal agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in 

Department were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies 

in general, as well as specifically related to the environment. 

 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently did not have individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

human environment. 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

USCG 

Reference: COMDTINST M16475.1D Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical 

Exclusions 

2. Real and Personal Property Related Actions 

a. The initial lease of, or grant of, an easement interest in, Coast 

Guard-controlled real property to a non-Federal party or the amendment, 

renewal, or termination of such lease or easement interest where the 

reasonably foreseeable real property use will not change significantly 
74 

and is similar to existing uses. (Checklist and CED required f. 

Acquisition of real property and related personal property through 

transfer of administrative control from another Department of 

Transportation (DOT) component or another Federal agency to the Coast 

Guard where title to the property remains with the United States 

including transfers made pursuant to the defense Base Closure and 

Realignment Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-510, as amended, (10 U.S.C. 2687 

note) and where the proposed Coast Guard real property uses is similar 

to existing uses. (Checklist and CED required.) j. Transfer of 

administrative control over real property from the Coast Guard to 

another Department of Transportation (DOT) component or another Federal 

agency (title to the property remains with the United States) that 

results in no immediate change in use of the property k. Determination 

by the Coast Guard that real property is excess to its needs, pursuant 

to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 

U.S.C. 471 et seq.), and the subsequent reporting of such determination 

to the Administrator of the General Services Administration or the 

subsequent filing of a notice of intent to relinquish lands withdrawn 

or reserved from the public domain with the Bureau of Land Management, 

Department of Interior, in accordance with 43 CFR part 2370. 

(Checklist and CED required.) . l. Congressionally mandated 

conveyance of Coast Guard controlled real property to another Federal 

agency or non-Federal entity. (Checklist and CED required.) n. 

Decisions to temporarily or permanently decommission, disestablish, or 

close Coast Guard shore facilities including any follow-on connected 

protection and maintenance needed to maintain the property until it is 

no longer under Coast Guard control. (Checklist and CED required.) p. 

Determination by the Coast Guard that Coast Guard controlled personal 

property, including vessels and aircraft, is “excess property”, as that 

term is defined in the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act 

of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 472(e)), and any subsequent transfer of such 

property or another Federal agency’s administrative control or 

conveyance of the United States’ title in such property to a nonFederal entity. (Checklist and CED required.) 

 

FEMA 

Reference: 44CFR10.8 (d) (2) 

(viii) Acquisition or lease of existing facilities where planned uses 

conform to past use or local land use requirements;

 

ARMY 

Reference: 32CFR651 Appendix B. Section II 

(f)(3) Transfer of real property administrative control within the 

Army, to another military department, or to other federal agency, 

including the return of public domain lands to the Department of 

Interior, and reporting of property as excess and surplus to the GSA 

for disposal (REC required). 

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Reference: Departmental Manual 516 Part 10 

10.5 Categorical exclusions. 
75 

I. Land Conveyance and Other Transfers. Approvals or 

grants of conveyances and other transfers of interests in land where no 

change in land use is planned.

C4 Transfer of administrative control over real property, including related personal 

property, between another federal agency and the Department that does not result in a 

change in the functional use of the property. 

The Panel noted that the activity of transferring administrative control of 

real property between the Department and another Federal agency, where the 

functional use of a property would not change, would be a strictly 

administrative function. 

 

This categorical exclusion only contemplates real property transfers within 

the Federal government that do not change the functional use of a property. 

The Panel limited the scope of this categorical exclusion to real property 

transfers that would not result in a change in the functional use of the 

property to reflect its determination that this categorical exclusion would 

not be appropriate for planning of new mission requirements that could 

require property modifications. In addition, the Panel recognized that all 

Federal agencies, with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements 

to protect the environment. With these limitations, the Panel determined 

that the reassignment would not, in any way, alter the property management 

requirements or the environmental protection requirements that the functional 

use of the property would otherwise have to meet. As a result of these 

limitations, the Panel determined that this categorical exclusion 

contemplated activities that would inherently have no potential for 

significant impacts to the human environment. 

 

In addition, this categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing 

categorical exclusions and administrative records brought to the Department 

by its components that themselves would have only been developed through a 

process consistent with NEPA regulatory requirements. In particular, the 

Panel identified the categorical exclusions of the U.S. Coast Guard, the 

manager of the largest number of real properties in the Department. Further, 

the Panel found that actions of a similar nature, scope, and intensity were 

performed throughout the Department without significant environmental 

impacts. 

 

The Panel also noted that other Federal agencies have categorical exclusion 

for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that they 

demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by the 

Department. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, 

with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of 

other Federal agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in 

Department were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies 

in general, as well as specifically related to the environment. 
76 

 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently did not have individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

human environment. 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

USCG

Reference: COMDTINST M16475.1D Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical 

Exclusions 

2. Real and Personal Property Related Actions 

a. The initial lease of, or grant of, an easement interest in, Coast 

Guard-controlled real property to a non-Federal party or the amendment, 

renewal, or termination of such lease or easement interest where the 

reasonably foreseeable real property use will not change significantly 

and is similar to existing uses. (Checklist and CED required f. 

Acquisition of real property and related personal property through 

transfer of administrative control from another Department of 

Transportation (DOT) component or another Federal agency to the Coast 

Guard where title to the property remains with the United States 

including transfers made pursuant to the defense Base Closure and 

Realignment Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-510, as amended, (10 U.S.C. 2687 

note) and where the proposed Coast Guard real property uses is similar 

to existing uses. (Checklist and CED required.) j. Transfer of 

administrative control over real property from the Coast Guard to 

another Department of Transportation (DOT) component or another Federal 

agency (title to the property remains with the United States) that 

results in no immediate change in use of the property k. Determination 

by the Coast Guard that real property is excess to its needs, pursuant 

to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 

U.S.C. 471 et seq.), and the subsequent reporting of such determination 

to the Administrator of the General Services Administration or the 

subsequent filing of a notice of intent to relinquish lands withdrawn 

or reserved from the public domain with the Bureau of Land Management, 

Department of Interior, in accordance with 43 CFR part 2370. 

(Checklist and CED required.) . l. Congressionally mandated 

conveyance of Coast Guard controlled real property to another Federal 

agency or non-Federal entity. (Checklist and CED required.) n. 

Decisions to temporarily or permanently decommission, disestablish, or 

close Coast Guard shore facilities including any follow-on connected 

protection and maintenance needed to maintain the property until it is 

no longer under Coast Guard control. (Checklist and CED required.) p. 

Determination by the Coast Guard that Coast Guard controlled personal 

property, including vessels and aircraft, is “excess property”, as that 

term is defined in the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act 

of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 472(e)), and any subsequent transfer of such 

property of another Federal agency’s administrative control or 

conveyance of the United States’ title in such property to a nonFederal entity. (Checklist and CED required.) 
77 

 

FEMA 

Reference: 44CFR10.8 (d) (2) 

(viii) Acquisition or lease of existing facilities where planned uses 

conform to past use or local land use requirements;

 

FLETC 

Reference: Environmental Assessment, U.S. Customs Service Firearms 

Training Facility, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, July 2002, resulting 

in a FONSI 

This Environmental Assessment analyzed the proposed construction of a 

Firearms Training Facility on an approximately 104-acre site within 

Jefferson County, West Virginia. Construction of the Harpers Ferry 

Training Facility, under this alternative would utilize 60-acres 

transferred to the U.S. Customs Service from the National Park Service, 

along with administrative jurisdiction, as required by PL 106-246 and 

the “Agreement to Transfer Administrative Jurisdiction of Land” and a 

45-foot right- of-way. A 7-acre privately-owned parcel and a 37-acre 

privately-owned parcel would need to be acquired for implementation of 

this alternative. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the proposed actions. 

 

ARMY 

Reference: 32CFR651 Appendix B. Section II 

(f)(3) Transfer of real property administrative control within the 

Army, to another military department, or to other federal agency, 

including the return of public domain lands to the Department of 

Interior, and reporting of property as excess and surplus to the GSA 

for disposal (REC required). 

 

AIR FORCE 

Reference: 32CFR989 Appendix B 

A2.3.18. Transferring administrative control of real property within 

the Air Force or to another military department or to another Federal 

agency, not including GSA, including returning public domain lands to 

the Department of the Interior. 

BLM 

Reference: Department of the Interior Departmental Manual – Part 516 

5.4 Categorical exclusions 

E. Realty (15) Transfer of land or interest in land to or from other 

Bureaus or Federal agencies where current management will continue and 

future changes in management will be subject to the NEPA process.

C5 Determination that real property is excess to the needs of the Department and, in 

the case of acquired real property, the subsequent reporting of such determination to the 

General Services Administration or, in the case of lands withdrawn or otherwise reserved 

from the public domain, the subsequent filing of a notice of intent to relinquish with the 

Bureau of Land Management, Department of Interior. 
78 

 

The Panel noted that the activity of transferring administrative control of 

real property between the Department and another Federal agency, where the 

functional use of a property would not change, would be a strictly 

administrative function. 

 

This categorical exclusion only contemplates real property transfers within 

the Federal government that do not change the functional use of a property. 

The Panel limited the scope of this categorical exclusion to real property 

transfers that would not result in a change in the functional use of the 

property to reflect its determination that this categorical exclusion would 

not be appropriate for planning of new mission requirements that could 

require property modifications. In addition, the Panel recognized that all 

Federal agencies, with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements 

to protect the environment. With these limitations, the Panel determined 

that the reassignment would not, in any way, alter the property management 

requirements or the environmental protection requirements that the functional 

use of the property would otherwise have to meet. As a result of these 

limitations, the Panel determined that this categorical exclusion 

contemplated activities that would inherently have no potential for 

significant impacts to the human environment. 

 

In addition, this categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing 

categorical exclusion’s and administrative records brought to the Department 

by its components that themselves would have only been developed through a 

process consistent with NEPA regulatory requirements. In particular, the 

Panel identified the categorical exclusions of the U.S. Coast Guard, the 

manager of the largest number of real properties in the Department. Further, 

the Panel found that actions of a similar nature, scope, and intensity were 

performed throughout the Department without significant environmental 

impacts. 

 

The Panel also noted that other Federal agencies have categorical exclusions 

for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that they 

demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by the 

Department. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, 

with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of 

other Federal agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in 

Department were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies 

in general, as well as specifically related to the environment. 

 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently did not have individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

human environment. 

 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 
79 

USCG 

Reference: COMDTINST M16457.1D Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical 

Exclusions 

2. Real and Personal Property Related Actions 

k. Determination by the Coast Guard that real property is excess to 

its needs, pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services 

Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.), and the subsequent reporting of 

such determination to the Administrator of the General Services 

Administration or the subsequent filing of a notice of intent to 

relinquish lands withdrawn or reserved from the public domain with the 

Bureau of Land Management, Department of Interior, in accordance with 

43 CFR part 2370. (Checklist and CED required.) (Checklist and CED 

required.) 

p. Determination by the Coast Guard that Coast Guard controlled 

personal property, including vessels and aircraft, is “excess 

property”, as that term is defined in the Federal Property and 

Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 472(e)), and any 

subsequent transfer of such property to another Federal agency’s 

administrative control or conveyance of the United States’ title in 

such property to a non-Federal entity. (Checklist and CED required.) 

 

AIR FORCE 

Reference: 32CFR989 Appendix B 

A2.3.17. Transferring land, facilities, and personal property for which 

the General Services Administration (GSA) is the action agency. Such 

transfers are excluded only if there is no change in land use and GSA 

complies with its NEPA requirements. 

 

ARMY 

Reference: 33CFR230.9 Categorical exclusions 

(m) Reporting excess real property to the General Services 

Administration for disposal. 

 

USBP 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Excess or Transfer of U.S. 

Border Patrol Station Gila Bend, Arizona Immigration and Naturalization 

Service U.S. Border Patrol, February 1999, resulting in a FONSI 

This Environmental Assessment documents the potential environmental 

liabilities and impacts anticipated as a result of excessing or 

transferring the U.S. Border Patrol station at Gila Bend, Maricopa 

County, Arizona. The Border Patrol station has been vacant since the 

early 1990s and is currently serving no value to the Government. 

The proposed action would involve minimal construction/repair 

activities to remove some environmental liabilities and to bring 

buildings to occupancy standards. The site was surveyed for sensitive 

biological and cultural resources. One potential state-protected 

species was recorded at the site. Relocation of this single specimen, 

if necessary, would be required to be coordinated through the Arizona 

Department of Agriculture. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the proposed actions. Therefore, no 
80 

further analysis or documentation (Environmental Impact Statement) is 

warranted. The INS, in implementing this decision, will employ all 

practical means to minimize the potential adverse impacts on the local 

environment. 

REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 

D1 Minor renovations and additions to buildings, roads, airfields, grounds, equipment, 

and other facilities that do not result in a change in the functional use of the real property 

(e.g. realigning interior spaces of an existing building, adding a small storage shed to an 

existing building, retrofitting for energy conservation, or installing a small antenna on an 

already existing antenna tower that does not cause the total height to exceed 200 feet and 

where the FCC would not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact 

statement for the installation). 

These categories of actions were determined to have no inherent potential for 

significant environmental impacts. Further, the Panel reviewed these 

categories of actions to determine whether actions of a similar nature, 

scope, and intensity were performed throughout Department. A Panel of 

interdisciplinary experts reviewed other agencies’ CATEXs, the CATEXs that 

agencies brought to the Department and the mission of the Department as it 

relates to the environment. Through a deliberative process, the Panel 

determined that the above-enumerated CATEXs encompassed programmatic 

activities that inherently do not have an individual or cumulative 

significant impact on the environment. 

 

In addition, this categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing 

categorical exclusion’s and administrative records brought to the Department 

by its components that themselves would have only been developed through a 

process consistent with NEPA regulatory requirements. In particular, the 

Panel identified the categorical exclusions of the U.S. Coast Guard, the 

manager of the largest number of real properties in the Department, and the 

record of the U.S. Border Patrol. Further, the Panel found that actions of a 

similar nature, scope, and intensity were performed throughout the Department 

without significant environmental impacts. 

 

The Panel determined that the use of examples in this particular categorical 

exclusion would be helpful to future users in clarifying the types of 

activities envisioned by the categorical exclusion. In providing examples, 

the Panel did not intend to extend the categorical exclusion to actions 

including extraordinary circumstances that may result in the activity having 

significant environmental effects. 

 

The Panel also noted that numerous other Federal agencies have categorical 

exclusion for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that 

they demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by the 

Department. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, 

with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 
81 

environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of 

other Federal agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in 

Department were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies 

in general, as well as specifically related to the environment. 

Categorical exclusion D1 was the subject of comments regarding the term, 

“minor renovations and additions”. Specifically, the comment expressed the 

concern that activities taking place outside of a building may have impacts 

on adjacent, sensitive coastal resources. The comment expressed the desire 

that the categorical exclusion be limited to projects that are not located 

near such resources. 

The Department considered this concern and noted that Section 3.2 in Appendix 

A of the directive contains a list of conditions and extraordinary 

circumstances that must be satisfied in the application of this categorical 

exclusion to a specific program or activity within the Department. These 

conditions and extraordinary circumstances were developed in recognition 

that, while the vast majority of Department activities in this category do 

not have potential for significant impacts to the environment, activity 

proponents within the Department need to be alert for rare and unique 

conditions that may require more extensive evaluation of the potential for 

environmental impacts under NEPA. This evaluation would include not only the 

immediate effect of the Department’s decision, but also the potential 

environmental effects that may indirectly result from implementing the 

decision and the cumulative effects of the decision on the quality of the 

human environment. 

This categorical exclusion was changed from the text published for public 

comment in that the example, “...extending an existing roadway in a developed 

area a short distance...,” was deleted. This change was made to ensure that the 

Department’s activities under this categorical exclusion would not extend to 

actions where there could exist the potential to significantly impact the 

quality of the human environment. Some minor grammatical changes were also 

made. 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

APHIS 

Reference: 7CFR372.5 (c) 

7CFR372.5 (c) (4) Rehabilitation of facilities. Rehabilitation of 

existing laboratories and other APHIS facilities, functional 

replacement of parts and equipment, and minor additions to such 

existing APHIS facilities

 

FEMA 

Reference: 44CFR10.8 (d) (2) 

(x) Routine maintenance, repair, and grounds-keeping activities at FEMA 

facilities; 

(xv) Repair, reconstruction, restoration, elevation, retrofitting, 

upgrading to current codes and standards, or replacement of any 
82 

facility in a manner that substantially conforms to the preexisting 

design, function, and location; [SE, in part] 

 

FAA 

Reference: FAA Order 5050.4A Chapter 3, Section 23 

(a) (5) Construction, relocation or repair of entrance and service 

roadway. 

 

USCG 

Reference: Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical Exclusions 

2. Real and Personal Property Related Actions q. Minor renovations 

and additions to buildings, roads, airfields, grounds, equipment, and 

other facilities that do not result in a change in functional use of 

the real property (e.g. realigning interior spaces of an existing 

building, extending an existing roadway in a developed area a short 

distance, installing a small antenna on an already existing antenna 

tower, adding a small storage shed to an existing building, etc.). 

(Checklist and CED required.) u. Routine repair and maintenance of 

buildings, roads, airfields, grounds, equipment, and other facilities 

which do not result in a change in functional use, or an impact on a 

historically significant element or setting. v. Routine repair and 

maintenance to waterfront facilities, including mooring piles, fixed 

floating piers, existing piers, and unburied power cables. w. Minor 

renovations and additions to waterfront facilities, including mooring 

piles, fixed floating piers, existing piers, and unburied power cables, 

which do not require special, 

site-specific regulatory permits. (Checklist and CED required.) x. 

Routine grounds maintenance and activities at units and facilities. 

Examples include localized pest management actions and actions to 

maintain improved grounds (such as landscaping, lawn care and minor 

erosion control measures) that are conducted in accordance with 

applicable Federal, state, and local directives. 

6. Bridge Administration Actions a. Modification or replacement of 

an existing bridge on essentially the same alignment or location. 

Excluded are bridges with historic significance or bridges providing 

access to undeveloped barrier islands and beaches. 

 

AIR FORCE 

Reference: 32CFR989 Appendix B 

A2.3.8. Performing interior and exterior construction within the 5-foot 

line of a building without changing the land use of the existing 

building. 

 

USDA-ARS 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Bulk Fuel Oil Storage and 

Distribution System Project, Plum Island Animal Research Center, 

resulting in a FONSI 

The U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service 

(ARS) has proposed to provide Plum Island Animal Research Center with a 

bulk fuel oil storage and distribution system that meets or exceeds 

local, state, and federal requirements for fuel oil systems. The 
83 

proposed action involves making necessary repairs/modifications to the 

existing fuel system to meet appropriate regulations and construction 

of new fuel oil system in a new location not currently being used for 

the bulk fuel oil system. The associated impacts will be minimized by 

preventive construction techniques. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this EA, no significant 

environmental impacts would result from the proposed action. 

 

FLETC 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Expansion of the Alcohol, 

Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) Facility at the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center in Glynco, GA, resulting in a FONSI signed in May 

2001. 

This project sought to expand the existing ATF Facility from three 

office trailers up to a maximum of eight office trailers with one 

additional septic tank, and provide an additional parking area for ATF 

employees. The new trailers (approximately 1,755 square feet each) 

would be located in a wooded area adjacent to the three existing ATF 

trailers. The trailers would be used for ATF offices. 

Analysis: This EA concluded that the proposal would not significantly 

affect the environment. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for Building 2 Expansion at the 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Artesia, New Mexico, resulting 

in a FONSI signed in July 1999. 

This project examined expanding Building 2, or the Physical Training 

Building, within the FLETC compound near Artesia, New Mexico, on the 

north and west sides by approximately 15,000 square feet. 

Analysis: This EA concluded that would not significantly affect the 

physical, cultural, and socioeconomic environments. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 

Impact Construction of Building Alterations and Additions to Buildings 

95, 96, & 97 FLETC, Glynco, GA, December 2000, resulting in a FONSI 

signed in December 2002. 

This EA analyzed the proposed construction of alterations and additions 

for buildings 95, 96, and 97 at the Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center (FLETC) at Glynco, Georgia. This proposed action has been 

developed for FLETC to renovate primarily the interiors of the existing 

dormitories, i.e., Buildings 95 and 96, and associated boiler house 

(Building 97), and to construct a new Recreational/Community Building 

within the footprint of the existing buildings. The existing footprint 

of building 95 and 96 (57,480 square feet) would not change; however, 

the existing footprint (3500 square feet) for building 97 would be 

reduced by the removal of an obsolete cooling tower. 

Analysis: It was concluded that the proposed building modifications 

does not constitute a “major federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment” when considered individually or 

cumulative in the context of the referenced act including both direct 

and indirect impacts. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is 

not required. 
84 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 

Impact for Construction of Building Alterations and Additions, 

September 2000, resulting in a FONSI signed on September 19, 2000. 

This EA analyzed the impacts of the proposed construction of building 

alterations and additions for the Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center (FLETC) at Glynco, Georgia. This project proposes alterations 

and additions to 19 buildings at FLETC. The building modifications 

involve interior alteration of 15 of the 31 existing townhouse 

buildings; expansion of building 92; and interior renovation of 

buildings 90, 94, and 46. The building modifications in the proposed 

action involve primarily interior alterations and renovations. 

Analysis: It was concluded that the proposed building modifications 

does not constitute a “major federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment” when considered individually or 

cumulative in the context of the referenced act including both direct 

and indirect impacts. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is 

not required. 

 

INS 

Reference: 28CFR61 Appendix C 

10. Actions Which Normally Do Not Require Either an Environmental 

Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment: (a) Construction 

projects for existing facilities including but not limited to: 

Remodeling; replacement of building systems and components; maintenance 

and operations repairs and general improvements when such projects do 

not significantly alter the initial occupancy and program of the 

facility or significantly impact upon the environment.

 

USBP 

Reference: Preliminary Draft Abbreviated Environmental Assessment for 

Proposed Construction/Renovation of Border Checkpoint Stations near Las 

Cruces and Alamogordo, New Mexico and Comstock and El Paso, Texas, 

March 24, 1997, resulting in a FONSI 

This document assessed the construction or renovation of six border 

check points: two near Las Cruces, New Mexico; two near Alamogordo, New 

Mexico; one near El Paso, Texas; and one near Comstock, Texas. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the proposed actions. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment: JTF-6 Border Road 

Improvement Project Columbus, New Mexico, January 1999, resulting in a 

FONSI signed in January 1999 

This Final Environmental Assessment assessed the potential for 

significant adverse or beneficial environmental impacts of the proposed 

action proposed to take place in Luna and Hidalgo Counties, New Mexico 

(NM) near the city of Columbus, which is approximately sixty miles west 

of El Paso, Texas (TX) and thirty miles south of Deming, NM. The 

proposed action consists of improving seventy-five miles of soil road 

and installing single-bar (guardrail type) vehicle barriers in 

strategic locations along approximately fifty miles of the border road. 
85 

Analysis: There would be no significant adverse affects to the natural 

environment associated with the proposed projects. This EA is tiered 

from the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) completed 

for Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) activities along the U.S.-Mexico 

border (U.S. Army 1994). 

 

Reference: Environmental Impact Analysis to Support a Categorical 

exclusion for the Repair and Replacement of a Communications Tower and 

Access Road Immigration and Naturalization Service, July 1998, 

The U.S. Border Patrol proposes to repair and/or replace a 260-foot 

radio communications tower and make improvements to the existing access 

road leading to the proposed tower site east of Bayview, Texas. INS 

proposes to repair and/or replace the radio tower and make improvements 

to the existing access road leading to the tower site, which is east of 

Bayview, Texas. The proposed action would involve minimal construction 

activities due to the existing service road and concrete pad which will 

be utilized. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the proposed actions. Therefore, no 

further analysis or documentation (Environmental Assessment or Impact 

Statement) is warranted. The INS, in implementing this decision, will 

employ all practical means to minimize the potential adverse impacts on 

the local environment. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Expansion of 

the Ajo U.S. Border Patrol Station Why, AR, May 2001, resulting in a 

FONSI 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the potential for 

environmental impacts associated with expanding the U.S. Border Patrol 

(USBP) Ajo Station in Why, Pima County, Arizona. The site is located 

within Why, Pima County, Arizona, along Highway 85 approximately 28 

miles north of the Mexico border. Approximately 0.92 acres of land 

currently owned by USBP will be utilized for the station expansion. The 

proposed action (Alternative 1) expands the existing Ajo Station 

approximately 200 feet to the east. Existing conditions on the proposed 

expansion site consist of disturbed land which formerly served as a 

corral for horses used by the USBP. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Preliminary Draft Abbreviated Environmental Assessment for 

Proposed Construction/Renovation of Border Checkpoint Stations near Las 

Cruces and Alamogordo, New Mexico and Comstock and El Paso, Texas, 

March 24, 1997, resulting in a FONSI 

This project proposes to construct or renovate six border check points: 

two near Las Cruces, New Mexico; two near Alamogordo, New Mexico; one 

near El Paso, Texas; and one near Comstock, Texas. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the proposed actions. 
86 

 

Reference: Draft Environmental Assessment: Immigration and 

Naturalization Service New Palo Parado Temporary Traffic Checkpoint 

Station Nogales, Arizona, October 2000, resulting in a FONSI signed 

January 6, 2001. 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential effects, 

beneficial and adverse, of the proposed construction of a new, 

temporary checkpoint station (Palo Parado) at milepost 15.6 on 

Interstate 19 near Nogales, AZ. The project will require the placement 

of 2,454 cubic yards of fill in two locations to level the ground. One 

area will be filled and extended by twelve feet to support an 

inspection point and a second area will be leveled for parking. A third 

area near the frontage road will be graded and used for temporary 

storage of and placement of portable toilets. A fourth area may be used 

in the future placement of an administrative trailer. If this site is 

used, a platform (approximately 12 ft x 20 ft) would be constructed on 

the shoulder of the road to provide a level site for the trailer. The 

total project area is approximately one acre in size and will occur 

within the existing Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) rightof-way. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the proposed action. Increased or 

enhanced interdiction of illegal and drug entry and activities would 

have positive, indirect socioeconomic benefits. 

 

Reference: Final Report Environmental Assessment for Infrastructure 

within US Border Patrol Naco-Douglas Corridor Cochise County, Arizona 

Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington, DC, August 

2000,resulting in a FONSI signed in August 2000. 

Infrastructure improvements that will be addressed include, but are not 

limited, to roads, fences, vehicle barriers, helipads, USBP stations, 

remote video surveillance (RVS) sites, lights, and checkpoints. The 

cumulative effect of these improvement projects since 1995 and into the 

reasonably foreseeable future, and in conjunction with other programs 

or projects proposed or implemented by other agencies, is the primary 

focus of this EA. 

Analysis: The proposed action would involve minimal construction 

activities within sites that have been, for the most part, previously 

disturbed. No significant adverse effects to air quality, water 

quality, cultural resources, unique areas, soils, protected species, or 

land use are expected. Based on the findings of this analysis no 

significant adverse impacts would occur from the preferred alternative. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Expansion of the US Border 

Patrol Indio Station, El Centro Sector, CA, resulting in a FONSI signed 

in July 2003. 

The USBP at the Indio Station had an increase in staff and required an 

expansion of their facilities. They developed 2.58 acres of previously 

disturbed but now vacant property to construct a parking lot and 

install two module trailers, lighting and an 8-foot fence around the 

area. The property was not previously paved; however it contained 
87 

debris and trash and did not support any wildlife populations. 

Utilities previously existed in the area including water and sewer 

lines. 

Analysis: This EA concluded that the proposed action did not 

significantly impact the environment. This EA offers support for this 

CATEX...for “...minor renovations and additions to buildings, roads, 

airfields, grounds, equipment, and other facilities...” and it did not 

“...result in a change in the functional use of the real property...”. 

Reference: Supplemental Environmental Assessment Proposed JTF-6 Road 

Improvements near Eagle Pass and Cinco Cattle Company Ranch Maverick 

County, Texas, April 2004, resulting in a FONSI 

This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) updates the Final 

Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed Joint Task Force Six 

(JTF-6) road improvements near Eagle Pass and Cinco Cattle Company 

Ranch, Texas prepared in May 2000. The original EA addressed the 

potential for adverse or beneficial environmental impacts of 

improvements to 15.9 miles of existing primitive road and the 

construction of five water crossings near Eagle Pass and on the Cinco 

Ranch. The Cinco Ranch section consists of 11.1 miles of improvements 

to existing primitive roads and the construction of one Texas bridge 

(low-water concrete crossing) and one timber trestle bridge near the 

U.S-Mexico border west of El Indio, Texas. In addition, another 2.8-

mile section of road on Cinco Ranch was identified for possible future 

upgrade activities. The Proposed Action of this SEA consists of a 

change in the original bridge crossing design at Cuevas Creek near El 

Indio from a timber trestle bridge to a Bailey bridge. This new design 

also elevates the connecting approach roads to and from the proposed 

bridge and upgrades the surface with caliche aggregate. The Bailey 

bridge design would raise the road grade above the water surface 

elevation (50-year floodplain) in Cuevas Creek. This Bailey bridge 

design, relative to the timber trestle design, would have fewer impacts 

within the streambed. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Supplemental Environmental Assessment JTF-6 Fence and Road 

Construction, Douglas, Cochise County, Arizona, July 1997, resulting in 

a FONSI 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential for 

significant adverse or beneficial environmental impacts in accordance 

with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This 

document was tiered from existing EAs completed for previous 

construction activities (U.S. Army 199l, 1993) in the same vicinity, 

and a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement completed for Joint 

Task Force Six (JTF-6) activities along the U.S.-Mexico border (U.S. 

Army 1994). The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the 

U.S. Border Patrol, Tucson Sector are proposing to replace 

approximately six miles of fence, construct 0.5 miles of new road, and 
88 

improve 0.8 miles of road along the U.S.-Mexico border at Douglas, 

Cochise County, Arizona. Approximately .1.3 miles would be of 

decorative fence, with the remaining 4.9 miles of steel landing mat. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Whitewater Draw 

Douglas, Cochise County, Arizona Immigration and Naturalization 

Service, June 21, 2001, resulting in a FONSI 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses site-specific actual and 

potential cumulative effects, beneficial and adverse, of the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and U.S. Border Patrol 

(USBP) activity regarding improvement to the border access road and the 

construction of a water crossing structure for Whitewater Draw, 

southwest of Douglas, Cochise County, Arizona. This document 

supplements the Final EA for Infrastructure within U.S. Border Patrol 

Naco-Douglas Corridor (INS 2000). This document also addresses 

cumulative impacts of past, present, and foreseeable future 

construction and operational actions in the proposed project area. 

Other EAs consulted in developing cumulative impacts in the proposed 

project area included the Joint Task Force 6 (JTF-6) Road Maintenance 

and Construction EA (USACE 1996), the JTF-6 Fence and Road Construction 

EA (USACE l997b), the Proposed JTF-6 Light Pole Installation Mission EA 

(USACE 1998), and the JTF-6 Proposed Fence, Lighting, Road Repair and 

Improvement Project, Douglas, Cochise County, Arizona (USACE 2001). 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis and assuming that all 

mitigation measures recommended herein are implemented, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the Preferred Alternative. As 

previously stated, increased or enhanced interdiction of illegal alien 

entry and drug activities would have positive, indirect socioeconomic 

benefits. 

 

Reference: Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for Various 

Infrastructure and Road Improvements from Canyon City, California to 

the Imperial County Line San Diego County, California, November 2003, 

resulting in a FONSI signed in November 2003. 

The proposed actions consists of the construction of six night vision 

scope pads and access road construction and maintenance, 2.2 miles of 

road improvements to the SDG&E Road, an approximately 467-foot section 

of bypass road construction, and the installation of an approximately 

650- foot section of fence and vehicle barriers. These improvements are 

proposed by the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) and would take place between 

Tecate and Tierra del Sol, California. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this analysis, and assuming that 

all mitigation measures recommended herein are implemented, no 

significant adverse impacts would occur from the Proposed Action 

Alternative. 

 
89 

Reference: Final Report Environmental Assessment for Infrastructure 

within US Border Patrol Naco-Douglas Corridor Cochise County, Arizona, 

August 2000, resulting in a FONSI 

The Proposed Alternative would allow the infrastructure projects 

currently approved or funded and those anticipated to be completed over 

the next five years. Infrastructure improvements that will be addressed 

include, but are not limited, to roads, fences, vehicle barriers, 

helipads, USBP stations, remote video surveillance (RVS) sites, lights, 

and checkpoints. The cumulative effect of these improvement projects 

since 1995 and into the reasonably foreseeable future, and in 

conjunction with other programs or projects proposed or implemented by 

other agencies, is the primary focus of this EA. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis and assuming that all 

mitigation measures recommended herein are implemented, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the preferred alternative 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment: Proposed JTF-6 Mission 

JT423-98 Marfa, Texas, February 1998, resulting in a FONSI signed in 

February 1998. 

The scope of this EA addresses the potential impacts of proposed 

improvements on approximately 89.7 miles of existing road rights-ofway, construction of 1.8 miles of new road, and construction of some 

support facilities (e.g., helicopter landing pads, K-Span buildings, 

landing strips, obstacle course, etc.) in the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) 

Marfa Sector in Presidio and Jeff Davis counties, Texas. In addition, 

this EA also addresses the potential cumulative impacts associated with 

a Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) action in west Texas. A Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) was prepared in 1994 for the INS 

and JTF-6 proposed projects that facilitate Law Enforcement Agency 

(LEA) missions to reduce illegal drug activity along the southwestern 

border of the United States. The PEIS addresses the cumulative effects 

of past and future projects undertaken by JTF-6 for numerous LEAs 

within the four southwestern states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and 

California). This EA tiers from the PEIS. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment: JTF-6 Border Road 

Improvement Project Columbus, New Mexico, January 1999, resulting in a 

FONSI signed in January 1999. 

This Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) assesses the potential for 

significant adverse or beneficial environmental impacts of the proposed 

action add alternatives in accordance with provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The proposed action is located in Luna 

and Hidalgo Counties, NM near the city of Columbus, which is 

approximately 60 miles west of El Paso, TX and 30 miles south of 

Deming, NM. The proposed action consists of improving 75 miles of soil 

road and installing single-bar (guardrail type) vehicle barriers in 

strategic locations along approximately 50 miles of the border road. 
90 

This document is tiered from the Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS) completed for Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) activities 

along the U.S.-Mexico border (U.S. Army 1994). The PEIS was prepared in 

1994 for the Immigr4tion and Naturalization Service (INS) and JTF 6 to 

address the potential impacts of proposed projects that would 

facilitate law enforcement agencies (LEAs) missions to reduce illegal 

drug activity along the southwestern border of the U.S. The PEIS 

addresses the cumulative effect of past and reasonably foreseeable 

projects undertaken by JTF-6 for numerous LEAs in the four southwestern 

states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California).- 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment: Joint Task Force Six 

Proposed Fence Road Repair and Improvement Project Douglas, Cochise 

County, Arizona, February 2001, resulting in a FONSI signed in February 

2001 

A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), prepared in 1994 

for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and JTF-6, 

addressed proposed projects that facilitate missions to reduce illegal 

drug activity trafficking. This Environmental Assessment (EA) tiers 

from the 1994 PEIS. This EA addresses the potential impacts associated 

with a proposed fence and road improvement project along the U.S.-

Mexico border in Cochise County, Arizona. The proposed action includes 

landing mat fence extension, installation of permanent lighting, road 

and hydrological repairs and improvements, and road maintenance. It 

specifically addresses the extension of an existing landing mat fence 

east of the Port of Entry (POE) for a distance of two miles, 

installation of permanent lighting east of the POE for a distance of 

0.8 of a mile and west of the POE for a distance of one mile; 

repair/improvement the border road and hydrological conditions east of 

the POE for a distance of four miles and west of Whitewater Draw for a 

distance of four miles; and road maintenance west of the road repair 

section for a distance of eight miles near Douglas, Arizona. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed JTF-6 

Missions JT513/515/425-98 Laredo, Texas, January 1998, resulting in a 

FONSI signed in January 1998. 

This Environmental Assessment addresses the potential impacts of 

proposed improvements on approximately 239.8 miles of existing road and 

ranch road rights-of-way in the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Laredo area 

in Webb County and Carrizo Springs area in Maverick and Dimmit 

counties, Texas, and the potential cumulative impacts associated with a 

Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) action in the Laredo area. The proposed 

action seeks to improve 170.3 miles of existing, deteriorated roads and 
91 

to construct 69.5 miles of new roads in Webb, Maverick, and Dimmit 

counties, Texas. A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) 

was prepared in 1994 for the INS and JTF-6 proposed projects that 

facilitate Law Enforcement Agency (LEAs) missions to reduce illegal 

drug activity along the southwestern border of the United States. The 

PEIS addresses the cumulative effects of past and future projects 

undertaken by JTF-6 for numerous LEAs within the four southwestern 

states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California). This EA tiers from 

the PEIS. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for the Installation and 

Operation of Nine Remote Video Surveillance Systems in the Tucson 

Sector, Cochise County, Arizona, January 2003, resulting in a FONSI 

signed in January 2003. 

The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) proposes to 

install and operate nine Remote Video Surveillance (RVS) systems for 

the Naco and Douglas U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Stations. The proposed 

action includes related permanent road improvements, temporary road 

improvements, and the installation of powerlines from adjacent power 

grids. The proposed action would involve minimal construction 

activities at the proposed RVS sites. All of the access road 

construction would involve grading of existing roadways and previously 

disturbed areas. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment For Naco Roadway and Fence 

Construction Naco, Cochise County, Arizona, April 2003, resulting in a 

FONSI 

This EA analyzed infrastructure improvements, including the 

construction of four miles of roads and approximately 1.5 miles of 

fence. The four miles of road improvement would occur along the 

northern edge of the existing border road, two miles east and west of 

the Naco port of entry (POE), with a new access road to the border from 

the newly constructed Naco Highway. Landing mat or bollard fence, 

beginning approximately one mile west of the POE and continuing for a 

distance of one mile would replace existing vehicle barriers. An 

additional half mile of bollard fence would be installed in the natural 

washes and drains that transect the proposed road. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis and assuming that all 

design measures recommended herein are implemented, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the Proposed Action Alternative. 

 
92 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Joint Task Force Six 

Operation 23-90/20-91 Nogales, Santa Cruz County, Arizona, July 1991, 

resulting in a FONSI signed in July 1991. 

This Environmental Assessment prepared for the Joint Task Force Six 

(JTF-6) Project, Nogales, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. This 

Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared to analyze the proposed 

project, located east of Nogales, Arizona, along the United StatesMexico border, which consists of construction of a firearms training 

facility on fifty acres of city—owned land; improving about twelve 

miles of roadway; and construction of about a mile of new roadway, 

including one wood bridge across a large wash. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Border Road and Fence; 

Construction and Repair Tecate to Canyon City, San Diego County, 

California, October 1993, resulting in a FONSI signed in October 1993. 

This document analyzes the actions to be taken for border road 

construction and repair, and fence construction and repair. This EA has 

been prepared to assess any environmental concerns associated with this 

action segments; the installation and/or repair of fencing; and the 

installation of culverts on about 10 miles of the U.S/Mexico border in 

the vicinity of Tecate, California. The project will include some 

widening of roads. A detailed project description is included in 

Section 4.0 of this FEA. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the FEA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Draft Environmental Assessment Joint Task Force Six Proposed 

Fence and Road Improvement Project Naco, Cochise County, Arizona, March 

2000, resulting in a FONSI signed on August 3, 2000. 

The proposed action would involve the extension of an existing landing 

mat fence located east of the Port of Entry (POE) for a distance of one 

mile near Naco, Arizona. From the ending point of the proposed landing 

mat fence, a proposed vehicle barrier would extend another three miles 

to the east. Additionally, two Arizona crossings (low water crossings) 

would be constructed at two separate ephemeral stream crossings west of 

the POE. Finally, the Proposed Action would involve improvements to the 

border road for a four-mile segment east of the POE and a six-mile 

segment west of the POE. A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(PEIS) was prepared in 1994 for the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service (INS) and Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6), proposed activities 

which facilitate Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) missions to reduce 

illegal drug activity along the southwestern border of the U.S. The 

PEIS addresses the cumulative effects of past and reasonably 

foreseeable projects undertaken by JTF-6 for numerous LEAs in the four 

southwestern states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California). This 

Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Proposed Action tiers from the 

1994 PETS (U.S. Army 1994). Cooperating agencies involved with the 

Proposed Action include the U.S. Border Patrol, the INS, and JTF-6. 
93 

Analysis: Based on the results of the EA and the environmental design 

measures to be incorporated as part of the Proposed Action, it has been 

concluded that the Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse 

effect on the environment. 

D2 Routine upgrade, repair, maintenance, or replacement of equipment and vehicles, 

such as aircraft, vessels, or airfield equipment that does not result in a change in the 

functional use of the property. 

These categories of actions were determined to inherently have no potential 

for significant environmental impacts. For the most part, these categorical 

exclusions are likewise supported by long-standing categorical exclusions and 

administrative records brought to the Department by its components. Further, 

the Panel reviewed these categories of actions to determine whether actions 

of a similar nature, scope, and intensity were performed throughout 

Department. The Panel reviewed other agency’s categorical exclusions, the 

categorical exclusions that agencies brought to the Department, and the 

mission of Department as it relates to the environment. The Panel determined 

that the categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently do not have an individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

environment. 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

USCG 

Reference: COMDINST M16475.1D Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical 

exclusions 

1. Administrative Actions: b. Routine procurement activities and 

actions for goods and services, including office supplies, equipment, 

mobile assets, and utility services for routine administration, 

operation, and maintenance. 

2. Real and Personal Property Related Actions t. Routine repair, 

renovation, and maintenance actions on aircraft and vessels. 

 

USDA-ARS 

Reference: 7CFR520.5 (b) 

 (1) Repair, replacement of structural components or equipment, or 

other routine maintenance of facilities controlled in whole or in part 

by ARS; 

 

ARMY 

Reference: 32CFR651 Appendix B. Section II 

(j)(3) Installation, repair, or upgrade of airfield equipment (for 

example, runway visual range equipment, visual approach slope 

indicators).
94 

D3 Repair and maintenance of Department-managed buildings, roads, airfields, 

grounds, equipment, and other facilities which do not result in a change in functional use 

or an impact on a historically significant element or setting (e.g. replacing a roof, painting a 

building, resurfacing a road or runway, pest control activities, restoration of trails and 

firebreaks, culvert maintenance, grounds maintenance, existing security systems, and 

maintenance of waterfront facilities that does not require individual regulatory permits). 

These categories of actions were determined to have no inherent potential for 

significant environmental impacts. Further, the Panel reviewed these 

categories of actions to determine whether actions of a similar nature, 

scope, and intensity were performed throughout the Department. A Panel 

reviewed other agency’s categorical exclusions, the categorical exclusions 

that agencies brought to the Department and the mission of the Department as 

it relates to the environment. Through a deliberative process, the Panel 

determined that the above-enumerated categorical exclusions encompassed 

programmatic activities that inherently do not have an individual or 

cumulative significant impact on the environment. 

 

In addition, this categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing 

categorical exclusion’s and administrative records brought to the Department 

by its components that themselves would have only been developed through a 

process consistent with NEPA regulatory requirements. In particular, the 

Panel identified the categorical exclusions of the U.S. Coast Guard, the 

manager of the largest number of real properties in the Department, the 

legacy categorical exclusions from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

and the record of the U.S. Border Patrol. Further, the Panel found that 

actions of a similar nature, scope, and intensity were performed throughout 

the Department without significant environmental impacts. 

 

The Panel determined that the use of examples in this particular categorical 

exclusion would be helpful to future users in clarifying the types of 

activities envisioned by the categorical exclusion. In providing examples, 

the Panel did not intend to extend the categorical exclusion to actions 

including extraordinary circumstances that may result in the activity having 

significant environmental effects. 

 

The Panel also noted that numerous other Federal agencies have categorical 

exclusion for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that 

they demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by the 

Department. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, 

with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of 

other Federal agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in 

Department were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies 

in general, as well as specifically related to the environment. 

Categorical exclusion D3 was the subject of comments regarding: (1) pest 

control activities, and (2) the impact of repair and maintenance activities 

on sensitive coastal areas. The comment focusing on pest control activities 
95 

expressed concern that there exists the need for restrictions on pest control 

activities to avoid the potential for a significant impact on endangered 

species, groundwater, and public health. The Department considered that 

concern and notes that the reference to pest control was only an example of 

the type of activity envisioned by the categorical exclusion. In providing 

examples, the Department does not seek to extend the categorical exclusion to 

actions including extraordinary circumstances that may result in the activity 

having significant environmental effects. However, in response to the 

comments in this area, the wording of this categorical exclusion was narrowed 

to clarify its application to Department-managed properties. Pest control 

activities that may be conducted at Department managed properties would be 

incidental to the management of the facility for mission requirements. 

Department activities do not have a natural resources management mission that 

may require the general eradication of pests. Typical pest control 

activities would consist of but not necessarily be limited to those actions 

necessary to meet health requirements in cafeterias and residential 

facilities, actions to maintain the integrity of structures, or the 

Department’s participation as one of many other property managers in larger 

pest control programs run by other Federal or state agencies. 

The Department also considered the comment detailing the concern about the 

impact of repair and maintenance activities on sensitive coastal areas. 

Regarding both concerns, the Department notes that Section 3.2 in Appendix A 

of the directive contains a list of conditions and extraordinary 

circumstances that must be satisfied in the application of this categorical 

exclusion to a specific program or activity within the Department. These 

conditions and extraordinary circumstances were developed in recognition 

that, while the vast majority of Department activities in this category do 

not have potential for significant impacts to the environment, activity 

proponents within the Department need to be alert for rare and unique 

conditions that may require more extensive evaluation of the potential for 

environmental impacts under NEPA. This evaluation would include not only the 

immediate effect of the Department’s decision, but also the potential 

environmental effects that may indirectly result from implementing the 

decision and the cumulative effects of the decision on the quality of the 

human environment. 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

APHIS 

Reference: 7CFR372.5 (c) 

 (c) (4) Rehabilitation of facilities. Rehabilitation of existing 

laboratories and other APHIS facilities, functional replacement of 

parts and equipment, and minor additions to such existing APHIS 

facilities 

 

USDA-ARS 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Harbor Repairs Project, 

Plum Island Animal Research Center resulting in a FONSI 
96 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (ARS) 

proposed to provide Plum Island Animal Research Center with an improved 

harbor and repair or replace existing harbor structures. The project 

sought to ensure the long term stability and usefulness of the Plum 

Island Animal Research Center harbor. The project was carried out 

under the requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and NYSDEC 

permits. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this EA, no significant adverse 

environmental impacts would result from the proposed action. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Bulk Fuel Oil Storage and 

Distribution System Project, Plum Island Animal Research Center, 

resulting in a FONSI 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (ARS) 

proposed to provide Plum Island Animal Research Center with a bulk fuel 

oil storage and distribution system that meets or exceeds local, state, 

and federal requirements for fuel oil systems. The proposed action 

involves making necessary repairs/modifications to the existing fuel 

system to meet appropriate regulations and construction of new fuel oil 

system in a new location not currently being used for the bulk fuel oil 

system. The associated impacts will be minimized by preventive 

construction techniques. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this EA, no significant 

environmental impacts would result from the proposed action. 

 

FEMA 

Reference: 44CFR10.8 (d) (2) 

(x) Routine maintenance, repair, and grounds-keeping activities at FEMA 

facilities; 

(xv) Repair, reconstruction, restoration, elevation, retrofitting, 

upgrading to current codes and standards, or replacement of any 

facility in a manner that substantially conforms to the preexisting 

design, function, and location; [SE, in part] 

 

INS 

Reference: 28CFR61 Appendix C 

10. Actions Which Normally Do Not Require Either An Environmental 

Impact Statement Or An Environmental Assessment: (a) Construction 

projects for existing facilities including but not limited to: 

Remodeling; replacement of building systems and components; maintenance 

and operations repairs and general improvements when such projects do 

not significantly alter the initial occupancy and program of the 

facility or significantly impact upon the environment. 

USCG 

Reference: COMDTINST M 16475.1D Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical 

exclusions 

2. Real and Personal Property Related Actions q. Minor renovations 

and additions to buildings, roads, airfields, grounds, equipment, and 

other facilities that do not result in a change in functional use of 

the real property (e.g. realigning interior spaces of an existing 
97 

building, extending an existing roadway in a developed area a short 

distance, installing a small antenna on an already existing antenna 

tower, adding a small storage shed to an existing building, etc.). 

(Checklist and CED required.) u. Routine repair and maintenance of 

buildings, roads, airfields, grounds, equipment, and other facilities 

which do not result in a change in functional use, or an impact on a 

historically significant element or setting. v. Routine repair and 

maintenance to waterfront facilities, including mooring piles, fixed 

floating piers, existing piers, and unburied power cables. w. Minor 

renovations and additions to waterfront facilities, including mooring 

piles, fixed floating piers, existing piers, and unburied power cables, 

which do not require special, 

site-specific regulatory permits. (Checklist and CED required.) x. 

Routine grounds maintenance and activities at units and facilities. 

Examples include localized pest management actions and actions to 

maintain improved grounds (such as landscaping, lawn care and minor 

erosion control measures) that are conducted in accordance with 

applicable Federal, state, and local directives. 

6. Bridge Administration Actions a. Modification or replacement of 

an existing bridge on essentially the same alignment or location. 

Excluded are bridges with historic significance or bridges providing 

access to undeveloped barrier islands and beaches. 

 

FAA 

Reference: FAA Order 5050.4A Chapter 3, Section 23. 

(a) (5) Construction, relocation or repair of entrance and service 

roadway. 

 

FLETC 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Construction of a Physical 

Security Training Facility, Building 15, for the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) at Glynco, Georgia, resulting in a 

FONSI signed on September 19,2000. 

The proposed action would consist of construction a new building 

(Building 15) at the intersection of Legislative Drive and Records 

Avenue to house the physical security training that is presently being 

conducted in Building 146. The building would be called the Physical 

Security Training Facility. The work would include: 

 

(1) Construction of a 12,000 square foot, one-story, standing seem 

galvanized steel roofed building, with architectural concrete masonry 

for the exterior bearing walls; 

(2) Site improvements consisting of storm drainage, walkways and 

landscaping; 

(3) Connection to the FLETC-wide underground chilled water and natural 

gas distribution loops. The new chilled water loop (supply and return 

lines) would connect to the nearest existing valve pit located 

approximately 800 feet southeast of the new facility; 

(4) Restoration of a roughly 5,000 square-foot existing paved area for 

parking; 
98 

(5) Relocation of the training activities from Building #146; and 

(6) Modification and reuse of the existing training facility for other 

ongoing FLETC activities. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this analysis no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from these activities. 

USBP 

Reference: Final Report Environmental Assessment for Infrastructure 

within US Border Patrol Naco-Douglas Corridor Cochise County, Arizona, 

August 2000, resulting in a FONSI 

The Proposed Alternative would allow the infrastructure projects 

currently approved or funded and those anticipated to be completed over 

the next five years. Infrastructure improvements that will be addressed 

include, but are not limited, to roads, fences, vehicle barriers, 

helipads, USBP stations, remote video surveillance (RVS) sites, lights, 

and checkpoints. The cumulative effect of these improvement projects 

since 1995 and into the reasonably foreseeable future, and in 

conjunction with other programs or projects proposed or implemented by 

other agencies, is the primary focus of this EA. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis and assuming that all 

mitigation measures recommended herein are implemented, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the preferred alternative 

Reference: Environmental Assessment on Proposed JTF-6 Projects in West 

Texas September 1993 

The proposed action would involve four separate projects at several 

locations in seven southwest Texas counties. The proposed projects are: 

(1) the repair/upgrade of approximately 150 miles (241 kilometers) of 

existing roads in Terrell, Brewster, Presidio, Jeff Davis, Culberson, 

and Hudspeth counties; (2) the construction of helicopter landing zones 

at radio repeater stations on Christmas Mountain, Santiago Peak, and 

Tres Hermanos in Brewster County and Mount Livermore in Jeff Davis 

County; (3) the upgrade of an existing firing range near Fabens in El 

Paso County; and (4) the construction of a U.S. Border Patrol check 

station on U.S. Highway 62-180 in El Paso County. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment JTF-6 Border Road Improvement 

Project Columbus, New Mexico, January 1999, resulting in a FONSI signed 

in January 1999. 

This Environmental Assessment assessed the potential for significant 

adverse or beneficial environmental impacts of the proposed action 

proposed to take place in Luna and Hidalgo Counties, NM near the city 

of Columbus, which is approximately sixty miles west of El Paso, TX and 

thirty miles south of Deming, NM. The proposed action consists of 

improving seventy-five miles of soil road and installing single-bar 

(guardrail type) vehicle barriers in strategic locations along 

approximately fifty miles of the border road. 
99 

Analysis: There would be no significant adverse affects to the natural 

environment associated with the proposed projects. This EA is tiered 

from the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) completed 

for Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) activities along the U.S.-Mexico 

border (U.S. Army 1994). 

 

Reference: Final Report Environmental Assessment for Infrastructure 

within US Border Patrol Naco-Douglas Corridor Cochise County, Arizona 

Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington, DC, August 2000, 

resulting in a FONSI signed in August 2000 

This environmental assessment addressed infrastructure improvements 

including, but are not limited, to roads, fences, vehicle barriers, 

helipads, USBP stations, remote video surveillance (RVS) sites, lights, 

and checkpoints. The cumulative effect of these improvement projects 

since 1995 and into the reasonably foreseeable future, and in 

conjunction with other programs or projects proposed or implemented by 

other agencies, is the primary focus of this EA. 

Analysis: The proposed action would involve minimal construction 

activities within sites that have been, for the most part, previously 

disturbed. No significant adverse effects to air quality, water 

quality, cultural resources, unique areas, soils, protected species, or 

land use are expected. Based on the findings of this analysis no 

significant adverse impacts would occur from the preferred alternative. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Border Road Maintenance & 

Repair Naco, Cochise County, Arizona, February 1993, resulting in a 

FONSI signed in Februrary 1993. 

This EA analyzed the potential for impact from the routine maintenance 

of the existing road along the U.S.— Mexico Border. The project 

encompasses twenty-two miles of existing roads east and west of Naco, 

Arizona. The road maintenance will consist of light scraping, 

installation of culverts, grading and shaping for drainage, and placing 

gravel in several washes. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this EA, no significant 

environmental impacts would result from the proposed action. 

 

Reference: Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment of Remote Video 

Surveillance Systems (RVS) and Communication Towers (CTOW) for the US 

Border Patrol in the Harlingen, Laredo, and Eagle Pass Stations, 

October 2003, resulting in a FONSI signed October 2003. 

This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) supplements the Final 

EA of Remote Video Surveillance Systems (RVS) Systems and Communication 

Towers (CTOW) for the US Border Patrol in the Harlingen, Laredo, and 

Eagle Pass Stations. This Supplemental EA (SEA) addresses additional 

effects that may potentially occur relative to proposed construction of 

an access road for the Walker Tower 2B site and proposed improvements 

to an existing access road for the Lupes Tower site. Both sites are 

located within the Laredo South Station’s area of operations. The 

project consisted of construction of a new access road and upgrade of 

an existing roadway to provide access to two RVS sites: the Walker 

Tower 2B and Lupes Tower. The proposed construction consists of grading 
100 

a 12-foot wide by 1,200-foot long access road at the Walker Tower 2B 

site and minor improvements to approximately 600 feet of an existing 

road at the Lupes Tower site. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of these EAs, it was concluded that 

the project was not likely to adversely affect the environment; 

therefore, further environmental analysis is not warranted. 

 

Reference: Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment JTF-6 Road 

Maintenance and Construction Naco - Douglas, Cochise County, Arizona, 

July 1996, resulting in a FONSI 

The scope of the EA covers the impact of performing maintenance on 

approximately 52 miles of existing road, constructing two miles of new 

road, and constructing 2.5 miles of rail barrier, all near Naco and 

Douglas, Cochise County, Arizona. This document was tiered off of 

existing documents completed for previous road maintenance activities 

for 52 miles of existing road, and a Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement completed for Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) activities along 

the U. 5.-Mexico border. The Immigration and Naturalization Service 

(INS) and the U.S. Border Patrol, Tucson Sector are proposing to 

perform maintenance activities on approximately 52 miles of existing 

road, and to construct two miles of new road near the U.S.-Mexico 

border. 

Analysis: There would be no significant adverse affects to the natural 

environment associated with the proposed projects. The proposed action 

would not impact area land use, water resources, air quality, cultural 

resources, or socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would not 

affect any listed or species proposed for listing as threatened or 

endangered in accordance with the Endangered Species Act. Additionally, 

with environmental design measures specified as part of the proposed 

action, there would be negligible impacts to area soil, water 

resources, and biological resources. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment on proposed JTF-6 Road Repair 

Projects on the Tohono O’Odham Indian Nation, September 1992, resulting 

in a FONSI 

The proposed action consists of two Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) 

operations. The proposed operations are to repair approximately 32.5 

miles of the existing border road and to establish listening 

post/operation post (LP/OP) sites on the Tohono O’Odham Indian Nation 

in southern Arizona along the United States and Mexico International 

Border. The repair projects would include approximately 29.5 miles of 

the existing border road between Christmas Gate and Ali Chuk and 3.0 

miles of the existing border road south of Au Chuk. The LP/OP sites 

would be constructed on Horse Peak in the Morena Mountains. A 

combination of four-wheel drive vehicles and hiking would be used to 

access the LP/OP sites. 

Analysis: Based on the finding of this environmental assessment, and 

the mitigations which would be utilized during the construction phase 

of proposed repair of the border road from Christmas Gate to Ali Chuk, 

no significant impacts would occur from the proposed action. 

 
101 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment on Proposed JTF-6 mission 

JT032-93 Laredo, Texas July 1993 resulting in a FONSI 

The proposed action, Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) Mission JT032-93, 

would involve four separate actions at several locations in six south 

Texas counties. The proposed action would involve (1) repair and 

construction of approximately 150 miles of existing fire breaks along 

highway right-of-ways, (2) the repair/upgrade of approximately six 

miles of road along the Rio Grande within or near Laredo, (3) the 

upgrade/repair of three small-arms firing ranges at Freer, 

Hebbronville, and Laredo (4) the construction of a fitness/obstacle 

course at the Laredo Junior College in Laredo, Texas. 

Analysis: Based on the finding of this environmental assessment and the 

mitigations which would be utilized during the construction phase, no 

significant impacts would occur during the proposed project. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed JTF- Levee 

Road Maintenance and Repair Project Brownsville, Texas, April 2000, 

resulting in a FONSI signed in July 2000. 

This Final Environmental Assessment (EA) identifies the potential 

adverse and beneficial environmental impacts that would occur upon 

implementation of maintenance and repair activities of levee and access 

roads near the Brownsville, Texas area in accordance with provisions of 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Army Regulation 200-2. 

The scope of this EA covers the potential impacts of maintenance and 

repair of approximately 11 miles of roads located on flood control 

levees owned/controlled by the U.S. Section, International Boundary and 

Water Commission’s (US City of Brownsville, and/or Cameron County. The 

upgrades include resurfacing with caliche or comparable road-base 

material to enhance the safety of any roads in disrepair. In addition, 

about 2.6 miles of access roads and six ramps are proposed to be 

improved. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Road Improvements along 

King’s Ranch Road and the U.S-Mexico Border near Douglas, Cochise 

County, Arizona, February 2002, resulting in a FONSI signed in February 

2002. 

The Proposed Action Alternative involves major road and drainage 

repairs/improvements along a 2-mile section of border road that JTF-6 

did not complete under a previous NEPA document. This alternative also 

includes one mile of major road improvements along King’s Ranch Road, 

which runs north-south from the new Douglas Border Patrol station to 

the U.S.-Mexico border. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA and the environmental design 

measures to be incorporated as part of the proposed action, it has been 

concluded that the proposed action would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the environment. 

 
102 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Joint Task Force Six 

Operations JT089-93, JT094-93 and JT265-93 Douglas, Cochise County, 

Arizona, February 1993, resulting in a FONSI signed in February 1993. 

The purpose of JTF—6 Operations in Douglas, Arizona is to provide 

routine maintenance to existing drag and mountain roads, along the 

U.S.—Mexico Border and to install fences at the U.S. Border Patrol 

Station in Douglas, Arizona. The proposed project includes three 

components: (1) JT 265—93, the maintenance of twenty-four miles of an 

existing drag road east and west of Douglas, Arizona, (2) JT 094—93, 

the maintenance of about one mile of mountain road east of Douglas, 

Arizona, and (3) JT 089—93, the installation of fences at the U.S. 

Border Patrol Station at Douglas, Arizona. The road maintenance will 

consist of light scraping, installation of culverts, grading and 

shaping for drainage, placing gravel in a slowly flowing wash and 

resetting existing cattle guards. Road projects will be maintained 

within their existing width. Limited turnarounds and passing areas will 

be coordinated with on—site monitors. 

Analysis: A review of this Environmental Assessment and coordination 

with the appropriate agencies indicate that the actions, as proposed by 

the Joint Task Force Six Operation for road maintenance and fence 

installation, will not have a significant impact on the quality of the 

physical or biological environment. All requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have been satisfied; therefore, 

preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Border Road Maintenance & 

Repair Naco, Cochise County Arizona, February 1993, resulting in a 

FONSI signed in February 1993. 

The proposed project consists of twenty-two miles of an existing road 

east and west of Naco, Arizona. The road maintenance will consist of 

light scraping, installation of culverts, grading and shaping for 

drainage, and placing gravel in several washes. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment on Proposed JTF-6 Projects in West 

Texas, September 1993, resulting in a FONSI 

The proposed action would involve four separate projects at several 

locations in seven southwest Texas counties. The proposed projects are: 

(1) the repair/upgrade of approximately 150 miles (241 kilometers) of 

existing roads in Terrell, Brewster, Presidio, Jeff Davis, Culberson, 

and Hudspeth counties; (2) the construction of helicopter landing zones 

at radio repeater stations on Christmas Mountain, Santiago Peak, and 

Tres Hermanos in Brewster County and Mount Livermore in Jeff Davis 

County; (3) the upgrade of an existing firing range near Fabens in El 

Paso County; and (4) the construction of a U.S. Border Patrol check 

station on U.S. Highway 62-180 in El Paso County. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 
103 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Border Fence Construction 

and Road Repair Naco, Cochise County, Arizona JTF-6 Operation JT044-94, 

resulting in a FONSI signed in April 1994. 

This Environmental Assessment prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (COE), Los Angeles District (LAD) for the Joint Task Force 

Six (JTF-6) project for Naco, Arizona. JTF—6 coordinates all Title 10 

Department of Defense support to Federal, state and local law 

enforcement agencies, as requested by Operation Alliance and approved 

by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the efforts to disrupt illegal drug 

operations along the southwest land border and protect national 

security. The purpose of JTF—6 Operation at Naco, Arizona, is to assist 

law enforcement agencies in the prevention of illegal importation of 

drugs along the U.S./Mexico border. The proposed project consists of 

replacing three miles of existing chain-link fencing with 10-feet high 

steel landing mat fencing, installation of culverts and repair of 

approximately one mile of existing road parallel to the fence along the 

International Boundary with Mexico at Naco, Arizona. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

D4* Reconstruction and/or repair by replacement of existing utilities or surveillance 

systems in an existing right-of-way or easement, upon agreement with the owner of the 

relevant property interest. 

This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical 

exclusion’s and administrative records brought to the Department by its 

components that themselves would have only been developed through a process 

consistent with NEPA regulatory requirements. In particular, the Panel 

identified the categorical exclusions of the U.S. Coast Guard, the manager of 

the largest number of real properties in the Department, and the record of 

environmental assessments from the U.S. Border Patrol. Further, the Panel 

found that actions of a similar nature, scope, and intensity were performed 

throughout the Department without significant environmental impacts. 

 

The Panel defined this categorical exclusion to be sufficiently related to 

actions that may involve one or more extraordinary circumstances. To ensure 

that only those actions having negligible impacts on the human environment 

are contemplated by this categorical exclusion, the Panel proposed that a 

Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) be prepared to document the 

determination whether the action is either appropriately categorically 

excluded or whether it requires further analysis through an EA or EIS 

process. 

 

The Panel also noted that numerous other Federal agencies have categorical 

exclusion for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that 
104 

they demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by the 

Department. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, 

with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of 

other Federal agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in 

Department were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies 

in general, as well as specifically related to the environment. 

 

A Panel of interdisciplinary experts reviewed other agencies’ categorical 

exclusions, the categorical exclusions that agencies brought to the 

Department and the mission of the Department as it relates to the 

environment. Through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

above-enumerated categorical exclusions encompassed programmatic activities 

that inherently do not have an individual or cumulative significant impact on 

the environment. 

 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

USDA-ARS 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Underwater Electrical Cable 

Replacement Project, Plum Island Animal Research Center,, resulting in 

a FONSI 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (ARS) 

proposed to provide Plum Island Animal Research Center with a new 

underwater electrical cable from Orient Point, NY to Plum Island Animal 

Research Center. The proposed action was designed to meet all 

regulatory requirements, limit environmental impacts and meet the 

electrical and communications need of Plum Island Animal Research 

Center. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this EA, no significant adverse 

environmental impacts would result from the proposed action. 

 

FEMA 

Reference: 44CFR10.8 (d) (2) 

(xv) Repair, reconstruction, restoration, elevation, retrofitting, 

upgrading to current codes and standards, or replacement of any 

facility in a manner that substantially conforms to the preexisting 

design, function, and location. 

 

INS 

Reference: 28CFR61 Appendix C 

10. Actions Which Normally Do Not Require Either An Environmental 

Impact Statement Or An Environmental Assessment: (a) Construction 

projects for existing facilities including but not limited to: 

Remodeling; replacement of building systems and components; maintenance 

and operations repairs and general improvements when such projects do 

not significantly alter the initial occupancy and program of the 

facility or significantly impact upon the environment.

 
105 

USBP 

Reference: Environmental Impact Analysis to Support a Categorical 

Exclusion for the Repair and Replacement of a Communications Tower and 

Access Road, Immigration and Naturalization Service, July 1998, 

resulting in a FONSI 

The U.S. Border Patrol proposes to repair and replace a 260-foot radio 

communications tower and make improvements to the existing access road 

leading to the proposed tower site east of Bayview, Texas. An existing 

service road and concrete pad were to be used in this project. 

Analysis: No significant adverse effect to any resource (i.e., air 

quality, water quality, cultural resource, wetlands, protected species, 

land use, etc.) was expected.

USCG 

Reference: COMDTINST M16475.1D Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical 

exclusions 

2. Real and Personal Property Related Actions q. Minor renovations 

and additions to buildings, roads, airfields, grounds, equipment, and 

other facilities that do not result in a change in functional use of 

the real property (e.g. realigning interior spaces of an existing 

building, extending an existing roadway in a developed area a short 

distance, installing a small antenna on an already existing antenna 

tower, adding a small storage shed to an existing building, etc.). 

(Checklist and CED required.) u. Routine repair and maintenance of 

buildings, roads, airfields, grounds, equipment, and other facilities 

which do not result in a change in functional use, or an impact on a 

historically significant element or setting. v. Routine repair and 

maintenance to waterfront facilities, including mooring piles, fixed 

floating piers, existing piers, and unburied power cables. w. Minor 

renovations and additions to waterfront facilities, including mooring 

piles, fixed floating piers, existing piers, and unburied power cables, 

which do not require special, 

site-specific regulatory permits. (Checklist and CED required.) x. 

Routine grounds maintenance and activities at units and facilities. 

Examples include localized pest management actions and actions to 

maintain improved grounds (such as landscaping, lawn care and minor 

erosion control measures) that are conducted in accordance with 

applicable Federal, state, and local directives. 

6. Bridge Administration Actions a. Modification or replacement of 

an existing bridge on essentially the same alignment or location. 

Excluded are bridges with historic significance or bridges providing 

access to undeveloped barrier islands and beaches. 

 

FAA 

Reference: FAA Order 5050.4A Chapter 3, Section 23. 

(a) (2) Installation or upgrading of airfield lighting systems, 

including runway end identification lights, visual approach aids, 

beacons and electrical distribution systems. 

 

ARMY 

Reference: 32CFR651 Appendix B. Section II 
106 

(e)(2) Acquisition, installation, and operation of utility and 

communication systems, mobile antennas, data processing cable and 

similar electronic equipment that use existing right-of-way, easement, 

distribution systems, and/or facilities (REC required).

NAVY 

Reference: 32CFR775.6 

(8) Routine actions normally conducted to operate, protect, and 

maintain Navy-owned and/or controlled properties, e.g., maintaining law 

and order, physical plant protection by military police and security 

personnel, and localized pest management activities on improved and 

semi-improved lands conducted in accordance with applicable federal and 

state directives. 

 

DOE 

Reference: 10CFR1021, Subpart D. Appendix B 

B1.7 Acquisition, installation, operation, and removal of communication 

systems, data processing equipment, and similar electronic equipment. 

B1.19 Siting, construction, and operation of microwave and radio 

communication towers and associated facilities, if the towers and 

associated facilities would not be in an area of great visual value. 

D5* Maintenance dredging activities within waterways, floodplains, and wetlands where 

no new depths are required, applicable permits are secured, and associated debris disposal 

is done at an approved disposal site. This CATEX encompasses activities required for the 

maintenance of waterfront facilities managed primarily within the U.S. Coast Guard, and 

Customs and Border Protection. 

 

The Panel recognized that several components of Department operated fleets of 

ships or small boats that may need to maintain harbors where the vessels are 

homeported. The U.S. Coast Guard was found to operate the largest vessels, 

the widest range of sizes of vessels, the greatest number of vessels, the 

largest number of moorings and homeports, and the widest geographic 

distribution of waterfront facilities in nearly all of the categories of 

maritime and freshwater environments present in the U.S. Other components of 

the Department, such as the Customs and Border Protection, primarily operated 

fleets of small boats, although the Science and Technology Directorate 

maintained a ferry to access the Plum Island facility. 

 

Recognizing the sensitivity of the maritime and freshwater environments, the 

Panel was careful to limit the nature of dredging activities that would be 

categorically excluded to only those activities involved with maintaining 

existing channels, harbors, and mooring facilities. Maintenance dredging, by 

its very nature, does not involve establishing new depths or greater widths. 

Furthermore, Department activities of maintenance dredging would only involve 

those channels, harbors, and mooring facilities over which the Department 

would have direct control. The Panel recognized that the Department also 

moors many of its vessels and small boats at leased space in both public and 

private harbors and marinas. Likewise, the Department may have waterfront 
107 

facilities within much larger commercial harbors, such as Boston, New York 

City, Houston, Seattle, or San Francisco. Where the Department leases 

mooring space, the maintenance of access channels and anchorage areas would 

be the responsibility of the owner of the waterfront facility. In the large 

commercial harbors where the Department keeps its vessels and boats, the 

Department would only be responsible to maintain the immediate area required 

for access and use of its waterfront facilities. 

 

In further recognition of the sensitive nature of maritime and freshwater 

environments, the Panel limited the scope of the activities contemplated by 

this categorical exclusion to those that would use an existing approved 

disposal site. Nevertheless, the Panel wanted to ensure that the categorical 

exclusion would not apply to maintenance dredging activities until all 

applicable permits were secured. As a result of these limitations, the Panel 

determined that this categorical exclusion contemplated activities that would 

inherently have no potential for significant impacts to the human 

environment. 

 

The Panel defined this categorical exclusion to be sufficiently related to 

actions that may involve one or more extraordinary circumstances. To ensure 

that only those actions having negligible impacts on the human environment 

are contemplated by this categorical exclusion, the Panel proposed that a 

Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) be prepared to document the 

determination whether the action is either appropriately categorically 

excluded or whether it requires further analysis through an EA or EIS 

process. 

 

In addition, this categorical exclusion is supported by a long-standing 

categorical exclusion and administrative record brought to the Department by 

the U.S. Coast Guard and USDA – ARS that themselves would have only been 

developed through a process consistent with NEPA regulatory requirements. 

The USCG operates a greater variety of vessels, large and small, from a 

greater variety of waterfront facilities than any other Departmental 

component. Furthermore, these USCG waterfront facilities are located along 

all maritime coasts, the Great Lakes, and the Mississippi and Missouri 

Rivers. 

As mentioned above, the Panel identified the U.S. Coast Guard operations to 

be of the greatest scope and intensity of any of the Department components, 

while also inclusive of operations of a similar nature as all of the 

Departmental components. The Panel noted that maintenance dredging 

activities have been conducted for years within the U.S. Coast Guard without 

significant environmental impacts. Likewise, the Panel found that there were 

no significant environmental impacts from the maintenance dredging operations 

of the above-mentioned agencies in the conduct of their operations. 

Therefore, the Panel found that actions of a similar nature, scope, and 

intensity were performed throughout the Department without significant 

environmental impacts. 

 

The Panel of interdisciplinary experts also noted that other Federal agencies 

have categorical exclusion for similar activities that are sufficiently 
108 

descriptive such that they demonstrated to the Panel that those activities 

were similar in nature, scope, and impact on the human environment to those 

performed by the Department. In addition, the Panel recognized that all 

Federal agencies, with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements 

to protect the environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or 

on behalf of other Federal agencies, that the characteristics of the 

activities in Department were no different than those performed by other 

Federal agencies in general, as well as specifically related to the 

environment. 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently did not have individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

human environment. 

Categorical exclusion D5 was the subject of comments regarding dredging. 

Specifically, several comments suggested that that dredging activities can 

have a significant effect on marine and riparian habitats, effecting 

endangered species, critical habitat, water flow, flooding, waste management, 

and a host of other environmental concerns. Additionally, some commenters 

suggested limiting this categorical exclusion to the United States Coast 

Guard. The Department considered these comments detailing concerns with 

dredging. 

The Department notes that its components do not generally have independent 

authority to conduct maintenance dredging (or any other activity) without 

complying with the many laws and requirements established to protect the 

environment. This exclusion from further environmental analysis under NEPA 

is adequately limited by the need to secure applicable permits and any 

required approval for a disposal site. It is also noted that the U.S. Coast 

Guard operations are the greatest in scope and intensity of any of the 

Department components, but the nature of their operations in this area are 

done in manners similar to that of other Departmental components. Finally, 

it is noted that other agencies have conducted maintenance dredging 

activities without significant environmental impacts in the conduct of 

operations that are much less potentially significant in scope and intensity 

than that of the U.S. Coast Guard while remaining subject to all applicable 

permits and regulatory limitations for maintenance dredging and disposal. 

In addition, Section 3.2 in Appendix A of the directive contains a list of 

conditions and extraordinary circumstances that must be satisfied in the 

application of this categorical exclusion to a specific program or activity 

within DHS. These conditions and extraordinary circumstances were developed 

in recognition that, while the vast majority of DHS activities in this 

category do not have potential for significant impacts to the environment, 

activity proponents within DHS need to be alert for rare and unique 

conditions that may require more extensive evaluation of the potential for 

environmental impacts under NEPA. This evaluation would include not only the 

immediate effect of the DHS decision, but also the potential environmental 

effects that may indirectly result from implementing the decision and the 

cumulative effects of the decision on the quality of the human environment. 
109 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

USCG 

Reference: COMDTINST M16475.1D Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical 

exclusions 

2. Real and Personal Property Related Actions. Maintenance dredging 

and debris disposal where no new depths are required, applicable 

permits are secured, and disposal will be at an existing approved 

disposal site. (Checklist and CED required.) 

 

USDA – ARS 

Plum Island Animal Disease Center Harbor Repairs (EA 96-1940-01), 

resulting in a FONSI signed on November 12, 1996. 

 

ARMY 

Reference: 33CFR230.9 Categorical exclusions 

(c) Minor maintenance dredging using existing disposal sites. 

 

NAVY 

Reference: 32CFR775 

Sec. 775.6 Planning considerations. 

 (f) Categorical exclusions. 

(38) Maintenance dredging and debris disposal where no new depths are 

required, applicable permits are secured, and disposal will be at an 

approved disposal site; 

D6 Maintenance of aquatic and riparian habitat in streams and ponds, using native 

materials or best natural resource management practices. Examples include, but are not 

limited to: 

(a) Installing or repairing gabions with stone from a nearby source, 

(b) Adding brush for fish habitat, 

(c) Stabilizing stream banks through bioengineering techniques, and, 

(d) Removing and controlling exotic vegetation, not including the use of herbicides or nonnative biological controls. 

This CATEX would primarily involve property management activities at larger properties 

within the Coast Guard, Science and Technology Directorate, and the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Centers.

 The Panel recognized that maintenance of aquatic and riparian habitat in 

streams and ponds was a type of natural resource management activity that 

could be addressed within the types of activities contemplated under 

categorical exclusion E5. However, the Panel believed that it was necessary 

to address these types of natural resource management activities separately 

from others types of natural resource management activities due to the unique 

and more sensitive nature of the aquatic environment. Nevertheless, much of 
110 

the same basis for E5 applies to D6 and the legacy administrative record 

brought into the Department supports both types of activities. 

 

The Department is not a major land managing agency in the Federal 

government. The natural resource management activities in aquatic and 

riparian habitat contemplated under this categorical exclusion would 

generally be performed by components with real property management 

responsibilities. 

This categorical exclusion was the subject of a grammatical change from the 

text published for public comment in that the term, “would encompass” was 

changed to “would primarily involve,” when referring to the property 

management activities that this categorical exclusion would likely involve. 

Although there were no comments from the public on this point, this change 

was made to more accurately reflect the Panel’s intent. It is anticipated 

that only those components with sufficient property where such activities may 

be possible will perform these types of activities. The use of the term 

“encompass” in the draft document was not intended to communicate the 

exclusion of smaller property management activities, only to highlight that 

the enumerated larger components were the most likely proponents of these 

activities. This change is not an expansion of the exclusion previously 

published, but rather a clarification. It is understood that specifying 

those components is not intended to limit the application of this categorical 

exclusion in any way, but this clarification was made to more accurately and 

grammatically introduce those components most likely to take frequent action 

under this categorical exclusion. 

Several components of the Department may manage one or two land parcels where 

these benefits may be realized. However; the U.S. Coast Guard manages the 

largest of real properties in the Department and in sensitive aquatic 

environments along all maritime coasts and several rivers in the U.S. The 

Customs and Border Protection manages a smaller number of properties that may 

include fresh water ponds, streams, and riparian habitat. 

 

The activities to construct aquatic and riparian habitat on Department 

managed property contemplated in this categorical exclusion would be of a 

small scale and limited to a single locality. Furthermore, recognizing the 

sensitivity of the maritime and freshwater environments to the introduction 

of non-indigenous species, the Panel was careful to limit the nature of the 

activities that would be categorically excluded to only those activities 

using native materials or best natural resource management practices. These 

types of natural resource management activities would be undertaken to 

achieve small scale benefits to native flora and fauna. Any potential for 

environmental impacts would likewise be of a small scale and confined to more 

localized impacts. As a result of these limitations and in consideration of 

the administrative record, the Panel determined that this categorical 

exclusion contemplated activities that would inherently have no potential for 

significant impacts to the human environment. 

 

In addition, this categorical exclusion is supported by a long-standing 

categorical exclusion and administrative record brought to the Department 
111 

that would have only been developed through a process consistent with NEPA 

regulatory requirements. In particular, the Panel identified legacy 

categorical exclusions from the U.S. Coast Guard and the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. The U.S. Border Patrol brought a legacy of environmental 

assessments and findings of no significant impact for its land based 

activities. The Panel identified the U.S. Coast Guard operations to be of 

the greatest scope and intensity of any of the Department components, while 

also inclusive of operations of a similar nature as all of the Department 

components. Based upon this history of environmental analyses and the 

experience of its members, the Panel found that actions of a similar nature, 

scope, and intensity were performed throughout the Department without 

significant environmental impacts. 

 

The Panel determined that the use of examples in this particular categorical 

exclusion would be helpful to future users in clarifying the types of 

activities envisioned by the categorical exclusion. In providing examples, 

the Panel did not intend to extend the categorical exclusion to actions 

including extraordinary circumstances that may result in the activity having 

significant environmental effects. 

 

In particular, example “c” makes reference to bioengineering. Bioengineering 

is the use of either native or proven vegetative species to put down roots 

and stabilize the soil along a water course. Branches, whips, cuttings, 

rooted cuttings, and stakes are examples of what may be used. Species such 

as willows, dogwoods, and poplars are used. Such materials can be collected 

locally or purchased from suppliers recommended by the local office of the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS). The use of such techniques is relatively inexpensive and highly 

preferable to mitigating the results of siltation caused by soil disturbing 

activities. 

The Panel also noted that other Federal agencies have categorical exclusion 

for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that they 

demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by the 

Department. Federal agencies with responsibilities to manage similar 

activities at a larger scale and in a greater variety of natural 

environments, including environments at least as sensitive as those that the 

Department may normally work in, have categorical exclusions that encompass 

the types of activities contemplated for this Department categorical 

exclusion. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, with 

very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of 

other Federal agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in 

Department were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies 

in general, as well as specifically related to the environment. 

 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently did not have individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

human environment. 
112 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

FEMA 

Reference: 44CFR10.8 (d) (2)

(xi) Planting of indigenous vegetation

 

USBP 

Reference: Supplemental Environmental Assessment Immigration and 

Naturalization Service Border Road Maintenance and Construction, Tecate 

to Campo, San Diego County, California, April 1997, resulting in a 

FONSI 

This supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) assesses the potential 

for significant adverse or beneficial environmental impacts of the 

proposed action and alternatives in accordance with provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The proposed action involves 

approximately three miles of new road construction, which includes two 

miles of riparian area rehabilitation and one mile of highly erodible 

land rehabilitation on corresponding abandoned road sections, and 

approximately six miles of maintenance to existing border roads along 

the U.S.-Mexico border between Tecate and Campo, San Diego County, 

California. 

A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) was prepared in 

1994 for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and Joint 

Task Force Six (JTF-6) proposed projects that facilitate law 

enforcement agencies (LEAs) missions to reduce illegal drug activity 

along the southwestern border of the U.S.(U.S. Army 1994). The PEIS 

addressed the cumulative effects of past and reasonably foreseeable 

projects undertaken by JTF-6. Additionally, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USCOE), Los Angeles District, prepared two EAs (Tecate to 

Canyon City; Campo to Jacumba) for border road maintenance and 

construction activities in this region (U.S. Army 1993 and 1994). This 

EA is a supplement to the JTF-6 PETS, and tiers from the PEIS and the 

two previous EAs. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA and the environmental design 

measures to be incorporated as part of the proposed action, it has been 

concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse 

effect on the environment. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Various Road Improvements 

from Canyon City, California to the Imperial County Line San Diego 

County, California, U.S. Border Patrol, March 2003, resulting in a 

FONSI signed in March 2003 

The proposed actions consists of: 1) the placement of up to fifty 

portable lights, as needed, within 60 feet of the border from the 

Pacific Crest Trail to the Imperial County line; 2) night vision scope 

pad and access road construction; 3) installation/repair of four 

drainage structures; 4) the installation of a 300-foot bollard fence 

section near Jacumba; 5) blasting activities; and 6) the installation 

of two water wells and holding tanks by the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP). 
113 

All activities would take place between Canyon City, California and the 

Imperial County line in San Diego County, California. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this analysis and assuming that 

all mitigation measures recommended herein are implemented, no 

significant adverse impacts would occur from the Proposed Action 

Alternative. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment Immigration and 

Naturalization Service Brush and Small Tree Thinning Operation near 

Jacumba, California, November 2001, resulting in a FONSI 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential effects, 

beneficial and adverse, of the proposed brush and small tree thinning 

operation near Jacumba, California. The proposed action would involve 

hand-clearing brush within an 18 acre site within Boundary Creek. Large 

trees, as requested by the landowner, would remain on the site. 

Riparian habitat would be thinned within the proposed project area. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the proposed action. Mitigation 

measures regarding schedule, frequency, and method of clearing/thinning 

have been incorporated to ensure no significant effects occur. No 

significant adverse effects to air quality, water quality, cultural 

resources, unique areas, soils, protected species, or land use are 

expected as a result of the proposed action. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment Joint Task Force Six Proposed 

Fence Road Repair and Improvement Project Douglas, Cochise County, 

Arizona, February 2001, resulting in a FONSI signed in February 2001. 

A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), prepared in 1994 

for the Immigration arid Naturalization Service (INS) and JTF-6, 

addressed proposed projects that facilitate missions to reduce illegal 

drug activity trafficking. This Environmental Assessment (EA) tiers 

from the 1994 PEIS, and addresses the potential impacts associated with 

a proposed fence and road improvement project along the U.S.-Mexico 

border in Cochise County, Arizona. The proposed action includes the 

extension of alanding mat fence, installation of permanent lighting, 

road and hydrological repairs and improvements, and road maintenance. 

The proposed action specifically addresses the extension of an existing 

landing mat fence east of the Port of Entry (POE) for a distance of two 

miles, installation of permanent lighting east of the POE for a 

distance of 0.8 of a mile and west of the POE for a distance of one 

mile; repair/improvement the border road and hydrological conditions 

east of the POE for a distance of four miles and west of Whitewater 

Draw for a distance of four miles; and road maintenance west of the 

road repair section for a distance of eight miles near Douglas, 

Arizona. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 
114 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Border Road Maintenance & 

Repair Naco, Cochise County Arizona, February 1993, resulting in a 

FONSI signed in February 1993 

The proposed project consists of 22 miles of an existing road east and 

west of Naco, Arizona. The road maintenance will consist of light 

scraping, installation of culverts, grading and shaping for drainage, 

and placing gravel in several washes. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Southerly International 

Border Water Improvement Project, March 2000, resulting in a FONSI 

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, Public Law 93- 

320, authorized the construction, operation, and maintenance of 

facilities in the Colorado River Basin to control the, salinity of 

water delivered to Mexico by the International Boundary and Water 

Commission. The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to 

identify some proposed options developed by the Bureau of Reclamation, 

Yuma Area Office, and the International Boundary and Water Commission 

for the delivery of water to Mexico across the land boundary at San 

Luis, Arizona. Currently, water is delivered through the Sanchez 

Mejorada Canal at the southerly International Boundary (SIB). The water 

flow at the SIB fluctuates and flow variations render deliveries at the 

SIB unpredictable for both quantity and quality. 

This Environmental Assessment considers the following three 

alternatives to providing improved flows and less salty water to Mexico 

at the SIB: 1) Install variable speed motor controllers at the SIB 

Boundary Pumping Plant (BPP) and construct a diversion channel from the 

BPP to the Bypass Drain, 2) Install variable speed motor controllers at 

the SIB BPP without the construction of a diversion canal; and 3) no 

action. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

DOE 

Reference: 10 CFR Pt. 1021, Subpt. D. App. B 

B1.20 Small-scale activities undertaken to protect, restore, or improve 

fish and wildlife habitat, fish passage facilities (such as fish 

ladders or minor diversion channels), or fisheries. 

CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, AND DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES 

E1 Construction, installation, operation, maintenance, and removal of utility and 

communication systems (such as mobile antennas, data processing cable, and similar 

electronic equipment) that use existing rights-of-way, easements, utility distribution 
115 

systems, and/or facilities. This is limited to activities with towers where the resulting total 

height does not exceed 200 feet and where the FCC would not require an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact statement for the acquisition, installation, operation 

or maintenance. 

Many components of the Department engage in or provide support to one or more 

phases of the construction, operation, maintenance, and removal of 

communications systems and similar electronic equipment. These types of 

electronic equipment are essential to support effective emergency response, 

search and rescue, and law enforcement activities for which the Department 

was established. 

 

The Panel limited the scope of the activities contemplated by this 

categorical exclusion to those that would use existing rights-of-way, 

easements, utility distribution systems, and/or facilities. These existing 

rights-of-way, easements, utility distribution systems, and/or facilities 

would include properties that have already been disturbed by prior 

installation of utility and communications systems. Due to this prior 

disturbance, there would be little potential for significant environmental 

impact from the use of these properties. Likewise, the Panel chose to limit 

the scope of activities contemplated under this categorical exclusion to 

equipment and towers less than 200 feet in height, where the FCC would not 

require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for the 

acquisition, installation, operation or maintenance. Since the Federal 

Communications Commission has substantial experience with regulating 

communications systems and towers, the Panel believed that relying on their 

expertise with regard to the absence of need for an environmental assessment 

or environmental impact statement would be appropriate to ensure that 

Department activities of a similar nature would not cause significant impact 

to the human environment. As a result of these limitations, the Panel 

determined that this categorical exclusion contemplated activities that would 

inherently have no potential for significant impacts to the human 

environment. 

 

In addition, this categorical exclusion is supported by a long-standing 

categorical exclusion and administrative records brought to the Department by 

the U.S. Coast Guard, Transportation Security Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, and Customs and Border Protection. These legacy 

categorical exclusions and environmental assessments themselves would have 

only been developed through a process consistent with NEPA regulatory 

requirements. The Panel was careful to ensure that the language of this 

categorical exclusion did not extend the activities beyond those contemplated 

in the legacy administrative record. The Panel recognized that the breadth 

of this administrative record demonstrated that operations of a similar 

nature, scope, and intensity were performed throughout the Department without 

significant environmental impacts. 

 

The Panel also noted that other Federal agencies have categorical exclusions 

for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that they 
116 

demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by The 

Department. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, 

with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of 

other Federal agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in the 

Department were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies 

in general, as well as specifically related to the environment. 

 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently did not have individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

human environment. 

Categorical exclusion E1 was the subject of a comment regarding facilities 

that cross tidal, coastal, or navigable waters. Specifically, the comment 

suggested that the activities contemplated by this categorical exclusion are 

not of concern in upland areas; however, if any of the facilities cross 

tidal, coastal, or navigable waters there is the potential for environmental 

impacts. 

The Department considered this comment and notes that its components do not 

generally have independent authority to conduct activities without complying 

with the many laws and requirements established to protect the environment. 

This exclusion from further environmental analysis under NEPA is adequately 

limited by the need to secure applicable permits and any required approvals. 

In addition, Section 3.2 in Appendix A of the directive contains a list of 

conditions and extraordinary circumstances that must be satisfied in the 

application of this categorical exclusion to a specific program or activity 

within DHS. These conditions and extraordinary circumstances were developed 

in recognition that, while the vast majority of DHS activities in this 

category do not have potential for significant impacts to the environment, 

activity proponents within DHS need to be alert for rare and unique 

conditions that may require more extensive evaluation of the potential for 

environmental impacts under NEPA. This evaluation would include not only the 

immediate effect of the DHS decision, but also the potential environmental 

effects that may indirectly result from implementing the decision and the 

cumulative effects of the decision on the quality of the human environment. 

This categorical exclusion was changed from the text published for public 

comment in that the phrase, “...intrusion detection systems,” was deleted. 

This was done because it was noticed that the inclusion of intrusion 

detection systems was redundant with the inclusion of such systems in 

categorical exclusion B9. There is also a grammatical change from the text 

published for public comment in that the phrase, “...and for equipment and 

towers...” was replaced with the phrase, “This includes equipment and 

towers...”. 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 
117 

FAA 

Reference: FAA Order 5050.4A Chapter 3, Section 23. 

(a) (2) Installation or upgrading of airfield lighting systems, 

including runway end identification lights, visual approach aids, 

beacons and electrical distribution systems. 

(a) (7) Landscaping generally, and landscaping or construction of 

physical barriers to diminish impact of airport blast and noise. 

 

FEMA 

Reference: 44CFR10.8 (d) (2) 

(ix) Acquisition, installation, or operation of utility and 

communication systems that use existing distribution systems or 

facilities, or currently used infrastructure rights-of-way; 

(x) Routine maintenance, repair, and grounds-keeping activities at FEMA 

facilities; 

(xv) Repair, reconstruction, restoration, elevation, retrofitting, 

upgrading to current codes and standards, or replacement of any 

facility in a manner that substantially conforms to the preexisting 

design, function, and location. 

 

USDA-ARS 

Reference: EA for the Underwater Electrical Cable Replacement Project, 

Plum Island Animal Research Center resulting in a FONSI 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (ARS) 

proposed to provide Plum Island Animal Research Center with a new 

underwater electrical cable from Orient Point, NY to Plum Island Animal 

Research Center. The proposed action was designed to meet all 

regulatory requirements, limit environmental impacts and meet the 

electrical and communications need of Plum Island Animal Research 

Center. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this EA, no significant adverse 

environmental impacts would result from the proposed action. 

 

USCG 

Reference: COMDTINST M16475.1D Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical 

Exclusions 

2. Real and Personal Property Related Actions q. Minor renovations 

and additions to buildings, roads, airfields, grounds, equipment, and 

other facilities that do not result in a change in functional use of 

the real property (e.g. realigning interior spaces of an existing 

building, extending an existing roadway in a developed area a short 

distance, installing a small antenna on an already existing antenna 

tower, adding a small storage shed to an existing building, etc.). 

(Checklist and CED required.) u. Routine repair and maintenance of 

buildings, roads, airfields, grounds, equipment, and other facilities 

which do not result in a change in functional use, or an impact on a 

historically significant element or setting. v. Routine repair and 

maintenance to waterfront facilities, including mooring piles, fixed 

floating piers, existing piers, and unburied power cables. w. Minor 

renovations and additions to waterfront facilities, including mooring 
118 

piles, fixed floating piers, existing piers, and unburied power cables, 

which do not require special, 

site-specific regulatory permits. (Checklist and CED required.) x. 

Routine grounds maintenance and activities at units and facilities. 

Examples include localized pest management actions and actions to 

maintain improved grounds (such as landscaping, lawn care and minor 

erosion control measures) that are conducted in accordance with 

applicable Federal, state, and local directives. 

6. Bridge Administration Actions a. Modification or replacement of 

an existing bridge on essentially the same alignment or location. 

Excluded are bridges with historic significance or bridges providing 

access to undeveloped barrier islands and beaches. 

 

INS 

Reference: 28CFR61 Appendix C 

10. Actions Which Normally Do Not Require Either An Environmental 

Impact Statement Or An Environmental Assessment: (a) Construction 

projects for existing facilities including but not limited to: 

Remodeling; replacement of building systems and components; maintenance 

and operations repairs and general improvements when such projects do 

not significantly alter the initial occupancy and program of the 

facility or significantly impact upon the environment. 

 

ARMY 

Reference: 32CFR651 Appendix B. Section II 

(e)(2) Acquisition, installation, and operation of utility and 

communication systems, mobile antennas, data processing cable and 

similar electronic equipment that use existing right-of-way, easement, 

distribution systems, and/or facilities (REC required). 

 

AIR FORCE 

Reference: 32CFR989 Appendix B 

A2.3.12. Installing, operating, modifying, and routinely repairing and 

replacing utility and communications systems, data processing cable, 

and similar electronic equipment that use existing rights of way, 

easements, distribution systems, or facilities. 

 

DOE 

Reference: 10CFR1021, Subpart D, Appendix B 

B1.7 Acquisition, installation, operation, and removal of communication 

systems, data processing equipment, and similar electronic equipment. 

B1.19 Siting, construction, and operation of microwave and radio 

communication towers and associated facilities, if the towers and 

associated facilities would not be in an area of great visual value. 

 

NAVY 

Reference: 32CFR775.6 

(16) Acquisition, installation, and operation of utility and 

communication systems, data processing cable, and similar electronic 

equipment which use existing rights of way, easements, distribution 

systems, and/or facilities. 
119 

 

USBP 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Remote Video 

Surveillance System in Lower Niagara River, New York, July 2001, 

resulting in a FONSI 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Border Patrol proposes 

to install and operate a remote video surveillance (RVS) system along 

the lower Niagara River in Niagara County, New York. Four sites along 

the Lower Niagara River are under consideration for installation of RVS 

equipment. Site No. 1 is located atop the Wrobel Towers, a 13-story 

senior citizen residential building located at 800 Niagara Avenue: in 

the City of Niagara Falls. Site No. 2 is located on undeveloped, stateowned parkland, approximately 150 feet west of the Robert Mo Parkway in 

the Town of Lewiston. Site No. 3 is located on private property 

situated on Lower River Road in the Town of Lewiston. Site No. 4 is 

located in Old Fort Niagara, within Fort Niagara State Park, near the 

village of Youngstown. 

Analysis: The proposed action would result in less-than-significant 

adverse impacts to the immediate area near each site and the 

surrounding community. Cumulative impacts have been taken into account. 

Beneficial impacts would result from the U.S. Border Patrol being 

better able to meet its mandate in light of budgetary constraints and 

increased mission requirements. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment Joint Task Force Six 

Proposed Lighting and Camera Installation Project Nogales, Arizona, 

September 1998, resulting in a FONSI 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses potential impacts 

associated with a proposed lighting and camera installation project 

covering approximately four miles on the U.S-Mexico border in Santa 

Cruz County, Arizona. This document is tiered from the Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PETS) completed for a broad scope of 

JTF-6 activities along the U.S-Mexico border (U.S. Army 1994). The 

proposed project site is located along the U.S-Mexico border in the 

city of Nogales and extending westward and eastward into Santa Cruz 

County, Arizona. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Draft Environmental Assessment of Proposed Installation of 

Communications Towers at U.S. Border Patrol Checkpoints, Falfurrias and 

Sarita, Texas, December 2002, resulting in a FONSI signed on January 

27, 2003 

The U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) maintains checkpoints on the northbound 

side of U.S. Highway 281 approximately 13 miles south of Falfurrias, 

Texas, and on the northbound side of U.S. Highway 77 approximately 14 

miles south of Santa, Texas. The USBP proposes to construct new 

communications towers at these checkpoints. The USBP proposes to 

construct a 152 foot communications tower and associated housing for a 
120 

backup generator and other equipment at each of the two checkpoints. 

The tower at the Falfurrias checkpoint would be anchored by three 

concrete piers spaced in an equilateral triangle 23 feet on a side. 

These piers would be constructed of reinforced concrete, would measure 

four feet in diameter, and would be installed to a depth of 38 feet. 

The tower at the Sarita checkpoint would be anchored on a 26-foot 

square concrete mat foundation installed to a total depth of 6.25 feet. 

Dimensions for the equipment housing were not available, but it is 

estimated that they would measure approximately 15-feet long by 8-feet 

wide. The towers and equipment shelters would be connected to the main 

building at each checkpoint by underground electrical conduits that 

would be installed under the pavement. 

Analysis: The Proposed Action would not result in any significant 

environmental impact. There would be no impacts on land use, geological 

resources, water resources, wildlife, threatened or endangered species, 

or cultural resources. The only adverse impacts on vegetation, noise, 

aesthetics, or solid and hazardous waste concerns would be 

insignificant. The proposed action would have a slight but overall 

insignificant beneficial impact on the socioeconomic environment of the 

area through temporary increases on spending on local businesses during 

construction and improved public safety for the local communities and 

legitimate users of the rest areas. 

 

Reference: Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the 

Installation and Operation of Remote Video Surveillance Systems in the 

Central Region of the Immigration and Naturalization Service resulting 

in a FONSI signed on March 19, 2003 

The proposed action consists of the expanded use of Remote Video 

Surveillance (RVS) systems in the Central Region of the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) by the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP). At the 

present time, the proposed action includes the installation of up to 

1,556 additional RVS systems in the Central Region over the next ten 

years. This number is a planning level analysis. The actual number of 

RV systems required will vary depending upon enforcement strategies and 

their function will continually be evaluated on a site-specific basis. 

The process and guidelines by which the proposed RVS systems would be 

installed will be identified in this document. In addition, the 

Proposed Action would include the completion of RVS systems currently 

in the process of being installed and the operation and maintenance of 

all existing and Proposed RVS systems. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the PEA and given the identified 

environmental design measures, it has been concluded that the proposed 

action would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 

 

Reference: Environmental Analysis Document to Support a Categorical 

Exclusion for the Installation, Operation and Maintenance of Seventeen 

Electronic Surveillance Systems Laredo, Texas Immigration and 

Naturalization Service, September 1998, resulting in a FONSI 

The U.S. Border Patrol proposes to install, operate and maintain 17 

Remote Video Surveillance (RVS) sites along the U.S.—Mexico border near 

Laredo, Texas. The proposed action would involve minimal construction 
121 

activities within sites that have been previously disturbed. All sites 

were surveyed for sensitive biological and cultural resources. Two 

proposed locations are located within areas that support suitable 

habitat for endangered species. Since the Chacon Creek site does not 

have a power source nearby, it is recommended that this site use a 

solar Panel and battery for power, rather than overhead power lines. 

With implementation of this design change, there would be no impacts to 

the surrounding brush habitat from additional power (utility) pole 

installation. The Cenizo Steps proposed pole location should be moved 

as least 20 feet east of its proposed location. This would move the 

pole from a brush habitat to a bare ground area, thereby avoiding any 

potential impacts to brush habitat. No significant adverse effect to 

any resource (i.e., air quality, water quality, cultural resource, 

wetlands, protected species, land use, etc.) is expected. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the proposed actions. Increased or 

enhanced interdiction of illegal drug and alien trafficking would have 

positive, indirect socioeconomic benefits. Therefore, no further 

analysis or documentation (Environmental Assessment or Impact 

Statement) is warranted. The INS, in implementing this decision, will 

employ all practical means to minimize the potential adverse impacts on 

the local environment. 

 

Reference: Environmental Analysis Proposed Low-Light Level Remote Video 

Surveillance System (RVS) For Operation Rio Grande Cameron County, 

Texas, March 2000, resulting in a FONSI 

Operation Rio Grande is a program initiated by the United States Border 

Patrol (USBP) in August 1997 to aid in reducing illegal immigration and 

drug trafficking along the Rio Grande corridor of the McAllen Sector of 

the USBP. This Environmental Analysis addresses the potential impacts 

that could result from the installation, operation and maintenance of 

20 low-light level remote video surveillance systems (RVSs) in the Port 

Isabel and Brownsville stations of the McAllen Sector in Cameron 

County, Texas. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. The information 

contained in this Environmental Analysis supports the designation of 

the proposed action as a Categorical exclusion (CATEX) pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Remote Video 

Surveillance (RVS) Site at Yselta, Texas U.S. Immigration and 

Naturalization Service, September 2000, resulting in a FONSI signed in 

September 2000 

The U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) proposes to install and operate, a Remote 

Video Surveillance (RVS) tower and system near the U.S.— Mexico border 

near Ysleta, Texas. The proposed action would involve minimal 

construction activities within a site that has been previously 

disturbed. The site was surveyed for sensitive biological and cultural 
122 

resources. No significant adverse effects to air quality, water 

quality, cultural resource, wetlands, protected species, or land use 

are expected. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the proposed actions at the seven 

proposed RVS site locations. Increased or enhanced interdiction of 

illegal drug and alien entry and activities would have positive, 

indirect socioeconomic benefits. Therefore, no further analysis or 

documentation (Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. The U.S. 

Immigration and Naturalization Service, in implementing this decision, 

will employ all practical means to minimize the potential adverse 

impacts on the local environment. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for Proposed Installation of 

Surveillance Equipment in Minnesota, North Dakota and Montana U.S. 

Immigration and Naturalization Service, May 2002, resulting in a FONSI 

signed in May 2002 

The U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) proposes to install and operate 24 Remote 

Video Surveillance (RVS) systems along the U.S-Canadian Border in 

Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota. The proposed action would involve 

the placement of RVS systems on previously existing structures and one 

previously disturbed site. Poles will be put into the ground at three 

locations where RVS equipment would be mounted. No impacts are 

anticipated at any of these locations. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the proposed actions at the 22 of the 

24 proposed RVS site locations. Two locations are close to potentially 

eligible railroad bridges. Poles would be constructed approximately 100 

yards away from these bridges to avoid any impact to these potentially 

significant structures. As a result no impacts are anticipated to 

either of these structures. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for Remote Video Surveillance 

Systems (RVS) and Communication Towers (CTOW) for the US Border Patrol 

in the Harlingen, Laredo, and Eagle Pass Stations, May 2002 resulting 

in a FONSI 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluated the installation, 

operation, and maintenance of forty-three remote video surveillance 

systems (RVS) and five communication towers (CTOW) in the Del Rio, 

Laredo, and McAllen Sectors of the USBP. Of the forty-three RVS and 

five CTOW sites, four of the RVS and two of the CTOW will be placed 

either on existing structures or replace existing structures. The vast 

majority of the proposed RVS and CTOW locations are situated in 

moderately to completely disturbed areas near rail yards, residential 

developments, agricultural fields, and existing roads. 

Analysis: This proposed action is not expected to result in any 

significant long-term or cumulative adverse impacts on the human or 

natural environment. 

 

Reference: Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment of Remote Video 

Surveillance Systems (RVS) and Communication Towers (CTOW) for the US 
123 

Border Patrol in the Harlingen, Laredo, and Eagle Pass Stations, 

October 2003, resulting in a FONSI signed October 2003 

This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) supplements the Final 

EA of Remote Video Surveillance Systems (RVS) Systems and Communication 

Towers (CTOW) for the US Border Patrol in the Harlingen, Laredo, and 

Eagle Pass Stations. This Supplemental EA (SEA) addresses additional 

effects that may potentially occur relative to proposed construction of 

an access road for the Walker Tower 2B site and proposed improvements 

to an existing access road for the Lupes Tower site. Both sites are 

located within the Laredo South Station’s area of operations. The 

project consisted of construction of a new access road and upgrade of 

an existing roadway to provide access to two RVS sites: the Walker 

Tower 2B and Lupes Tower. The proposed construction consists of grading 

a 12-foot wide by 1,200-foot long access road at the Walker Tower 2B 

site and minor improvements to approximately 600 feet of an existing 

road at the Lupes Tower site. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of these EAs, it was concluded that 

the project was not likely to adversely affect the environment; 

therefore, further environmental analysis is not warranted. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for Seven Remote Video Surveillance 

Sites near Naco, Arizona, June 2000, resulting in a FONSI 

In this EA the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) proposed to install, operate, 

and maintain seven Remote Video Surveillance (RVS) sites along the 

U.S./Mexico border near Naco, Arizona. The proposed action involved 

minimal construction activities within sites that have been previously 

disturbed. 

Analysis: The EA determined that there would be no significant adverse 

impacts from the proposed actions at the seven proposed RVS site 

locations. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment For The Installation, Operation And 

Maintenance Of Fourteen Remote Video Surveillance Systems Eagle Pass, 

Texas Immigration And Naturalization Service, June 1999, resulting in a 

FONSI 

The USBP proposes to install, operate, and maintain 14 Remote Video 

Surveillance (RVS) sites along the U.S. Mexico border near Eagle Pass, 

Texas. The proposed action would involve minimal construction 

activities within sites that have been previously disturbed. All sites 

were surveyed for sensitive biological and cultural resources. No 

significant adverse effect to any resource (i.e., air quality, water 

quality, cultural resource, wetlands, protected species, land use, 

etc.) is expected. 

Analysis: No significant adverse impacts would occur from the proposed 

actions. Increased or enhanced interdiction of illegal drug and alien 

entry and activities would have positive, indirect socioeconomic 

benefits. Therefore, no further analysis or documentation is warranted. 

The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, in implementing this 

decision, will employ all practical means to minimize the potential 

adverse impacts on the environment. 

 
124 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Acquisition, Installation, 

and Operation of Remote Video Surveillance Systems USBP El Centro 

Sector, California, February 2001, resulting in a FONSI 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential adverse 

effects of the proposed installation and operation of 24 remote video 

surveillance (RVS) systems near Calexico, Imperial County, California. 

The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and U.S. Border 

Patrol proposes to install the RVS systems at specific strategic 

locations along the U.S.-Mexico border to enhance their capabilities of 

detecting illegal entries into the United States and to assist in the 

apprehensions of those illegal entrants who are detected. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

construction activities for the proposed RVS sites, outside of the 

critical habitat area for the endangered peninsular bighorn sheep, 

would have no adverse impacts to environmental resources in the 

proposed project area. However, no construction activities should be 

initiated at the proposed RV sites located in the critical habitat area 

until the USFWS has issued a Biological Opinion in regards to what 

level of effect the proposed action could have on endangered species. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Installation of Fencing, 

Lights, Cameras, Guardrails, and Sensors along the American Canal 

Extension El Paso, Texas, April 1999, resulting in a FONSI 

This Environmental Assessment was tiered from the “Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement for JTF-6 Activities Along the 

U.S./Mexico Border and sought install fencing, lights, cameras, 

guardrails and sensors along portions of the American Canal Extension 

in El Paso, TX. The entire project was within the city limits of El 

Paso. The project entailed approximately 20 miles of fencing, permanent 

stadium-type lights to be installed on poles 60 to 300 feet high in 

three clusters along the 20-mile project area, and construction of 

guardrails placed along portions of the project in order to prevent 

vehicles accessing the levee slopes at inappropriate or unsafe 

locations. The project also analyzed the installation of surveillance 

cameras, to provide remote surveillance of the BP patrol area, at 

critical locations along the project length. Some cameras were to be 

mounted on existing poles, antennae, or buildings, while others 

required installation of new poles. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this EA, no significant adverse 

environmental impacts would result from the proposed action. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Installation, Operation, 

and Maintenance of a Remote Video Surveillance (RVS) System in Whatcom 

County, Washington. May, 2000, resulting in a FONSI 

This project sought to install, operate, and maintain a Remote Video 

Surveillance system (RVS), with a fiber optic cable video and data 

transmission subsystem along the U.S.—Canadian border in Whatcom 

County, Washington. The project will consist of approximately 47 miles 

of underground fiber optic line and thirty-one cameras mounted on poles 

ranging in height from 60 to 80 feet. 
125 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this EA, no significant adverse 

environmental impacts would result from the proposed action. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment Installation of Fencing, Lights, 

Cameras, Guardrails, And Sensors Along The American Canal Extension El 

Paso District El Paso, Texas, April 1999, resulting in a FONSI 

This Environmental Assessment is tiered from the “Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement for JTF-6 Activities Along the U.S.-

Mexico Border (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California) “, dated 

August 1994, prepared for the INS. The El Paso Sector of the United 

States Border Patrol proposes to install fencing, lights, cameras, 

guardrails and sensors along portions of the American Canal Extension 

in El Paso, TX. The project is located near the Rio Grande River in 

northwestern Texas. The entire project is within the city limits of El 

Paso. The majority of the Project Location is along a man made canal 

and levee system. Portions of the canal are at times adjacent to 

industrial areas, downtown El Paso, and mixed commercial with limited 

residential development. Border Highway (Route 375) roughly parallels 

most of the project site. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the proposed actions. Therefore, no 

further analysis or documentation (Environmental Assessment or Impact 

Statement) is warranted. The INS, in implementing this decision, will 

employ all practical means to minimize the potential adverse impacts on 

the local environment. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Construction of Barrier 

Systems along a 1.6-Mile Corridor of the United States/Mexico 

International Boundary (Spring Canyon) in San Diego, California May 

1998, Revised July 1998, resulting in a FONSI 

The EA tiers from the 1994 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

for Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) Activities along the United 

States/Mexico Border. The INS proposes to construct a patrol road, 

secondary fence (including pedestrian, overhead rolling, vehicle swing 

gates and dog runs), maintenance roads, lighting, and remote video 

surveillance along a corridor that begins just east of the San Ysidro 

POE, and stretches 1.6 miles eastward to Arnie’s Point. Construction of 

these elements would take place entirely within the area defined as the 

“limits of construction”, which encompass 44.5 acres. The Proposed 

Action also includes placement of a box culvert in Stewart’s Creek. The 

box culvert would be placed in Stewart’s Creek, 1.6 miles west of the 

San Ysidro POE, and 200 feet east-southeast of the U.S. International 

Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) waste treatment facility. All 

construction activity associated with the box culvert would take place 

within a 50’x 100’ area. Impact assessment associated with the Proposed 

Action covers the 44.5 acre limits of construction and the 50’ x 100’ 

area. The analysis of project-related potential environmental impacts 

is documented in the BA prepared for the project. Biological and 

cultural resource surveys were conducted to identify any sensitive 

resources potentially affected by the project. Findings were 

coordinated with the appropriate resource agencies and the areas 
126 

containing sensitive resources were either identified for avoidance or 

a mitigation plan developed during project construction. A mitigation 

plan has been developed and approved by the California State Historic 

Officer for archeological site number CA-SDI- 10,809, which lies within 

the limits of construction associated with the Proposed Action. The 

site is recommended as potentially eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places. In order to avoid impacts to the 

site, a data recovery program will be applied. Data recovery efforts 

would be conducted while construction would begin along other portions 

of the corridor. All data recovery would be completed before 

construction activities commence in the site area. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the proposed actions. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Nogales Infrastructure 

Improvements Tucson Sector, Nogales Station Santa Cruz County, Arizona, 

October 2003, resulting in a FONSI signed in October 2003 

The Department of Homeland Security proposes to construct 1.5 miles of 

all-weather patrol roads, perform 0.5 mile of road improvements, 

install one mile of border fence and maintenance road, and install 

fifteen Remote Video Surveillance (RVS) systems in proximity to the 

U.S-Mexico border in Nogales, Arizona. Road improvements to the first 

0.5 mile of existing road would involve paving with asphalt. Also, up 

to sixty portable light systems in the area would continue to be 

utilized to facilitate enforcement operations. 

Analysis: The proposed infrastructure improvements would have no 

significant adverse effects on natural resources within the project 

corridor. Therefore, no further analysis or documentation is warranted. 

The Department of Homeland Security, in implementing this decision, 

would employ all practical means to minimize the potential adverse 

impacts on the local environment. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for the Installation and 

Operation of a Relay Tower at Crawford Hill, United States Border 

Patrol, Nogales Station Santa Cruz County, Arizona Immigration and 

Naturalization Service, November 2002, resulting in a FONSI signed in 

November 2002 

The proposed action is the installation, operation and maintenance of 

one relay tower along the U.S.-Mexico border within Santa Cruz County, 

Arizona. The proposed relay tower would be equipped with RVS 

equipment. The proposed relay tower is located on Crawford Hill within 

the City of Nogales. In addition to the relay tower being installed at 

the Crawford Hill site, the USBP also plans on updating their existing 

cameras sites within the Nogales Station AO by retrofitting 10 new 

modem cameras with infrared capabilities at the existing RVS locations. 

This action would include the removal of non-cameras and replacement 

with new infrared cameras and would not require any ground disturbing 

activities. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA and the environmental design 

measures to be incoiporated as part of the proposed action, it has been 

concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse 
127 

effect on the environment. Therefore, no further environmental impact 

analysis is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for the Installation and 

Operation of Nine Remote Video Surveillance Systems in the Tucson 

Sector, Cochise County, Arizona, January 2003, resulting in a FONSI 

signed in January 2003 

The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) proposes to 

install and operate nine Remote Video Surveillance (RVS) systems for 

the Naco and Douglas U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Stations. The proposed 

action includes related permanent road improvements, temporary road 

improvements, and the installation of power lines from adjacent power 

grids. The proposed action would involve minimal construction 

activities at the proposed RVS sites. All of the access road 

construction would involve grading of existing roadways and previously 

disturbed areas. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Proposed 

Installation and Operation of Remote Video Surveillance Systems in the 

Western Region of the Immigration and Naturalization, March 2003, 

resulting in a FONSI signed March 2003 

The USBP Western Region is responsible for approximately 420-miles of 

the U.S./Canadian border and 511-miles of the U.S./Mexico border, most 

of which are remote and rugged terrain. Therefore, the USBP has the 

need for a non-intrusive method for monitoring vast areas with limited 

resources. Remote Video Surveillance (RVS) systems provide a partial 

solution to this problem while simultaneously limiting the potential 

impact to environmental resources. This project sought to analysis the 

expanded use of RVS systems in the Western Region including the 

installation of up to 459 additional RVS systems in the Western Region 

over the next 10 years including the operation and maintenance of all 

existing and proposed RVS systems. This document described the impacts 

of the proposed action; however, site-specific surveys and evaluations 

and tiered NEPA documents will be completed once locations for RVS 

system installation are identified. This PEA will describe the 

cumulative effects of the proposed action in conjunction with other ongoing and proposed projects. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the PEA it was concluded that the 

installation and operation of multiple RVS systems would not have a 

significant adverse impact on the natural or human environment. 

 

Reference: Final Report Environmental Assessment for Infrastructure 

within US Border Patrol Naco-Douglas Corridor Cochise County, Arizona 

Immigration and Naturalization Service Washington, DC, August 2000, 

resulting in a FONSI signed in August 2000 

Infrastructure improvements that will be addressed include, but are not 

limited, to roads, fences, vehicle barriers, helipads, USBP stations, 
128 

remote video surveillance (RVS) sites, lights, and checkpoints. The 

cumulative effect of these improvement projects since 1995 and into the 

reasonably foreseeable future, and in conjunction with other programs 

or projects proposed or implemented by other agencies, is the primary 

focus of this EA. 

Analysis: The proposed action would involve minimal construction 

activities within sites that have been, for the most part, previously 

disturbed. No significant adverse effects to air quality, water 

quality, cultural resources, unique areas, soils, protected species, or 

land use are expected. Based on the findings of this analysis no 

significant adverse impacts would occur from the preferred 

alternative. 

 

Reference: Final Report: Environmental Assessment for Proposed 

Installation of Remote Video Surveillance Equipment Immigration and 

Naturalization Service San Diego Sector, San Diego, October 2002, 

resulting in a FONSI signed in October 2002 

The proposed action consists of installation, operation, and 

maintenance of 25 Remote Video Surveillance (RVS) systems near the 

U.S.-Mexican border within the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) San Diego 

Sector, California. This EA analyzes the potential for significant 

adverse or beneficial impacts of the proposed action. Of the 25 RVS 

systems, 19 would be installed within the footprint of the extant San 

Diego Border Infrastructure System. The six remaining RVS systems would 

be installed at previously disturbed sites outside of the Border 

Infrastructure System. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the 

Acquisition, Installation, and Operation of Remote Video Surveillance 

Systems, Imperial County, California October 2002, resulting in a FONSI 

The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and U.S. Border 

Patrol (USBP) El Centro Sector proposes to install Remote Video 

Surveillance (RVS) systems at specific strategic locations along the 

U.S./Mexico border to enhance their capabilities of deterring, 

detecting, and assisting in the apprehensions of illegal entries into 

the United States. The acquisition, installation, and operation of 24 

RVS sites were addressed in an Environmental Assessment (EA) and 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) signed on 16 May 2002. 

However, shortly after public distribution of the Final EA, the USBP 

and their RVS design contractor determined that some sites needed to be 

relocated due to technical issues and/or their inability to gain access 

to the property. In addition, some sites needed to be redesigned and/or 

added to accommodate proper transmission and reception of signals. This 

document updates and supplements the June 2002 EA and addresses only 

those sites that have been modified or relocated. The design changes 

and additional RVS systems documented in this Supplemental 
129 

Environmental Assessment (SEA) includes the addition of four relay 

sites, five equipment sheds, seven new or relocated RVS sites, and 

twelve design changes. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis and assuming that all 

mitigation measures recommended herein are implemented, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the Preferred Alternative. As 

previously stated, increased or enhanced interdiction of illegal alien 

entry and drug activities would have positive, indirect socioeconomic 

benefits. 

 

Reference: Pre-Draft Environmental Assessment for Construction of 

Barrier Systems Border Field State Park to Gravel Pit and Tin Can Hill 

Areas San Diego California including Cumulative Impact Assessment for 

the Multiple Fence System Master Plan, April 1999, resulting in a FONSI 

This Environmental Assessment analyzes and presents the direct and 

indirect environmental impacts associated with an Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) proposal to construct patrol roads, 

secondary fencing (including pedestrian, overhead rolling, and vehicle 

swing gate and “agent safety zones”), maintenance roads, tight 

standards, and remote video surveillance (RVS) cameras along two noncontiguous segments of the U.S.-Mexico international boundary, in San 

Diego County, California. The EA also presents a cumulative impact 

assessment for implementation of the Multiple Fence System Master 

developed for San Diego, California. The Multiple Fence System Master 

Plan present a plan for enhanced border control along the international 

boundary in the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) San Diego Sector (Imperial 

Beach, Chula Vista, and Brown Field stations) using a combination of 

roads, lighting, and fences. This EA tiers from the 1994 Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) 

Activities along he U.S.-Mexico Border, prepared by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District. The proposed action would 

take place in the Border Field State Park to Gravel Pit and Tin Can 

Hill areas of San Diego County, within the USBP San Diego Sector 

(Imperial Beach and Brown Field stations). The proposed action would 

occur entirely within an area defined as the “project corridor.” The 

project corridor includes two, non-contiguous segments referred to as 

the “western segment” and “eastern segment” of the project corridor. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment Acquisition, 

Installation, and Operation of Remote Video Surveillance Systems United 

States Border Patrol Buffalo Sector Niagara Falls, New York, April 

2001, resulting in a FONSI 

The USBP proposes to install, operate and maintain Remote Video 

Surveillance systems (RVS) near Niagara Falls, New York. The preferred 

alternative selects a group of RVS sites that provide an effective 

video coverage while trying to minimize impacts to environmental 

resources. Of the alternatives considered, the preferred alternative 
130 

would result in the least amount of environmental impacts while 

providing a strategically effective approach to ensuring the USBP 

agents’ and migrants’ health and safety. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the proposed actions. 

E2* New construction upon or improvement of land where all of the following 

conditions are met: 

(a) The structure and proposed use are compatible with applicable Federal, tribal, state, 

and local planning and zoning standards and consistent with federally approved state 

coastal management programs, 

(b) The site is in a developed area and/or a previously disturbed site, 

(c) The proposed use will not substantially increase the number of motor vehicles at the 

facility or in the area, 

(d) The site and scale of construction or improvement are consistent with those of existing, 

adjacent, or nearby buildings, and, 

(e) The construction or improvement will not result in uses that exceed existing support 

infrastructure capacities (roads, sewer, water, parking, etc.). 

The Department of Homeland Security is not a major land managing agency in 

the Federal government. Department activities involving new construction or 

improvements of land typically involve single buildings and supporting 

infrastructure in a single locality. Any potential for environmental impacts 

would be of a small scale and confined to more localized impacts. 

 

The Panel found that the activity of new construction or improvements of land 

contemplated under this categorical exclusion are performed by organizational 

components with real property management responsibilities (nearly the whole 

of the Department). The Panel also found that public assistance programs may 

also result in limited new construction or improvements of land where the 

requirements of NEPA may apply. 

 

This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical 

exclusions and administrative records brought to the Department by its 

components that themselves would have only been developed through a process 

consistent with NEPA regulatory requirements. In particular, the Panel 

identified legacy categorical exclusions from the U.S. Coast Guard. The U.S. 

Coast Guard manages the largest number of real properties in the Department 

in sensitive aquatic environments along all maritime coasts and several 

rivers in the U.S. In addition its bridge administration program can be 

involved in regulating the construction of bridges across navigable waters in 

any area of the U.S. Legacy categorical exclusions from the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency include public assistance programs that could be 

implemented in any part of the U.S. to assist in preparing and recovering 

from a disaster. The U.S. Border Patrol brought a legacy of environmental 

assessments and findings of no significant impact for its land based 

activities. Based upon this extensive history of environmental analyses and 

the experience of its members, the Panel found that actions of a similar 
131 

nature, scope, and intensity were performed throughout the Department without 

significant environmental impacts. 

 

Since new construction or improvements on land could involve numerous 

considerations, the Panel took great care to establish limiting provisions to 

avoid the potential for significant impacts to the human environment. The 

following limiting provisions were established to both conform to the 

evidence presented in the administrative record, to clarify meaning of those 

limiting provisions found in the administrative record, or to add to or 

modify limitations found in the record based on the experience of the Panel 

members to further avoid the potential for significant impacts to the human 

environment: 

(a) The structure and proposed use are compatible with applicable 

Federal, tribal, state, and local planning and zoning standards and 

consistent with federally approved state coastal management programs 

(pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act) 

(b) The site is in a developed area and/or a previously disturbed 

site 

(c) The proposed use will not substantially increase the number of 

motor vehicles at the facility or in the area 

(d) The site and scale of construction or improvement are consistent 

with those of existing, adjacent, or nearby buildings 

(e) The construction or improvement will not result in uses that 

exceed existing support infrastructure capacities (roads, sewer, water, 

parking, etc.) 

As a result of all of these limitations, the Panel determined that this 

categorical exclusion contemplated activities that would inherently have no 

potential for significant impacts to the human environment. 

 

The Panel defined this categorical exclusion to be sufficiently related to 

actions that may involve one or more extraordinary circumstances. To ensure 

that only those actions having negligible impacts on the human environment 

are contemplated by this categorical exclusion, the Panel proposed that a 

Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) be prepared to document the 

determination whether the action is either appropriately categorically 

excluded or whether it requires further analysis through an EA or EIS 

process. 

 

The Panel also noted that other Federal agencies have categorical exclusions 

for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that they 

demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by the 

Department. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, 

with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of 

other Federal agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in the 

Department were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies 

in general, as well as specifically related to the environment. . 

 
132 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently did not have individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

human environment. 

Categorical exclusion E2 was the subject of comments expressing concern 

regarding (1) the precise definition of, “developed area” or “previously 

disturbed site” as used in paragraph (b), and (2) the potential for this 

categorical exclusion serving as a loophole permitting an infinite amount of 

construction. 

The Department considered the comment regarding the definitions of, 

“developed area” or “previously disturbed site.” The comment specifically 

addressed wetland resources, stating that it was within reason to believe 

that wetlands capable of restoration might be considered “disturbed areas.” 

As an example, the comment presents that any such disturbance of a wetland in 

a particular state that was not related to restoration would possibly be 

inconsistent with the enforceable policies of the federally approved Coastal 

Management Program within that state. In response to that concern, the 

Department modified the text published for public comment by replacing the 

phrase, “...local planning and zoning standards,” with the phrase, “...Federal, 

tribal, State, and local planning and zoning standards and consistent with 

federally approved state coastal management programs” as a condition 

precedent to any action taken under this categorical exclusion. 

The Department also considered the concern that this categorical exclusion 

creates a potential loophole. The comment indicated that the categorical 

exclusion might be read to permit an infinite amount of construction as long 

as it could be artfully tailored to meet or to reputedly meet the specified 

criterion. In response to that concern, the Department noted that Section 

3.2 in Appendix A of the directive contains a list of conditions and 

extraordinary circumstances that must be satisfied in the application of this 

categorical exclusion to a specific program or activity within the 

Department. These conditions and extraordinary circumstances were developed 

in recognition that, while the vast majority of the Department activities in 

this category do not have potential for significant impacts to the 

environment, activity proponents within the Department need to be alert for 

rare and unique conditions that may require more extensive evaluation of the 

potential for environmental impacts under NEPA. This evaluation would 

include not only the immediate effect of the Department’s decision, but also 

the potential environmental effects that may indirectly result from 

implementing the decision and the cumulative effects of the decision on the 

quality of the human environment. 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

FEMA 

Reference: 44CFR10.8 (d) (2) 

(xvi) Improvements to existing facilities and the construction of small 

scale hazard mitigation measures in existing developed areas with 
133 

substantially completed infrastructure, when the immediate project area 

has already been disturbed, and when those actions do not alter basic 

functions, do not exceed capacity of other system components, or modify 

intended land use; provided the operation of the completed project will 

not, of itself, have an adverse effect on the quality of the human 

environment; 

 

USCG

Reference: Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical Exclusions 

2. Real and Personal Property Related Actions h. Coast Guard new 

construction upon, or improvement of, land where all of the following 

conditions are met (Checklist and CED required.): The structure and 

proposed use are substantially in compliance with prevailing local 

planning and zoning standards. The site is on heavily developed 

property and/or located on a previously disturbed site in a developed 

area. The proposed use will not substantially increase the number of 

motor vehicles at the facility. The site and scale of construction are 

consistent with those of existing, adjacent, or nearby buildings. 

6. Bridge Administration Actions b. Construction of pipeline bridges 

for transporting potable water. c. Construction of pedestrian, 

bicycle, or equestrian bridges and stream gauging cableways used to 

transport people. 

 

NAVY 

Reference: 32CFR775.6 

(9) New construction that is consistent with existing land use and, 

when completed, the use or operation of which complies with existing 

regulatory requirements and constraints, e.g., a building on a parking 

lot with associated discharges/runoff within existing handling 

capacities, a bus stop along a roadway, and a foundation pad for 

portable buildings within a building complex. 

 

USBP 

Reference: Preliminary Draft Amended Environmental Assessment 

Construction/Renovation Of Border Patrol Checkpoints Near Las Cruces 

And Alamogordo, New Mexico And El Paso, Texas, February 2001, resulting 

in a FONSI 

The project involves construction of two facilities near Alamogordo, 

New Mexico, renovation of four existing facilities near Las Cruces, New 

Mexico, and construction of a new facility near El Paso, Texas. 

Construction and renovation would occur on land already heavily 

disturbed and within the highway right-of-ways. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

environment. 

 

Reference: Final Draft Environmental Assessment Proposed Construction 

of Border Patrol Station in Eagle Pass, Texas, August 2002, resulting 

in a FONSI 

This Environmental Assessment analyzed the proposed construction and 

operation of a U. S. Border Patrol (USBP) station in Eagle Pass, Texas. 
134 

The Proposed Action calls for the construction of a new border patrol 

station located approximately one mile south of Eagle Pass on Farm-toMarket Road (FM) 1021. The proposed station would be located on an 

approximately 39-acre site in a rural area, allowing the future 

possibility of expansion. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment U.S. Border Patrol Station 

Wilcox, Arizona September 2002 resulting in a FONSI signed in September 

of 2002 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is proposing to 

relocate the operation of a United States Border Patrol Station (USBPS) 

to a new facility. The existing and proposed facilities are located in 

Wilcox, Cochise County. Two additional site locations were considered 

and eliminated from further consideration due to environmental 

constraints. The Proposed Alternative would be located within an 

existing industrial area nearby other non-residential developments 

within the City limits of Wilcox. 

Analysis: Based on the analysis of the resource studies, no significant 

adverse impacts would result from the Proposed Alternative. 

 

Reference: Preliminary Final Environmental Assessment Immigration and 

Naturalization Service New 350-Agent Border Patrol Station Campo, 

California October 2002 resulting in a FONSI 

The proposed action consists of building a 350-Agent Border Patrol 

(USBP) Station near Campo, San Diego. This EA analyzes the potential 

for significant adverse or beneficial impacts of the proposed action. 

The proposed action addresses the construction of a 350-Agent USBP 

station at one of the three locations near Campo, California. A total 

of 34 acres of land would be acquired. Of this, only 13 acres would be 

altered. The affected land is currently in open rangeland. The 

remaining area would serve as a buffer zone and would be used as a 

turn-out pasture for USBP horse patrols that may occur in the region. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

environment. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for the Installation of 

Temporary Vehicle Barriers along the International Border near 

Calexico, California January 2003 resulting in a FONSI signed in 

January of 2003 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential effects, 

both beneficial and adverse, of the proposed acquisition, installation, 

and operation of temporary vehicle barriers at various locations along 

14.5 miles of the U.S/Mexico border near Calexico, Imperial County, 

California. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has designated a 

portion of the proposed project area as critical habitat for the 

endangered peninsular bighorn sheep. No direct effects to the sheep or 
135 

its habitat would occur as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative. 

However, indirect effects could potentially occur if illegal traffic 

shifts into other areas. The extent of these effects is not 

quantifiable at this time because UDA and smuggler patterns are at 

their, discretion and outside the control of the USBP. The placement of 

any barriers within critical habitat would occur from 1 July through 31 

December to ensure that no aspect of the proposed action interferes 

with the sheep’s lambing season. In addition, much of the project 

corridor is located within the Vuha Desert Management Area for the 

proposed threatened flat-tailed horned lizard. USBP would provide 

biological monitors onsite during placement of the vehicle barriers to 

ensure no accidental take of the flat- tailed horned lizard would 

occur. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

placement of temporary vehicle barriers along the international border 

would have no adverse direct effects to environmental resources in the 

proposed project area. However, indirect effects could occur to those 

areas outside of the project corridor because of the potential for 

shifting traffic patterns by the smugglers and UDAs. The magnitude of 

these effects is not identifiable or measurable at this time. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment Proposed Immigration and 

Naturalization Service District Office Oakdale, Louisiana August 1996 

resulting in a FONSI 

This EA analyzed the proposed construction and operation of an 

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) District Office. The 

location of the proposed action is within the northeast portion of the 

city of Oakdale, Allen Parish, Louisiana. The proposed District Office 

would be constructed near the Oakdale Federal Detention Center (FDC) 

and the Oakdale Federal Deportation Center (FDTC). The proposed action 

would provide necessary parking, storage, office space, and related 

special space (e.g., conference/training rooms, holding areas) that 

would meet INS personnel requirements in support of the missions at the 

Oakdale FDC and the Oakdale FDTC. Depending on the site chosen, the 

proposed construction would involve clearing, grading, and development 

on a minimum of three and a maximum of four acres for building space 

and parking lots. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of the Environmental Assessment, and 

the incorporation of mitigation measures as part of the proposed 

action, the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact 

on the environment. Therefore, issuance of a Finding of No Significant 

Impact is warranted and an Environmental Impact Statement is not 

required. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Lockdown Dormitory 

Krome Service Processing Center Miami-Dade County, Florida October 2002 

resulting in a FONSI signed in October of 2002 

The U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service 

(INS), proposes to construct and operate a 304-bed lockdown dormitory 

at the Krome Service Processing Center (SPC) site in Miami-Dade County 

Florida. 
136 

Analysis: The proposed action would result in minimal short and longterm impacts to the immediate area of the project location and the 

surrounding community. Cumulative impacts have been taken into account. 

Beneficial impacts would result from the proposed action: the Krome SPC 

would be able to meet its mission requirements in a facility with 

adequate resources to serve the current and anticipated migrant 

population. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment on Proposed JTF-6 Projects in West 

Texas September 1993 resulting in a FONSI 

The proposed action would involve four separate projects at several 

locations in seven southwest Texas counties. The proposed projects are: 

(1) the repair/upgrade of approximately 150 miles (241 kilometers) of 

existing roads in Terrell, Brewster, Presidio, Jeff Davis, Culberson, 

and Hudspeth counties; (2) the construction of helicopter landing zones 

at radio repeater stations on Christmas Mountain, Santiago Peak, and 

Tres Hermanos in Brewster County and Mount Livermore in Jeff Davis 

County; (3) the upgrade of an existing firing range near Fabens in El 

Paso County; and (4) the construction of a U.S. Border Patrol check 

station on U.S. Highway 62-180 in El Paso County. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Preliminary Draft Abbreviated Environmental Assessment for 

Proposed Construction/Renovation of Border Checkpoint Stations near Las 

Cruces and Alamogordo, New Mexico and Comstock and El Paso, Texas, 

March 24, 1997 resulting in a FONSI 

This project proposes to construct or renovate six border check points: 

two near Las Cruces, New Mexico; two near Alamogordo, New Mexico; one 

near El Paso, Texas; and one near Comstock, Texas. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the proposed actions. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment U.S. Border Patrol Station, Sierra 

Blanca, Texas February, 2000 resulting in a FONSI signed in February of 

2000 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared to evaluate the 

potential environmental impacts of constructing a U.S. Border Patrol 

Facility in Sierra Blanca, Texas.. Currently, U.S. Border Patrol Sierra 

Blanca Sector headquarters facilities are located in the town of Sierra 

Blartca, Texas. The current station is a 927-square foot building 

originally built to staff 5 agents. The facility is occupied by 31 

agents. Operational functions such as detention cells and parking are 

either inadequate or not available. These facilities do not provide 

sufficient space for current or future border patrol operations. 

Analysis: On the basis of the findings of the Environmental Assessment, 

no significant impact is anticipated from the proposed project on human 

health or the natural environment. A Finding of No Significant Impact 
137 

is warranted and an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for 

this action. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment Proposed Construction of the U.S. 

Border Patrol Station in Laredo, Webb County, Texas May 1998 resulting 

in a FONSI signed in May of 1998 

This Environmental Assessment was prepared for the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) proposed land purchase, construction of a 

U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) station, and relocation of agents to the new 

facility on an approximately 10-acre tract at the southeast corner of 

Grand Central Boulevard and the McPherson Road extension in Laredo, 

Webb County, Texas. 

The INS proposes to purchase an approximately 10-acre tract of land 

from a private landowner in order to construct a USBP station at the 

southeast corner of Grand Central Boulevard and the McPherson Boulevard 

extension in Laredo, Webb County, Texas. The USBP agents stationed at 

the currently leased Laredo North Station would relocate to the new 

facility when construction is complete. The new station would consist 

of the following structures or components: a single- story building 

(30,500 square feet [with a detention area (2,500 sf)]; three 

aboveground storage tanks (two 10,000-gallon gasoline tanks and one 

12,000-gallon diesel tank); a 2,500-sf drive/parking area; a dog kennel 

for twenty-six dogs; and a radio tower. 

Analysis: The proposed action is not anticipated to have any 

significant adverse impacts to soils, water, biological, or cultural 

resources. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated to land use, 

socioeconomics, hazardous materials and waste, air quality, or noise. 

In addition, the proposed action is not anticipated to have any longterm adverse impacts to the environment. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment Proposed Construction of the U.S. 

Border Patrol Station in Sanderson, Terrell County, Texas February 12, 

2001, resulting in a FONSI signed in February 2001 

This EA addresses the potential impacts of the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) proposed property purchase, construction 

of a U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) station, and relocation of agents from 

an existing facility to the new facility. The proposed facility would 

be located on an approximately 33-acre tract of land north of U.S. 

Highway 90 and west of Highland Plaza Ave. in Sanderson, Terrell 

County, Texas. 

The purpose is to construct a new facility to accommodate an increased 

number of agents who will be assigned to the Marfa Sector, Sanderson 

Station. The current Sanderson Station can accommodate up to 5 

personnel, but has inadequate ancillary facilities and does not have 

the capability to expand to include these facilities. A new station 

would allow for the necessary expansion of agent staff size as well as 

more efficient and effective operations in a modem facility that can 

best support the USBP mission. The new station would consist of the 

following structures or components: a single-story building (14,000 

square feet); one aboveground gasoline storage tank; a 39,858 sf 

drive/parking area; a dog kennel; and a radio tower. 
138 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

environment. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the United States Border Patrol 

Station, Alpine, Texas, resulting in a FONSI signed in July 2000 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service is proposing to construct a 

larger Border Patrol station in Alpine that would accommodate an 

increase from twenty Border Patrol agents to 100. The proposed Border 

Patrol station would be located on a 5-acre parcel of land along U.S. 

Highway 67/90, just west of Alpine’s city limits, in Bretster County, 

Texas. 

The existing station is located in a leased facility that formerly 

housed an automobile dealership and is inadequate to meet the station’s 

need for additional office space, alien processing, interweaving and 

detention, as well as support facilities. Facilities that are proposed 

are a administration building, a vehicle maintenance shop, a helicopter 

landing pad, a fuel island, a car wash, a dog kennel, parking, 

perimeter chain link fence, high pressure sodium lighting security 

systems for the interior and exterior of site, landscaping with 

irrigation, and a 40-foot radio tower with satellite dish. 

Analysis: The proposed action would not result in any moderate or 

significant, short or long-term, cumulative adverse effects and, 

therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be generated for 

the proposed action. 

 

Reference: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment Proposed Phase 

II Housing Facilities at the United States Border Patrol Station 

Presidio, Texas, February 2001, resulting in a FONSI 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service is proposing to construct 38 

housing units (Phase II) adjacent to the Phase I housing project in 

order to increase human resources at the Presidio Border Patrol Station 

(BPS). The proposed housing construction would be located on an 18-acre 

parcel of land north of the intersection of Erma Avenue and Foothill 

Boulevard, in the City of Presidio, Presidio County, Texas. 

Analysis: In the long-term, human health and safety and vegetation 

would benefit from the proposed project. Socioeconomics would also 

benefit from the project with the increase in BP agents and 

construction workforce. Minimal long-term impact would occur to 

wildlife, noise, land use and transportation. Short-term impacts would 

occur to soils, air quality and noise during construction and could 

occur to human health and safety. No long-term impacts would occur to 

soils, geology, climate, air quality, groundwater, wetlands and other 

waters of the United States, floodplains, special status species, 

environmental justice, cultural resources and irreversible or 

irretrievable resources. It would not result in any moderate or 

significant, short or long-term, cumulative adverse effects and, 

therefore, is recommended. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will 

not be generated for the proposed action. 

 
139 

Reference: Draft Environmental Assessment Immigration and 

Naturalization Service Expansion of Parking/Storage Facility and New 

Traffic Checkpoint at Sonoita, Arizona, October 2000. resulting in a 

FONSI signed on January 9, 2000. 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential effects, 

beneficial and adverse, of the proposed expansion of the parking and 

storage facilities at the Sonoita U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Station, 

Sonoita, AZ, and the construction of new traffic checkpoint along State 

Route (SR) 83 at milepost 40.8, approximately eight miles north of 

Sonoita, AZ. The proposed action would involve construction activities 

within sites that have been previously disturbed and within the 

existing right-of-way 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the proposed action. Increased or 

enhanced interdiction of illegal and drug entry and activities would 

have positive, indirect socioeconomic benefits. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the U.S. Border Patrol Station, 

Yuma, Arizona, November 2001, resulting in a FONSI signed on April 17, 

2002 

This EA will analyze the impacts of a new U.S. Border Patrol Station 

(BPS) adjacent to the Yuma Sector Headquarters Complex on the southern 

edge of Yuma, Arizona. After construction of the new facilities, the 

staffing would increase from 190 to 350 people. The selected site would 

be purchased by the U.S. Government to support the U.S. Border Patrol 

(USBP). The new BPS would cover approximately 50,000 square feet and 

would include such facilities as the main station, sally port, dog 

kennels, parking, seized vehicle temporary storage, fuel island, wash 

station, communication towers, and a two-bay vehicle maintenance shop. 

Analysis: On the basis of the findings of the environmental assessment, 

no significant impact is anticipated from the proposed project on human 

health or the natural environment. A Finding of No Significant Impact 

is warranted and an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for 

this action. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment U.S. Border Patrol San Diego Sector 

Support Facilities at Brown Field San Diego, California, October 1999, 

resulting in a FONSI 

This EA analyzed the proposed construction and operation of the San 

Diego Sector Support Facilities at Brown Field in San Diego, 

California. Proposed development includes an air operations facility, 

vehicle maintenance garage, electronics maintenance shop, facilities 

maintenance shop, parking areas, interior access roads, and associated 

ancillary functions. This EA evaluates the potential effects of the 

Proposed Action on the following resource areas: geology and soils, 

biological resources, cultural resources, water resources, air quality, 

noise, public health and safety, land use, visual resources, traffic 

and circulation, utilities and public services, socioeconomics, and 

hazardous materials and wastes. 
140 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

environment. 

 

Reference: Draft Environmental Assessment Proposed Construction of 

Border Patrol Checkpoint at 1-35 Mile Marker 29 Laredo, Webb County, 

Texas, March 28, 2002 resulting in a FONSI 

The proposed action calls for the construction of a checkpoint station 

located approximately two miles north of the I-35/Camino Colombia exit. 

Vehicles traveling north on I-35 from the toll road will be forced to 

pass through the new checkpoint, situated east of the access road. 

The proposed action could result in potential impacts to a prehistoric 

site of possible cultural significance identified during the field 

investigation Site 41WB612 is a lithic scatter with surface and 

subsurface material covering about 2.07 acres. No diagnostic artifacts 

or features were recovered, and the period of occupation is unclear. 

However, the site is contained within a flat eolian plain that appears 

to be stable below the top layer of loose soil, and the potential for 

additional subsurface cultural material is good. The layout of the 

proposed checkpoint is such avoidance of the site is not possible, so 

it appears that the proposed action will impact the site. For this 

reason, testing of the site for eligibility on the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) has been undertaken. The results of the testing 

will be addressed in a separate document, If the site is determined to 

be ineligible for inclusion on the NR the potential impact on this 

cultural resource would be considered insignificant. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the proposed actions. 

 

Reference: Draft Environmental Assessment New Building Construction San 

Angelo, Tom Green County, Texas, February 2002, resulting in a FONSI 

signed on May 5, 2003 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses site-specific actual and 

potential cumulative effects, beneficial and adverse, of the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and U.S. Border Patrol 

(USBP) activity regarding construction of office space for the AntiSmuggling Unit of the Del Rio Sector. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis and assuming that all 

mitigation measures recommended herein are implemented, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the Proposed Action. As previously 

stated, increased or enhanced interdiction of illegal drug activities 

would have positive, indirect socioeconomic benefits. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for Construction of New Border 

Station, Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan Chippewa County, January 1999, 

resulting in a FONSI signed in January 1999. 

The proposed action involves the construction of a 48,000 gross square 

feet building on the existing government owned site, and an adjacent 

0.33 acre parcel to be purchased by the General Services Administration 

(GSA) from the State of Michigan The total square footage includes

canopied areas. The new facility will provide expanded office, lobby, 
141 

and storage space, a firing range, five primary inspection lanes, a 

garage, and a secondary inspection building to allow the search of 

buses and private vehicles 

The proposed action will allow the U.S. Customs Service, U.S. 

Immigration and Naturalization Service, and U.S. Department Agriculture 

Plant Protection and Quarantine Service to efficiently carry out their 

missions at the International Bridge border crossing at Sault Sainte 

Marie, Michigan. According to the definitions in the U.S. Border 

Station Design Guide, this station is expanding from a ‘small” station 

to a “medium” station. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Plant 

Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) has also submitted a request for space 

at this location, a result of the increased passage of produce from 

Asia through Canada. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the proposed actions. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Construction of a Physical 

Security Training Facility, Building 15, for the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) at Glynco, Georgia, resulting in a 

FONSI signed on September 19, 2000 

The proposed action would consist of construction a new building 

(Building 15) at the intersection of Legislative Drive and Records 

Avenue to house the physical security training that is presently being 

conducted in Building 146. The building would be called the Physical 

Security Training Facility. The work would include: 

(1) Construction of a 12,000 square foot, one-story, standing seem 

galvanized steel roofed building, with architectural concrete masonry 

for the exterior bearing walls; 

(2) Site improvements consisting of storm drainage, walkways and 

landscaping; 

(3) Connection to the FLETC-wide underground chilled water and natural 

gas distribution loops. The new chilled water loop (supply and return 

lines) would connect to the nearest existing valve pit located 

approximately 800 feet southeast of the new facility; 

(4) Restoration of a roughly 5,000 square-foot existing paved area for 

parking; 

(5) Relocation of the training activities from Building 146; and 

(6) Modification and reuse of the existing training facility for other 

ongoing FLETC activities. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this analysis no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from these activities. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Administration Building 

Construction Project, Building 93, FLETC, Glynco, Georgia resulting in 

a FONSI. 

This Environmental Assessment describes those environmental impacts 

that would result from the proposed construction of the new 

administration building would be located northeast of FLETC Avenue. A 

new administration building would consolidate safety and environmental, 

finance, procurement, security, and other offices from many scattered 
142 

locations into one location. The personnel would work in a modern, 

spacious, healthful and more comfortable environment. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this analysis no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from these activities. 

 

Reference: Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 

Impact for Construction of Multi-Activity Center FLETC, Glynco, 

Georgia, August 2002, resulting in a FONSI signed on September 3, 2002 

The Multi-Activity Center would consist of one 2-story building 

(approximately 20,000 square feet) that includes rooms for short-term 

ammo storage, a weapons display area, weapons storage, classrooms, and 

office space. The project also includes parking and would result in 

disturbance to an area of approximately 5.5 acres. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this analysis no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from these activities 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for Mock Port of Entry and Border 

Patrol Station and Related Facilities at the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center Glynco, Georgia, resulting in a FONSI signed in July 

2001. 

INS, US Customs, and US Border Patrol constructed a training center at 

the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) located in Glynco, 

GA. The facilities included a training center (23,000 square feet) 

thirty-six parking spaces, and various outdoor training areas. 

Specifically, a new single story building was constructed to contain a 

single classroom, a mock port of entry, a mock border patrol station, 

various training rooms for specific exercises, office spaces, rest 

rooms, break rooms, and storage areas. The project also included 

fabrication of outdoor venues to simulate traffic circulation at Ports 

of Entry. The site was a total of five acres and was previously vacant 

and wooded. 

Through coordination with the appropriate resource agencies, the 

Environmental Assessment determined there would be no significant 

adverse impacts to the environment from this action. In a effort to 

reduce impacts during construction, INS and FLETC implemented several 

Best Management Practices (BMP5) including: avoiding construction near 

wetlands, using existing tree cover or new plantings to shield historic 

bunkers near the site, using native plants species, applying energy 

conservation to design techniques, and using BMPs for erosion, 

sedimentation and dust control. With the incorporation of the 

mitigation measures, the EA determined there were no significant 

impacts to the human environment, nor were any cumulative or 

irreversible impacts anticipated. 

Analysis: Though this project was larger than this CATEX would allow, 

and didn’t meet the requirements that the site in a developed area 

and/or on a previously disturbed site, this project still resulted in a 

FONSI. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Various Road Improvements 

from Canyon City, California to the Imperial County Line San Diego 
143 

County, California US Border Patrol, March 2003, resulting in a FONSI 

signed in March 2003 

This project analyzed the potential for impact from 1) the placement of 

up to fifty portable lights, as needed, within 60 feet of the border 

from the Pacific Crest Trail to the Imperial County line; 2) night 

vision scope pad and access road construction; 3) installation/repair 

of four drainage structures; 4) the installation of a 300-foot bollard 

fence section near Jacumba; 5) blasting activities; and 6) the 

installation of two water wells and holding tanks by the U.S. Border 

Patrol (USBP). All activities would take place between Canyon City, 

California and the Imperial County line in San Diego County, 

California. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this analysis no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from these activities. 

 

Reference: Draft Environmental Assessment Joint Task Force Six Proposed 

Fence and Road Improvement Project Naco, Cochise County, Arizona, March 

2000, resulting in a FONSI signed on August 3, 2000. 

The Proposed Action would involve the extension of an existing landing 

mat fence located east of the Port of Entry (POE) for a distance of one 

mile near Naco, Arizona. From the ending point of the proposed landing 

mat fence, a proposed vehicle barrier would extend another three miles 

to the east. Additionally, two Arizona crossings (low water crossings) 

would be constructed at two separate ephemeral stream crossings west of 

the POE. Finally, the Proposed Action would involve improvements to the 

border road for a four-mile segment east of the POE and a six-mile 

segment west of the POE. A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(PEIS) was prepared in 1994 for the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service (INS) and Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6), proposed activities 

which facilitate Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) missions to reduce 

illegal drug activity along the southwestern border of the U.S. The 

PEIS addresses the cumulative effects of past and reasonably 

foreseeable projects undertaken by JTF-6 for numerous LEAs in the four 

southwestern states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California). This 

Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Proposed Action tiers from the 

1994 PETS (U.S. Army 1994). Cooperating agencies involved with the 

Proposed Action include the U.S. Border Patrol, the INS, and JTF-6. 

Analysis: Based on the results of the EA and the environmental design 

measures to be incorporated as part of the Proposed Action, it has been 

concluded that the Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse 

effect on the environment. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Installation of Fencing, 

Lights, Cameras, Guardrails, and Sensors along the American Canal 

Extension El Paso, Texas, April 1999, resulting in a FONSI 

This Environmental Assessment was tiered from the “Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement for JTF-6 Activities Along the 

U.S./Mexico Border and sought install fencing, lights, cameras, 

guardrails and sensors along portions of the American Canal Extension 

in El Paso, TX. The entire project was within the city limits of El 

Paso. The project entailed approximately twenty miles of fencing, 
144 

permanent stadium-type lights to be installed on poles 60 to 300 feet 

high in three clusters along the 20-mile project area, and construction 

of guardrails placed along portions of the project in order to prevent 

vehicles accessing the levee slopes at inappropriate or unsafe 

locations. The project also analyzed the installation of surveillance 

cameras, to provide remote surveillance of the BP patrol area, at 

critical locations along the project length. Some cameras were to be 

mounted on existing poles, antennae, or buildings, while others 

required installation of new poles. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this EA, no significant adverse 

environmental impacts would result from the proposed action. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment Area Lighting, Fencing, and 

Roadways at International Border San Diego, California, August 1997, 

resulting in a FONSI signed in August 1997 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the Los Angeles 

District for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Lighting, 

Fencing and Roads Project at the International Border San Diego, 

California. The INS proposes to implement a system of lighting, 

fencing, and roadways. The project consists of parallel construction of 

lighting. fencing, and roadways (total length about 7.3 miles) up to 

approximately 150 feet north of the existing border fence, originating 

at Arnies Point (approximately seven miles east of the Pacific Ocean) 

and terminating at the San Ysidro Mountain foothills to the east. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Border Road and Fence; 

Construction and Repair Tecate to Canyon City, San Diego County, 

California, October 1993, resulting in a FONSI signed in October 1993 

This document analyzes the actions to be taken for border road 

construction and repair, and fence construction and repair. This PEA 

has been prepared to assess any environmental concerns associated with 

this action segments; the installation and/or repair of fencing; and 

the installation of culverts on about 10 miles of the U.S/Mexico border 

in the vicinity of Tecate, California. The project will include some 

widening of roads. A detailed project description is included in 

Section 4.0 of this FEA. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Conversion of Vehicle 

Barriers to Landing Mat Fence Naco, Arizona Immigration and 

Naturalization Service Washington, DC, October 2002, resulting in a 

FONSI signed in October 2002 

The proposed action is to convert 1.2 miles of vehicle barriers east of 

Naco, Arizona into landing mat fence. The project involved the 
145 

conversion of 1.2 miles of existing vehicle barriers with 10-foot 

support poles into landing mat fence with little or no additional 

ground disturbance. The Preferred Alternative would involve minimal 

construction activities within an area that has been previously 

disturbed. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis and assuming that all 

mitigation measures recommended herein are implemented, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the Preferred Alternative. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Joint Task Force Six 

Operations JT089-93, JT094-93 and JT265-93 Douglas, Cochise County, 

Arizona, February 1993, resulting in a FONSI signed in February 1993 

The purpose of JTF—6 Operations in Douglas, Arizona is to provide 

routine maintenance to existing drag and mountain roads, along the 

U.S.—Mexico Border and to install fences at the U.S. Border Patrol 

Station in Douglas, Arizona. The proposed project includes three 

components: JT 265—93, the maintenance, of 24 miles of an existing drag 

road east and west of Douglas, Arizona. JT 094—93, the maintenance of 

about one mile of mountain road east of Douglas, Arizona. JT 089—93, 

the installation of fences at the U. S. Border Patrol Station at 

Douglas, Arizona. The road maintenance will consist of light scraping, 

installation of culverts, grading and shaping for drainage, placing 

gravel in a slowly flowing wash and resetting existing cattle guards. 

Road projects will be maintained within their existing width. Limited 

turnarounds and passing areas will be coordinated with on—site 

monitors. 

Analysis: A review of this Environmental Assessment and coordination 

with the appropriate agencies indicate that the actions, as proposed by 

the Joint Task Force Six Operation for road maintenance and fence 

installation, will not have a significant impact on the quality of the 

physical or biological environment. All requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have been satisfied; therefore, 

preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Naco Roadway and Fence 

Construction Naco, Cochise County, Arizona, April 2003, resulting in a 

FONSI 

This EA analyzed infrastructure improvements, including the 

construction of 4 miles of roads and approximately 1.5 miles of fence. 

The 4 miles of road improvement would occur along the northern edge of 

the existing border road, 2 miles east and west of the Naco port of 

entry (POE), with a new access road to the border from the newly 

constructed Naco Highway. Landing mat or bollard fence, beginning

approximately one mile west of the POE and continuing for a distance of 

one mile would replace existing vehicle barriers. An additional 0.5 

miles of bollard fence would be installed in the natural washes and 

drains that transect the proposed road. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis and assuming that all 

design measures recommended herein are implemented, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the Proposed Action Alternative. 

 
146 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed New River 

Safety Barrier and Border Fence Project Calexico, California, January 

2004, resulting in a FONSI signed in January 2004 

The USBP proposes to install, operate and maintain a retractable Safety 

Barrier that would deter the flow of illegal aliens north via the New 

River without impeding the flow of the water. In addition to the Safety 

Barrier, 5-miles of border barrier fence would also be constructed. The 

Safety Barrier is a retractable gate style fence made of tubular 

aluminum fingers that will be adjusted to the depth of the channel 

bottom. The Border Patrol agents will engage the barrier upon the 

detection of illegal alien activity in the river. As the illegal aliens 

are apprehended or turned back, the barrier would be disengaged 

allowing it to remain up and out of the channel until it is activated 

again. One or two permanent stadium style lights will also be installed 

to assist in detecting illegal aliens at night. These lights would be 

located within 30-feet of the Safety Barrier Bridge, facing south, to 

ensure that agents can clearly see the river at night. Along with the 

Safety Barrier, 200- feet of chain link fence from the international 

border to the Safety Barrier Bridge along both outer banks of the New 

River will be constructed. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the environmental assessment and 

the environmental design measures to be incorporated as part of the 

proposed action, the proposed action will not have a significant 

adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, no further environmental 

impact analysis is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Various Road Improvements 

from Canyon City, California to The Imperial County Line San Diego 

County, California, U.S. Border Patrol, March 2003, resulting in a 

FONSI signed in March 2003 

The proposed actions consists of: 1) the placement of up to 50 portable 

lights, as needed, within 60 feet of the border from the Pacific Crest 

Trail to the Imperial County line; 2) night vision scope pad and access 

road construction; 3) installation/repair of four drainage structures; 

4) the installation of a 300-foot bollard fence section near Jacumba; 

5) blasting activities; and 6) the installation of two water wells and 

holding tanks by the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP). All activities would 

take place between Canyon City, California and the Imperial County line 

in San Diego County, California. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this analysis and assuming that 

all mitigation measures recommended herein are implemented, no 

significant adverse impacts would occur from the Proposed Action 

Alternative. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment: Immigration and 

Naturalization Service U.S. Border Patrol Pedestrian Fence along the 

International Border, USBP El Paso Sector, Texas, January 2003, 

resulting in a FONSI signed on January 7, 2003. 

The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) proposes to 

improve and extend an existing pedestrian (chain-link) fence for the 

U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) El Paso Sector, near Anapra, New Mexico. The 
147 

Proposed Action Alternative includes the improvement of 0.2 miles along 

the eastern end of the existing fence and the horizontal extension of 

0.17 miles and 0.41 miles of the current eastern and western ends, 

respectively. The proposed action would involve the excavation and 

removal of approximately 0.1 cubic yards of soil from each hole where 

fence poles would be located, but would not significantly affect the 

existing environment. The footprint of the proposed fence was surveyed 

for sensitive biological and cultural resources. 

Analysis: No major, long-term, adverse impacts are anticipated to any 

resources analyzed within this document. Therefore, no further analysis 

or documentation (i.e., Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

The INS, in implementing this decision, would employ all practical 

means necessary to minimize the potential adverse impacts on the local 

environment. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment Joint Task Force Six Proposed 

Fence Road Repair and Improvement Project Douglas, Cochise County, 

Arizona, February 2001, resulting in a FONSI signed in February 2001 

A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), prepared in 1994 

for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and JTF-6, 

addressed proposed projects that facilitate missions to reduce illegal 

drug activity trafficking. This Environmental Assessment (EA) tiers 

from the 1994 PEIS. This EA addresses the potential impacts associated 

with a proposed fence and road improvement project along the U.S.-

Mexico border in Cochise County, Arizona. The Proposed Action includes 

landing mat fence extension, installation of permanent lighting, road 

and hydrological repairs and improvements, and road maintenance. The 

Proposed Action specifically addresses the extension of an existing 

landing mat fence east of the Port of Entry (POE) for a distance of two 

miles, installation of permanent lighting east of the POE for a 

distance of 0.8 of a mile and west of the POE for a distance of one 

mile; repair/improvement the border road and hydrological conditions 

east of the POE for a distance of 4 miles and west of Whitewater Draw 

for a distance of 4 miles; and road maintenance west of the road repair 

section for a distance of eight miles near Douglas, Arizona. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment JTF-6 Fence Construction 

Project Yuma County, Arizona, May 1998, resulting in a FONSI signed in 

May 1998 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential impacts 

associated with the proposed fence construction along the U.S.-Mexico 

border in Yuma County, Arizona. The Proposed Action would involve the 

construction of a fence two feet north of the U.S.-Mexico border 

beginning at the existing landing mat fence and extending approximately 

3.3 miles to the east, south of Yuma, Arizona and north of San Luis, 

Mexico. Materials to be used for the proposed fence would either be 

steel landing mat or sheet metal fence. A Programmatic Environmental 
148 

Impact Statement (PEIS) was prepared in 1994 for the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) and Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) proposed 

projects that facilitate Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) missions to 

reduce illegal drug activity along the southwestern border of the U.S. 

The PEIS addresses the cumulative effects of past and reasonablyforeseeable projects undertaken by JTF-6 for numerous LEAs in the four 

southwestern states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California). This 

Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Proposed Action tiers from the 

PEIS completed for JTF-6 and INS activities along the U.S-Mexico border 

(U.S. Army 1994) Due to potential problems obtaining rights-of-entry, 

the proposed action may not be implemented. If the proposed action 

cannot be implemented, then the environmentally preferred alternative 

(install the light poles 90 ft closer to the border) or the no action 

alternative may be selected. Both of these alternatives for 

installation of the light poles would be more compatible with the USBP 

mission and would not significantly affect the resources contained 

within the Douglas area. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for Various 

Infrastructure and Road Improvements from Canyon City, California to 

the Imperial County Line San Diego County, California, November 2003, 

resulting in a FONSI signed in November 2003 

The propose actions consists the construction of six night vision scope 

pads and access road construction and maintenance, 2.2 miles of road 

improvements to the SDG&E Road, an approximately 467-foot section of 

bypass road construction, and the installation of an approximately 650- 

foot section of fence and vehicle barriers. These improvements are 

proposed by the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) and would take place between 

Tecate and Tierra del Sol, California. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this analysis and assuming that 

all mitigation measures recommended herein are implemented, no 

significant adverse impacts would occur from the Proposed Action 

Alternative. 

 

Reference: Pre-Draft Environmental Assessment for Construction of 

Barrier Systems Border Field State Park to Gravel Pit and Tin Can Hill 

Areas San Diego California including Cumulative Impact Assessment for 

the Multiple Fence System Master Plan, April 1999, resulting in a FONSI 

This Environmental Assessment analyzes and presents the direct and 

indirect environmental impacts associated with an Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) proposal to construct patrol roads, 

secondary fencing (including pedestrian, overhead rolling, and vehicle 

swing gate and “agent safety zones”), maintenance roads, tight 

standards, and remote video surveillance (RVS) cameras along two noncontiguous segments of the U.S./Mexico international boundary, in San 

Diego County, California. The EA also presents a cumulative impact 

assessment for implementation of the Multiple Fence System Master 
149 

developed for San Diego, California. The Multiple Fence System Master 

Plan present a plan for enhanced border control along the international 

boundary in the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) San Diego Sector (Imperial 

Beach, Chula Vista, and Brown Field stations) using a combination of 

roads, lighting, and fences. This EA tiers from the 1994 Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) 

Activities along he U.S./Mexico Border, prepared by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District. The Proposed Action would 

take place in the Border Field State Park to Gravel Pit and Tin Can 

Hill areas of San Diego County, within the USBP San Diego Sector 

(Imperial Beach and Brown Field stations). The Proposed Action would 

occur entirely within an area defined as the “project corridor.” The 

project corridor includes two, non-contiguous segments referred to as 

the “western segment” and “eastern segment’ of the project corridor. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Lighting Projects 

Reference: Draft Environmental Assessment for Operation Rio Grande 

Interim Lighting, August 1997 - June 1999, resulting in a FONSI 

Operation Rio Grande is a strategy initiated by the U.S. Border Patrol 

(USBP), a law enforcement branch of the U.S. Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS), in August 1997 to aid in reducing illegal 

immigration and drug trafficking along the Rio Grande corridor of the 

McAllen Sector of the USBP. This EA addresses the interim effects of a 

portion of Operation Rio Grande in the Brownsville and Port Isabel 

stations of the McAllen Sector, and will be superseded by an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Operation Rio Grande McAllen 

Sector. This EA is tiered from the Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS) completed for a broad scope of INS Joint Task Force-6 

(JTF-6) activities along the U.S.-Mexico border (USACE, 1994). The 

continuation and expansion of Operation Rio Grande through the actions 

covered by this EA will increase the efficiency and safety of the USBP 

agents in the McAllen Sector as they fulfill their obligations under 

U.S. laws and directives. The proposed action is the interim use of 

lights in the McAllen Sector stations of Brownsville and Port Isabel 

pending completion of an EIS on Operation Rio Grande. This action is 

intended to reduce the influx of illegal immigration and drugs into 

these two stations, 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Installation of Portable 

Lights within the Naco Corridor Cochise County, Arizona, December 2001, 

resulting in a FONSI signed in December 2001 

This EA analyzed the acquisition and the intermittent operation of 

approximately 30 to 50 portable lights. These proposed lights would be 
150 

deployed anywhere along the 10.5 -mile corridor along the US/Mexico 

border, three miles to the east and 7.5 miles to the west of the POE at 

Naco, on an as needed basis. A total of 202 sites, along the 10.5-mile 

corridor, have been designated for light placement. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA and the environmental design 

measures to be incorporated as part of the proposed action, it was 

concluded that the proposed action would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the environment. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment Installation of Fencing, Lights, 

Cameras, Guardrails, And Sensors Along The American Canal Extension El 

Paso District El Paso, Texas, April 1999, resulting in a FONSI 

This Environmental Assessment is tiered from the “Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement for JTF-6 Activities Along the U.S.-

Mexico Border (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California) “, dated 

August 1994, prepared for the INS. The El Paso Sector of the United 

States Border Patrol proposes to install fencing, lights, cameras, 

guardrails and sensors along portions of the American Canal Extension 

in El Paso, TX. The project is located near the Rio Grande River in 

northwestern Texas. The entire project is within the city limits of El 

Paso. The majority of the Project Location is along a man made canal 

and levee system. Portions of the canal are at times adjacent to 

industrial areas, downtown El Paso, and mixed commercial with limited 

residential development. Border Highway (Route 375) roughly parallels 

most of the project site. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the proposed actions. Therefore, no 

further analysis or documentation (Environmental Assessment or Impact 

Statement) is warranted. The INS, in implementing this decision, will 

employ all practical means to minimize the potential adverse impacts on 

the local environment. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment Area Lighting, Fencing, and 

Roadways at International Border San Diego, California, August 1997, 

resulting in a FONSI signed in August 1997 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the Los Angeles 

District for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Lighting, 

Fencing and Roads Project at the International Border San Diego, 

California. The INS proposes to implement a system of lighting, 

fencing, and roadways. The project consists of parallel construction of 

lighting. fencing, and roadways (total length about 7.3 miles) up to 

approximately 150 feet north of the existing border fence, originating 

at Arnies Point (approximately seven miles east of the Pacific Ocean) 

and terminating at the San Ysidro Mountain foothills to the east. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 
151 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed New River 

Safety Barrier and Border Fence Project Calexico, California, January 

2004, resulting in a FONSI signed in January of 2004 

The USBP proposes to install, operate and maintain a retractable Safety 

Barrier that would deter the flow of illegal aliens north via the New 

River without impeding the flow of the water. In addition to the Safety 

Barrier, five miles of border barrier fence would also be constructed. 

The Safety Barrier is a retractable gate style fence made of tubular 

aluminum fingers that will be adjusted to the depth of the channel 

bottom. The Border Patrol agents will engage the barrier upon the 

detection of illegal alien activity in the river. As the illegal aliens 

are apprehended or turned back, the barrier would be disengaged 

allowing it to remain up and out of the channel until it is activated 

again. One or two permanent stadium style lights will also be installed 

to assist in detecting illegal aliens at night. These lights would be 

located within 30-feet of the Safety Barrier Bridge, facing south, to 

ensure that agents can clearly see the river at night. Along with the 

Safety Barrier, 200- feet of chain link fence from the international 

border to the Safety Barrier Bridge along both outer banks of the New 

River will be constructed. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the environmental assessment and 

the environmental design measures to be incorporated as part of the 

Proposed Action, the Proposed Action will not have a significant 

adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, no further environmental 

impact analysis is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Various Road Improvements 

from Canyon City, California to The Imperial County Line San Diego 

County, California, U.S. Border Patrol, March 2003, resulting in a 

FONSI signed in March 2003 

The proposed actions consists of: 1) the placement of up to 50 portable 

lights, as needed, within 60 feet of the border from the Pacific Crest 

Trail to the Imperial County line; 2) night vision scope pad and access 

road construction; 3) installation/repair of four drainage structures; 

4) the installation of a 300-foot bollard fence section near Jacumba; 

5) blasting activities; and 6) the installation of two water wells and 

holding tanks by the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP). All activities would 

take place between Canyon City, California and the Imperial County line 

in San Diego County, California. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this analysis and assuming that 

all mitigation measures recommended herein are implemented, no 

significant adverse impacts would occur from the Proposed Action 

Alternative. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment Joint Task Force Six Proposed 

Lighting Project Naco, Cochise County, Arizona, April 5, 1999, 

resulting in a FONSI signed on April 5, 1999 

A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PETS), prepared in 1994 

for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and JTF-6, 

proposed projects that facilitate LEA missions to reduce illegal drug 

trafficking. The PEIS addresses the cumulative effects of past and 
152 

reasonably foreseeable actions undertaken by JTF-6 for numerous LEAs in 

the four southwestern states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and 

California). This Environmental Assessment WA) tiers from the 1994 PETS 

(U.S. Army 1994). This EA addresses the potential impacts associated 

with a proposed lighting project along the U.S.-Mexico border in 

Cochise County, Arizona. The Proposed Action involves the installation 

of approximately 40 lighting poles placed approximately 60 feet north 

of the international border one mile west of the truck Port of Entry 

(POE) and one mile east of the POE at Naco, Arizona. A secondary usage 

of these poles may be for camera equipment at a later date. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment Joint Task Force Six Proposed 

Lighting Project Yuma County, Arizona Imperial County, California, May 

1999, resulting in a FONSI 

A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PETS), prepared in 1994 

for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and JTF-6, 

proposed projects that facilitate LEA missions to reduce illegal drug 

trafficking. The PEIS addresses the cumulative effects of past and 

reasonably foreseeable actions undertaken by JTF-6 for numerous LEAs in 

the four southwestern states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and 

California). This Environmental Assessment WA) tiers from the 1994 PEIS 

(U.S. Army 1994). This EA addresses the potential impacts associated 

with a proposed lighting project along the U.S.-Mexico border in Yuma 

County, Arizona and Imperial County, California. The Proposed Action 

involves the installation of lighting poles placed at either the 60-

foot ROW or at a line 150 feet north of the international border in 

southern and western Yuma County, Arizona. Another segment of lights is 

proposed for areas adjacent to the Wellton-Mohawk Bypass Drain running 

north/south, west of Gadsden and Yurna, Arizona. A final segment of 

lights is proposed for the public access POE parking lot of the Andrade 

Reservation in Imperial County, California. Approximately 154 total 

poles would be installed in these areas. A secondary usage of these 

poles may be for camera equipment at a later date. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment Portable Lights within the 

Naco Corridor Cochise County, Arizona, December 2001, resulting in a 

FONSI signed in December 2001 

The propose action would include the acquisition and the intermittent 

operation of approximately 30 to 50 portable lights. These proposed 

lights would be deployed anywhere along the 10.5-mile corridor along 

the US/Mexico border, three miles to the east, and 7.5 miles to the 

west of the POE at Naco, on an as needed basis. A total of 202 sites, 
153 

along the 10.5-mile corridor, have been designated for light placement, 

when needed. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA and the environmental design 

measures to be incorporated as part of the proposed action, it has been 

concluded that the proposed action would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the environment. 

 

Reference: Final Report Environmental Assessment for Permanent Lighting 

Structures near Calexico, California, February 2002, resulting in a 

FONSI signed in February 2002 

The US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and US Border 

Patrol (USBP) propose to install lighting systems at specific strategic 

locations along the All American Canal near Calexico, California to 

enhance their capabilities of detecting illegal entries into the United 

States and to assist in the apprehensions of those illegal entrants who 

are detected. The Proposed Action would require that 12.25 miles of the 

All American Canal levee roadway have permanent lighting structures 

installed. 

Analysis: Based on the findings outlined in this document, no 

significant adverse impacts would occur from the proposed actions at 

the proposed lighting structure site locations. Therefore, no further 

analysis or documentation (i.e., Environmental Impact Statement) is 

warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the Proposed 

JTF-6 Light Pole Installation Mission Douglas, Cochise County, Arizona, 

March 1998, resulting in a FONSI signed in March 1998 

This SEA analyzed the potential impacts of installing lights and light 

poles along a 5-mile corridor, which is located 150 ft north of the 

United States-Mexico border near Douglas, in Cochise County, Arizona. 

Additionally the project entailed the construction of an 8-ft wide 

right-of-way to facilitate installation of the poles. This road would 

be maintained by the USBP to assist in the continual maintenance of the 

light and light poles. 

Analysis: There would be no significant adverse effects to the natural 

environment associated with the proposed project. This conclusion was 

further supported by other NEPA documents, including: The August 1997 

JTF-6 Fence and Road Construction EA (U.S. Army 1997) and The 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) prepared in 1994 for 

the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and JTF-6. Additional 

existing EAs (U.S. Army 1991, 1993, 1996) that were completed for 

various construction activities in the same vicinity as the proposed 

action. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment Installation of Fencing, Lights, 

Cameras, Guardrails, And Sensors Along The American Canal Extension El 

Paso District El Paso, Texas, April 1999, resulting in a FONSI 

This Environmental Assessment is tiered from the “Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement for JTF-6 Activities Along the 

U.S./Mexico Border (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California) “, dated 

August 1994, prepared for the INS. The El Paso Sector of the United 
154 

States Border Patrol proposes to install fencing, lights, cameras, 

guardrails and sensors along portions of the American Canal Extension 

in El Paso, TX. The project is located near the Rio Grande River in 

northwestern Texas. The entire project is within the city limits of El 

Paso. The majority of the Project Location is along a man made canal 

and levee system. Portions of the canal are at times adjacent to 

industrial areas, downtown El Paso, and mixed commercial with limited 

residential development. Border Highway (Route 375) roughly parallels 

most of the project site. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the proposed actions. Therefore, no 

further analysis or documentation (Environmental Assessment or Impact 

Statement) is warranted. The INS, in implementing this decision, will 

employ all practical means to minimize the potential adverse impacts on 

the local environment. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for the Installation of 

Temporary Vehicle Barriers along the International Border near 

Calexico, California, January 2003, resulting in a FONSI signed in 

January 2003 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential effects, 

both beneficial and adverse, of the proposed acquisition, installation, 

and operation of temporary vehicle barriers at various locations along 

14.5 miles of the U.S/Mexico border near Calexico, Imperial County, 

California. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has designated a 

portion of the proposed project area as critical habitat for the 

endangered peninsular bighorn sheep. No direct effects to the sheep or 

its habitat would occur as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative. 

However, indirect effects could potentially occur if illegal traffic 

shifts into other areas. The extent of these effects is not 

quantifiable at this time because Undocumented Alien (UDA) and smuggler 

patterns are at their, discretion and outside the control of the USBP. 

The placement of any barriers within critical habitat would occur from 

1 July through 31 December to ensure that no aspect of the proposed 

action interferes with the sheep’s lambing season. In addition, much of 

the project corridor is located within the Vuha Desert Management Area 

for the proposed threatened flat-tailed horned lizard. USBP would 

provide biological monitors onsite during placement of the vehicle 

barriers to ensure no accidental take of the flat- tailed horned lizard 

would occur. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

placement of temporary vehicle barriers along the international border 

would have no adverse direct effects to environmental resources in the 

proposed project area. However, indirect effects could occur to those 

areas outside of the project corridor because of the potential for 

shifting traffic patterns by the smugglers and UDAs. The magnitude of 

these effects is not identifiable or measurable at this time. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment U.S. Border Patrol Temporary 

Vehicle Barriers Naco and Douglas, Arizona, November 2002, resulting in 

a FONSI 
155 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is planning to install 

temporary vehicle barriers along a 25-mile corridor starting west of 

Black Draw, Arizona (approximately 28 miles east of Douglas) to the 

border of the eastern boundary of the Sari Pedro Riparian National 

Conservation Area (NCA), approximately 11 miles west of Naco. 

The proposed action would allow the placement of temporary vehicle 

barriers at various locations along a 25-mile corridor within the Naco 

and Douglas AOs. The eastern terminus of the proposed corridor would be 

just west of Black Draw in the San Bernardino Valley, and the western 

limit is near the eastern boundary of the San Pedro Riparian NCA. The 

barriers would be placed in high illegal traffic areas on an as-needed 

basis and relocated to other areas, as USBP intelligence dictates. 

Thus, the entire corridor would not be barricaded at any given time. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the BA and the environmental design 

measures to be incorporated as part of the proposed action, it 

concluded that the proposed action would not have a significant effect 

on the environment. For this reason no further environmental analysis 

is needed. 

 

Reference: Supplemental Environmental Assessment JTF-6 Fence and Road 

Construction, Douglas, Cochise County, Arizona, July 1997, resulting in 

a FONSI 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential for 

significant adverse or beneficial environmental impacts in accordance 

with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This 

document was tiered from existing EAs completed for previous 

construction activities (U.S. Army 199la, 1993) in the same vicinity, 

and a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement completed for Joint 

Task Force Six (JTF-6) activities along the U.S.-Mexico border (U.S. 

Army 1994). The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the 

U.S. Border Patrol, Tucson Sector are proposing to replace 

approximately six miles of fence, construct 0.5 miles of new road, and 

improve 0.8 miles of road along the U.S.-Mexico border at Douglas, 

Cochise County, Arizona. Approximately 1.3 miles would be of decorative 

fence, with the remaining 4.9 miles of steel landing mat. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Supplemental Environmental Assessment Immigration and 

Naturalization Service Border Road Maintenance and Construction, Tecate 

to Campo, San Diego County, California, April 1997, resulting in a 

FONSI 

This supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) assesses the potential 

for significant adverse or beneficial environmental impacts of the 

proposed action and alternatives in accordance with provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The proposed action involves 

approximately three miles of new road construction, which includes two 

miles of riparian area rehabilitation and one mile of highly erodible 

land rehabilitation on corresponding abandoned road sections, and 
156 

approximately six miles of maintenance to existing border roads along 

the U.S.-Mexico border between Tecate and Campo, San Diego County, 

California. A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) was 

prepared in 1994 for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 

and Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) proposed projects that facilitate law 

enforcement agencies (LEAs) missions to reduce illegal drug activity 

along the southwestern border of the U.S.(U.S. Army 1994b). The PEIS 

addressed the cumulative effects of past and reasonably foreseeable 

projects undertaken by JTF-6. Additionally, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USCOE), Los Angeles District, prepared two EAs (Tecate to 

Canyon City; Campo to Jacumba) for border road maintenance and 

construction activities in this region (U.S. Army 1993 and 1994a). This 

EA is a supplement to the JTF-6 PETS, and tiers from the PEIS and the 

two previous EAs. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA and the environmental design 

measures to be incorporated as part of the proposed action, it has been 

concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse 

effect on the environment. 

 

Reference: Pre-Draft Environmental Assessment for Construction of 

Barrier Systems Border Field State Park to Gravel Pit and Tin Can Hill 

Areas San Diego California including Cumulative Impact Assessment for 

the Multiple Fence System Master Plan, April 1999, resulting in a FONSI 

This Environmental Assessment analyzes and presents the direct and 

indirect environmental impacts associated with an Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) proposal to construct patrol roads, 

secondary fencing (including pedestrian, overhead rolling, and vehicle 

swing gate and “agent safety zones”), maintenance roads, tight 

standards, and remote video surveillance (RVS) cameras along two noncontiguous segments of the U.S./Mexico international boundary, in San 

Diego County, California. The EA also presents a cumulative impact 

assessment for implementation of the Multiple Fence System Master 

developed for San Diego, California. The Multiple Fence System Master 

Plan present a plan for enhanced border control along the international 

boundary in the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) San Diego Sector (Imperial 

Beach, Chula Vista, and Brown Field stations) using a combination of 

roads, lighting, and fences. This EA tiers from the 1994 Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) 

Activities along he U.S./Mexico Border, prepared by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District. The Proposed Action would 

take place in the Border Field State Park to Gravel Pit and Tin Can 

Hill areas of San Diego County, within the USBP San Diego Sector 

(Imperial Beach and Brown Field stations). The Proposed Action would 

occur entirely within an area defined as the “project corridor.” The 

project corridor includes two, non-contiguous segments referred to as 

the “western segment” and “eastern segment” of the project corridor. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 
157 

Reference: Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment of Remote Video 

Surveillance Systems (RVS) and Communication Towers (CTOW) for the US 

Border Patrol in the Harlingen, Laredo, and Eagle Pass Stations, 

October 2003, resulting in a FONSI signed October 2003 

This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) supplements the Final 

EA of Remote Video Surveillance Systems (RVS) Systems and Communication 

Towers (CTOW) for the US Border Patrol in the Harlingen, Laredo, and 

Eagle Pass Stations. This Supplemental EA (SEA) addresses additional 

effects that may potentially occur relative to proposed construction of 

an access road for the Walker Tower 2B site and proposed improvements 

to an existing access road for the Lupes Tower site. Both sites are 

located within the Laredo South Station’s area of operations. The 

project consisted of construction of a new access road and upgrade of 

an existing roadway to provide access to two RVS sites: the Walker 

Tower 2B and Lupes Tower. The proposed construction consists of grading 

a 12-foot wide by 1,200-foot long access road at the Walker Tower 2B 

site and minor improvements to approximately 600 feet of an existing 

road at the Lupes Tower site. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of these EAs, it was concluded that 

the project was not likely to adversely affect the environment; 

therefore, further environmental analysis is not warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for Various 

Infrastructure and Road Improvements from Canyon City, California to 

the Imperial County Line San Diego County, California, November 2003, 

resulting in a FONSI signed in November 2003 

The propose actions consists the construction of six night vision scope 

pads and access road construction and maintenance, 2.2 miles of road 

improvements to the SDG&E Road, an approximately 467-foot section of 

bypass road construction, and the installation of an approximately 650- 

foot section of fence and vehicle barriers. These improvements are 

proposed by the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) and would take place between 

Tecate and Tierra del Sol, California. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this analysis and assuming that 

all mitigation measures recommended herein are implemented, no 

significant adverse impacts would occur from the Proposed Action 

Alternative. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment Proposed JTF-6 mission JT423-

98 Marfa, Texas, February 1998, resulting in a FONSI signed in February 

1998 

The scope of this EA addresses the potential impacts of proposed 

improvements on approximately 89.7 miles of existing road rights-ofway, construction of 1.8 miles of new road, and construction of some 

support facilities (e.g., helicopter landing pads, K-Span buildings, 

landing strips, obstacle course, etc.) in the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) 

Marfa Sector in Presidio and Jeff Davis counties, Texas. In addition, 

this EA also addresses the potential cumulative impacts associated with 

a Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) action in west Texas. A Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) was prepared in 1994 for the INS 

and JTF-6 proposed projects that facilitate Law Enforcement Agency 
158 

(LEA) missions to reduce illegal drug activity along the southwestern 

border of the United States. The PEIS addresses the cumulative effects 

of past and future projects undertaken by JTF-6 for numerous LEAs 

within the four southwestern states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and 

California). This EA tiers from the PEIS. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed JTF-6 

missions JT513/515/425-98 Laredo, Texas, January 1998, resulting in a 

FONSI signed in January 1998 

This Environmental Assessment addresses the potential impacts of 

proposed improvements on approximately 239.8 miles of existing road and 

ranch road rights-of-way in the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Laredo area 

in Webb County and Carrizo Springs area in Maverick and Dimmit 

counties, Texas, and the potential cumulative impacts associated with a 

Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) action in the Laredo area. The Proposed 

Action seeks to improve 170.3 miles of existing, deteriorated roads and 

to construct 69.5 miles of new roads in Webb, Maverick, and Dimmit 

counties, Texas. A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) 

was prepared in 1994 for the INS and JTF-6 proposed projects that 

facilitate Law Enforcement Agency (LEAs) missions to reduce illegal 

drug activity along the southwestern border of the United States. The 

PEIS addresses the cumulative effects of past and future projects 

undertaken by JTF-6 for numerous LEAs within the four southwestern 

states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California). This EA tiers from 

the PEIS. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Naco Roadway and Fence 

Construction Naco, Cochise County, Arizona, April 2003, resulting in a 

FONSI 

This EA analyzed infrastructure improvements, including the 

construction of 4 miles of roads and approximately 1.5 miles of fence. 

The 4 miles of road improvement would occur along the northern edge of 

the existing border road, 2 miles east and west of the Naco port of 

entry (POE), with a new access road to the border from the newly 

constructed Naco Highway. Landing mat or bollard fence, beginning 

approximately 1 mile west of the POE and continuing for a distance of 1 

mile would replace existing vehicle barriers. An additional 0.5 miles 

of bollard fence would be installed in the natural washes and drains 

that transect the proposed road. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis and assuming that all 

design measures recommended herein are implemented, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the Proposed Action Alternative. 

 
159 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Ephriam Ridge Reclamation 

United States Border Patrol Tucson Sector, Nogales Station Santa Cruz 

County, Arizona, March 2003, resulting in a FONSI signed in March 2003 

The U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), Nogales Station, proposes to reclaim 

Ephriam Ridge, which is located in Santa Cruz County, Arizona. This 

action includes stabilizing the ridge to prevent soils from washing 

against the border fence. Failure to take any action could cause the 

fence to collapse under the weight of the soil. The proposed action 

addresses the effects of erosion control, fencing, grading, and 

construction of a central access road down Ephriam Ridge in an effort 

to reduce erosion. The proposed action includes modification of site 

topography, soil stabilization, installation of sediment basins, 

revegetation, and replacing the fence within the presently degraded 

area. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

environment. 

 

Reference: Environmental Assessment Area Lighting, Fencing, and 

Roadways at the International Border San Diego, California resulting in 

a FONSI August 1997 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) sought to implement a 

combined lighting, fencing, and roadway system along the U.S. border in 

three sections of 3.0 miles, 2.1 miles, and 2.25 each. The 7.35-mile 

long project originated about seven miles east of the Pacific Ocean, 

immediately north of the International Boundary between the United 

States and Mexico and terminates at the San Ysidro Mountain foothills 

The project consisted of the installation of the following components 

approximately 150 feet north of the Border: (1) 45-foot high concrete 

light poles, spaced on average every.400 feet; (2) approximate 15-foot 

high security style fencing; and (3) 30-foot wide all-weather roadways 

parallel and adjacent to the fence both on the north and south sides. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this EA, no significant adverse 

environmental impacts would result from the proposed action. This 

determination is well supported, as it tiers from our duplicates the 

work of, multiple environmental analysis documents including: The 1997 

Final EA for the INS Multi-Tiered Pilot Fence Project The 1993 Final 

EA for the JTF-6 San Diego Area Lighting System Project The 1993 Final 

EA for the JTF-6 San Diego Area Border Fence Project The Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PBS) prepared by the Fort Worth 

District to address the various measures to minimize illegal entries 

along the international border. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment Area Lighting, Fencing, and 

Roadways at International Border San Diego, California August 1997 

resulting in a FONSI signed in August of 1997 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the Los Angeles 

District for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Lighting, 

Fencing and Roads Project at the International Border San Diego, 

California. The INS proposes to implement a system of lighting, 

fencing, and roadways. The project consists of parallel construction of 
160 

lighting. fencing, and roadways (total length about 7.3 miles) up to 

approximately 150 feet north of the existing border fence, originating 

at Arnies Point (approximately seven miles east of the Pacific Ocean) 

and terminating at the San Ysidro Mountain foothills to the east. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

E3* Acquisition, installation, operation, and maintenance of equipment, devices, and/or 

controls necessary to mitigate effects of the Department’s missions on health and the 

environment, including the execution of appropriate real estate agreements. Examples 

include but are not limited to: 

(a) Pollution prevention and pollution control equipment required to meet applicable 

Federal, tribal, state, or local requirements, 

(b) Noise abatement measures, including construction of noise barriers, installation of 

noise control materials, or planting native trees and/or native vegetation for use as a noise 

abatement measure, and, 

(c) Devices to protect human or animal life, such as raptor electrocution prevention 

devices, fencing to restrict wildlife movement on to airfields, fencing and grating to prevent 

accidental entry to hazardous or restricted areas, and rescue beacons to protect human life. 

 

The Panel found that activities involving acquisition, installation, 

operation, and maintenance of equipment, devices, and/or controls necessary 

to mitigate effects of the Department missions on health and the environment 

are performed by components with real property management responsibilities 

(nearly the whole Department). However, the Department of Homeland Security 

is not a major land managing agency in the Federal government nor is it 

responsible for extensive commercial or industrial operations. The purpose 

of the activities contemplated in this categorical exclusion would be to 

prevent significant adverse impacts to the human environment from Department 

activities. Department activities involving acquisition, installation, 

operation, and maintenance of equipment, devices, and/or controls necessary 

to mitigate effects of Department missions on health and the environment are 

typically of a small scale, involving single buildings or small pieces of 

equipment. Any potential for environmental impacts would be of a small scale 

and confined to more localized impacts. 

 

This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical 

exclusions and administrative records brought to the Department by its 

components that themselves would have only been developed through a process 

consistent with NEPA regulatory requirements. In particular, the Panel 

identified legacy categorical exclusions from the U.S. Coast Guard. The U.S. 

Coast Guard manages the largest number of real properties and conducts the 

most extensive set of small scale industrial operations in the Department. 

Furthermore, the U.S. Coast Guard performs these activities in sensitive 
161 

aquatic environments along all maritime coasts and several rivers in the 

U.S. The U.S. Border Patrol brought a legacy of environmental assessments 

and findings of no significant impact for its land based activities. Based 

upon this extensive history of environmental analyses and the experience of 

its members, the Panel found that actions of a similar nature, scope, and 

intensity were performed throughout the Department without significant 

environmental impacts. 

 

The Panel determined that this categorical exclusion would benefit from 

further description of the characteristics of activities envisioned. The 

descriptive items pollution prevention and pollution control equipment, noise 

abatement measures, and devices to protect human or animal life are intended 

to define the nature of activities encompassed by this categorical 

exclusion. They are neither presented to limit the categorical exclusion to 

those activities or to extend the categorical exclusion to actions including 

extraordinary circumstances that may result in the activity having 

significant environmental effects. 

 

The Panel defined this categorical exclusion to be sufficiently related to 

actions that may involve one or more extraordinary circumstances. To ensure 

that only those actions having negligible impacts on the human environment 

are contemplated by this categorical exclusion, the Panel proposed that a 

Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) be prepared to document the 

determination whether the action is either appropriately categorically 

excluded or whether it requires further analysis through an EA or EIS 

process. 

 

The Panel also noted that other Federal agencies have categorical exclusions 

for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that they 

demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by the 

Department. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, 

with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of 

other Federal agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in the 

Department were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies 

in general, as well as specifically related to the environment. 

 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently did not have individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

human environment. 

 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

USCG 

Reference: COMDTINST M16475.1D Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical 

exclusions 

2. Real and Personal Property Related Actions r. Installation of 

devices to protect human or animal life, such as raptor electrocution 
162 

prevention devices, fencing to restrict wildlife movement on to 

airfields, and fencing and grating to prevent accidental entry to 

hazardous areas. (Checklist and CED required.) 

 

NAVY 

Reference: 32CFR775.6 

(7) Alteration of and additions to existing structures to conform or 

provide conforming use specifically required by new or existing 

applicable legislation or regulations, e.g., hush houses for aircraft 

engines and scrubbers for air emissions. 

(29) Installation of devices to protect human or animal life, e.g., 

raptor electrocution prevention devices, fencing to restrict wildlife 

movement onto airfields, and fencing and grating to prevent accidental 

entry to hazardous areas. 

 

BLM 

Reference: Department of the Interior Departmental Manual – Part 516 

5.4 Categorical exclusions 

H. Other (8) Installation of minor devices to protect human life (e.g. 

grates across mines.) 

E4* Removal or demolition, along with subsequent disposal of debris to permitted or 

authorized off-site locations, of non-historic buildings, structures, other improvements, 

and/or equipment in compliance with applicable environmental and safety requirements. 

The Panel found that both the U.S. Coast Guard and the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency brought legacy categorical exclusions for the activities of 

removal or demolition, along with subsequent disposal of debris to permitted 

or authorized off-site locations, of non-historic buildings, structures, 

other improvements, and/or equipment. The U.S. Coast Guard may perform these 

types of activities on U.S. government property under its control, while the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency may authorize the performance of this 

type of activity through a public assistance program anywhere in the U.S. as 

a part of response and recovery to disasters. 

 

The U.S. Coast Guard manages the largest number of real properties in the 

Department in sensitive aquatic environments along all maritime coasts and 

several rivers in the U.S. In addition its bridge administration program can 

be involved in regulating the removal or construction of bridges across 

navigable waters in any area of the U.S. Legacy categorical exclusions from 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency include public assistance programs 

that could be implemented in any part of the U.S. to assist in preparing and 

recovering from a disaster. Other legacy agencies have brought environmental 

assessments and findings of no significant impact that include such 

activities. However, no other components of the Department would perform 

these activities in as great a scope or intensity as the U.S. Coast Guard and 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Based upon this history of 

environmental analyses and the experience of its members, the Panel found 
163 

that actions of a similar nature, scope, and intensity were performed 

throughout the Department without significant environmental impacts. 

 

Since removal or demolition, along with subsequent disposal of debris to 

permitted or authorized off-site locations, of non-historic buildings, 

structures, other improvements, and/or equipment could involve numerous 

considerations, the Panel took great care to establish limiting provisions to 

avoid the potential for significant impacts to the human environment. In 

particular, the Panel wanted to ensure that the activities contemplated in 

this categorical exclusion were performed in compliance with applicable 

environmental and safety requirements. As a result of this limitation, the 

Panel determined that this categorical exclusion contemplated activities that 

would inherently have no potential for significant impacts to the human 

environment. 

 

The Panel defined this categorical exclusion to be sufficiently related to 

actions that may involve one or more extraordinary circumstances. To ensure 

that only those actions having negligible impacts on the human environment 

are contemplated by this categorical exclusion, the Panel proposed that a 

Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) be prepared to document the 

determination whether the action is either appropriately categorically 

excluded or whether it requires further analysis through an EA or EIS 

process. 

 

The Panel also noted that other Federal agencies have categorical exclusions 

for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that they 

demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by the 

Department. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, 

with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of 

other Federal agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in the 

Department were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies 

in general, as well as specifically related to the environment. 

 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently did not have individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

human environment. 

Categorical exclusion E4 was the subject of comments expressing concern 

regarding the destruction or disruption of adjacent habitat during demolition 

activities. The Department considered the comment regarding potentially 

significant impacts on habitat areas adjacent to demolition activities. The 

comment specifically expressed a concern that the Categorical Exclusion needs 

to make provisions to prevent the destruction or disruption of adjacent 

habitat during demolition activities. The comment asserts that activities 

may be otherwise in compliance with regulations, but that does not ensure 

that projects will cease when they have a significant effect on the 

environment. 
164 

In response to the concern that activities under this CATEX may adversely 

impact adjacent habitat or may otherwise have a significant effect on the 

environment, the Department notes that Section 3.2 in Appendix A of the 

directive contains a list of conditions and extraordinary circumstances that 

must be satisfied in the application of this categorical exclusion to a 

specific program or activity within DHS. These conditions and extraordinary 

circumstances were developed in recognition that, while the vast majority of 

DHS activities in this category do not have potential for significant impacts 

to the environment, activity proponents within DHS need to be alert for rare 

and unique conditions that may require more extensive evaluation of the 

potential for environmental impacts under NEPA. This evaluation would 

include not only the immediate effect of the DHS decision, but also the 

potential environmental effects that may indirectly result from implementing 

the decision and the cumulative effects of the decision on the quality of the 

human environment. 

 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

FEMA 

Reference: 44 CFR § 10.8 (d) (2) 

(xii) Demolition of structures and other improvements or disposal of 

uncontaminated structures and other improvements to permitted off-site 

locations, or both; 

(xiii) Physical relocation of individual structures where FEMA has no 

involvement in the relocation site selection or development; 

 

USCG

Reference: COMDTINST M16475.1D Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical 

Exclusions 

2. Real and Personal Property Related Actions. Demolition of 

buildings, structures, or fixtures and disposal of subsequent building, 

structure, or fixture waste materials. (Checklist and CED required.) 

ENERGY 

Reference: 10 CFR 1021 

B1.23 Demolition and subsequent disposal of buildings, equipment, and 

support structures (including, but not limited to, smoke stacks and 

parking lot surfaces). 

E5 Natural resource management activities on Department-managed property to aid in 

the maintenance or restoration of native flora and fauna, including site preparation, 

landscaping, and control of non-indigenous species. This CATEX would encompass 

property management activities primarily at properties within the U.S. Coast Guard, 

Science and Technology Directorate, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. 

The Department of Homeland Security is not a major land managing agency in 

the Federal government. Natural resource management activities to aid in the 
165 

restoration of native flora and fauna on Department managed property would be 

of a small scale and limited to a single locality. Natural resource 

management activities of the type contemplated would be undertaken to achieve 

small scale benefits to native flora and fauna. Any potential for 

environmental impacts would be of a small scale and confined to more 

localized impacts. 

 

These natural resource management activities contemplated under this 

categorical exclusion would be performed by components with real property 

management responsibilities, but only those with sufficient property where 

such activities may be possible. Several components of the Department may 

manage one or two land parcels where these benefits may be realized. 

However; the U.S. Coast Guard manages the largest number of real properties 

in the Department and in sensitive aquatic environments along all maritime 

coasts and several rivers in the U.S. The Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Centers and the Customs and Border Protection conduct a variety of land based 

activities at properties in the interior of the U.S. and along its borders. 

Categorical exclusion E5 was the subject of comments expressing concern 

regarding actions that might cause imbalance to a stable ecosystem. The 

Department considered this concern. The comment specifically addressed the 

concern that natural resource management activities might actually imbalance 

natural ecological function and cause further environmental problems. The 

comment stated that restoration often causes short-term adverse effects in 

order to gain long-term beneficial effects and asserts that NEPA analysis is 

necessary to balance these competing effects in different timeframes 

The issue of enhancement and restoration of native flora and fauna has been 

addressed in previous environmental assessments conducted at the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). Support for such practices has been 

positive and is commonly practiced throughout the range of the long-leaf pine 

and species associated with that ecosystem. 

Natural resources management that follows accepted Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) for the state in which the action takes place, that is guided by the 

direct intervention of natural resource management professionals, and that 

follows the approved activities specified in signed Environmental Assessments 

that have addressed anticipated environmental impacts is a threshold that 

likely satisfactorily addresses the concerns expressed by the comment. The 

Department’s components have a demonstrated history of NEPA compliance as 

reflected by numerous EAs that have been written concerning a myriad of 

activities over the course of many years at FLETC. Specifically, FLETC has a 

Natural Resources Management Activities EA that has addressed native flora 

and fauna (as have numerous other EAs completed at the Center). Biologists 

from state and federal agencies have submitted input for consideration and 

reference within those EAs. 

To ensure that concerns for maintaining balanced ecosystems were maintained 

in activities for which this categorical exclusion may be legitimately 

invoked, the Department modified the text published for public comment by 

replacing the phrase, “...to enhance native flora and fauna,” with the phrase, 
166 

“...to aid in the maintenance or restoration of native flora and fauna,” and 

added the limiting term, “...and control of non-indigenous species” as a 

natural resource management activity category within this categorical 

exclusion. The Department also clarified the scope of this categorical 

exclusion by adding the limiting term, “...on Department managed property,” to 

clarify that this categorical exclusion is limited to property under the 

control of the Department. 

 

This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical 

exclusions and administrative records brought to the Department by its 

components that themselves would have only been developed through a process 

consistent with NEPA regulatory requirements. In particular, the Panel 

identified legacy categorical exclusions from the U.S. Coast Guard and the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency. The U.S. Border Patrol brought a legacy 

of environmental assessments and findings of no significant impact for its 

land based activities. Based upon this extensive history of environmental 

analyses and the experience of its members, the Panel found that actions of a 

similar nature, scope, and intensity were performed throughout the Department 

without significant environmental impacts. 

 

The Panel defined this categorical exclusion to be sufficiently related to 

actions that may involve one or more extraordinary circumstances. To ensure 

that only those actions having negligible impacts on the human environment 

are contemplated by this categorical exclusion, the Panel proposed that a 

Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) be prepared to document the 

determination whether the action is either appropriately categorically 

excluded or whether it requires further analysis through an EA or EIS 

process. 

 

The Panel also noted that other Federal agencies have categorical exclusion 

for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that they 

demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by the 

Department. Numerous Federal agencies with responsibilities to manage 

similar activities at a larger scale and in a greater variety of natural 

environments, including environments at least as sensitive as those that the 

Department may normally work in, have categorical exclusions that encompass 

the types of activities contemplated for this Departmental categorical 

exclusion. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, with 

very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of 

other Federal agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in the 

Department were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies 

in general, as well as specifically related to the environment. 

 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently did not have individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

human environment. 
167 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

FEMA 

Reference: 44 CFR § 10.8 (d) (2) 

(xi) Planting of indigenous vegetation 

 

USCG 

Reference: COMDTINST M16475.1D, Figure 2-1 

(27) Natural and cultural resource management and research activities 

that are in accordance with inter-agency agreements and which are 

designed to improve or upgrade the USCG's ability to manage those 

resources. 

 

ARMY 

Reference: 32 CFR 651 Appendix B. Section II 

(d)(1) Land regeneration activities using only native trees and 

vegetation, including site preparation. This does not include forestry 

operations (REC required). 

 

FAA 

Reference: FAA Order 5050.4A Chapter 3, Section 23. 

(a) (7) Landscaping generally, and landscaping or construction of 

physical barriers to diminish impact of airport blast and noise. 

 

NAVY 

Reference: 32 CFR 775.6 

(33) Reintroduction of endemic or native species (other than endangered 

or threatened species) into their historic habitat when no substantial 

site preparation is involved. 

 

USBP 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Ephriam Ridge Reclamation 

United States Border Patrol Tucson Sector, Nogales Station Santa Cruz 

County, Arizona March 2003 resulting in a FONSI signed in March of 2003 

The U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), Nogales Station, proposes to reclaim 

Ephriam Ridge, which is located in Santa Cruz County, Arizona. This 

action includes stabilizing the ridge to prevent soils from washing 

against the border fence. Failure to take any action could cause the 

fence to collapse under the weight of the soil. The proposed action 

addresses the effects of erosion control, fencing, grading, and 

construction of a central access road down Ephriam Ridge in an effort 

to reduce erosion. The proposed action includes modification of site 

topography, soil stabilization, installation of sediment basins, 

revegetation, and replacing the fence within the presently degraded 

area. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

environment. 
168 

E6 Reconstruction of roads on Departmental facilities, where runoff, erosion, and 

sedimentation issues are mitigated through implementation of best management practices. 

This CATEX would encompass property management activities primarily at properties 

within the U.S. Coast Guard, Science and Technology Directorate, and the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Centers.

Road reconstruction, by definition, could only occur in areas where a road 

previously existed. This categorical exclusion would not include new road 

construction. Previous construction activities to build a road that was 

later abandoned and subsequent use of the road would have resulted in 

disturbance to natural or cultural resources in the road right of way. 

Reconstruction of a road would not be likely to disturb significant new areas 

of natural or cultural resources. Furthermore, since the Department of 

Homeland Security is not a major land managing agency in the Federal 

government, any potential for environmental impacts from road reconstruction 

in the Department would typically be of a small scale and confined to more 

localized impacts. 

 

However, the Panel realized that if a road is abandoned for a long enough 

period of time, environmental conditions may revert back to a more natural 

state. In addition, old road right of ways may have been established at a 

time when the potential for impacts to the human environment were not a 

factor in agency decision making. The Panel also recognized that 

environmental protection requirements change over time, such that newer 

requirements may cause portions of old road right of ways to become 

environmentally sensitive. The Panel believed that the majority of road 

reconstruction activities would occur on right of ways that have been used in 

the recent past and would not have been abandoned long enough to revert back 

to natural habitat. Nevertheless, the Panel also recognized that the 

application of each categorical exclusion would need to be reviewed for the 

presence of extraordinary circumstances. The Panel believed that the review 

for extraordinary circumstances would be sufficient to ensure that a more 

extensive environmental review under NEPA would be performed when necessary. 

The Panel also recognized that road reconstruction has the potential to 

generate indirect offsite environmental impacts. Therefore, the Panel 

limited the scope of this categorical exclusion to reconstruction of roads 

where runoff, erosion, and sedimentation issues are mitigated through 

implementation of Best Management Practices. As a result of these 

limitations, the Panel determined that this categorical exclusion 

contemplated activities that would inherently have no potential for 

significant impacts to the human environment. 

 

The Panel found that the activity of road reconstruction contemplated under 

this categorical exclusion would only be performed by components with real 

property management responsibilities. These activities would primarily occur 

at properties within the Department components of U.S. Coast Guard, the 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, and Customs and Border Protection. 

 
169 

In addition, this categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing 

categorical exclusions and administrative records brought to the Department 

by its components that themselves would have only been developed through a 

process consistent with NEPA regulatory requirements. In particular, the 

Panel identified the categorical exclusions of the U.S. Coast Guard and those 

of the Federal Aviation Administration brought in with the Transportation 

Security Administration. The U.S. Border Patrol brought a record of 

environmental assessments and findings of no significant impact. In addition 

to the activities of a similar nature, scope, and intensity performed by 

these components, the Panel found that actions of a lesser nature, scope, and 

intensity were performed throughout the Department without significant 

environmental impacts. 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently did not have individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

human environment. 

The Department received numerous comments to this categorical exclusion from 

the public. The comments suggest that the reference to “previously disturbed 

areas” needed clarification. The comments noted that road construction can 

have significant impact on the environment by increasing erosion, 

contaminated runoff, and fragmenting wildlife habitat, and asserted that the 

proposed categorical exclusion should be clarified to limit the excluded 

activity to roads that would not cause new surface disturbance. 

In response to the comments, this categorical exclusion was significantly 

revised and narrowed in scope. The comments submitted for this categorical 

exclusion noted that the important criterion to determine the potential for 

significant environmental impact was not the extent of prior disturbance, but 

rather the degree of environmental sensitivity. The Department recognizes 

that new road construction is highly controversial, and accordingly limited 

this categorical exclusion by modifying the term “...construction or 

reconstruction,” to read, “...reconstruction.” 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

USCG 

Reference: COMDTINST M16475.1B Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical 

exclusions 

2. Real and Personal Property Related Actions q. Minor renovations 

and additions to buildings, roads, airfields, grounds, equipment, and 

other facilities that do not result in a change in functional use of 

the real property (e.g. realigning interior spaces of an existing 

building, extending an existing roadway in a developed area a short 

distance, installing a small antenna on an already existing antenna 

tower, adding a small storage shed to an existing building, etc.). 

(Checklist and CED required.) u. Routine repair and maintenance of 

buildings, roads, airfields, grounds, equipment, and other facilities 
170 

which do not result in a change in functional use, or an impact on a 

historically significant element or setting 

 

FAA 

Reference: FAA Order 5050.4A Chapter 3, Section 23. 

(a) (5) Construction, relocation or repair of entrance and service 

roadway. 

 

USBP 

Reference: Supplemental EA USBP Hwy 94 (Dulzura) Check Point and 

Helipad and Truck Inspection Lane Improvements. San Diego County, CA 

resulting in a FONSI March 2002 

This Supplemental Environmental Assessment from the USBP proposed 

construction and operation of a helipad (20 ft x 20 if) and to widen 

the shoulder of Highway 94 for a total of 165 ft in length to create a 

truck inspection lane at the Duizura Check Point. The total area of the 

action was 22,500 sq ft. All activities took place within the existing 

check point boundaries and no additional lands were disturbed. The site 

for the truck lane was previously disturbed land and all of the 6 trees 

taken out to accommodate the inspection lane were relocated. 

Through coordination with the appropriate resource agencies, this 

Supplemental EA determined there would be no significant adverse 

impacts to the environment from this action. In an effort to reduce 

impacts during the construction phase, USBP implemented several 

environmental design measures including: 

Implementing construction BMPs to address noise, air pollution and 

erosion. 

Limiting construction to the non-nesting season for migratory birds. If 

this could not be done, then surveys for nesting birds would be 

completed and mitigation measures employed if they are found to be 

necessary. 

Helicopters would be maintained at the highest standards and hovering 

during take off and landing would be limited. 

E7 Construction of physical fitness and training trails for non-motorized use on 

Department facilities in areas that are not environmentally sensitive, where run-off, 

erosion, and sedimentation are mitigated through implementation of best management 

practices. This CATEX would encompass property management activities primarily at 

properties within the U.S. Coast Guard, Science and Technology Directorate, and the 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. 

The Department of Homeland Security has a significant mission to train 

Federal law enforcement officers, military personnel in the U.S. Coast Guard, 

and law enforcement and emergency response personnel in state and local 

governments. This training includes both indoor and outdoor activities, 

including physical fitness requirements. The majority of this training 

mission occurs on property managed by the Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Centers or the U.S. Coast Guard. However, other components of the Department 
171 

have included the construction of physical fitness and training trails for 

non-motorized use as a part of facilities in more isolated locations. 

 

The Panel realized that while these physical fitness and training trails 

would be of a relatively small scale, care must be taken in their design and 

construction to avoid areas that are environmentally sensitive. The Panel 

also recognized that physical fitness and training trail construction has the 

potential to generate indirect offsite environmental impacts. Therefore, the 

Panel limited the scope of this categorical exclusion to physical fitness and 

training trail construction where runoff, erosion, and sedimentation issues 

are mitigated through implementation of Best Management Practices. As a 

result of these limitations, the Panel determined that this categorical 

exclusion contemplated activities that would inherently have no potential for 

significant impacts to the human environment. 

 

In addition, this categorical exclusion is supported by administrative 

records brought to the Department by its components that themselves would 

have only been developed through a process consistent with NEPA regulatory 

requirements. In particular, the Panel identified that the U.S. Border 

Patrol brought a record of environmental assessments and findings of no 

significant impact. In addition, the Panel found that actions of a similar 

nature, scope, and intensity were performed throughout the Department without 

significant environmental impacts. 

 

The Panel also noted that other Federal agencies have categorical exclusions 

for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that they 

demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by the 

Department. The Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of 

other Federal agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in the 

Department were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies 

in general, as well as specifically related to the environment. 

 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently did not have individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

human environment. 

The Department received a general comment regarding this and several other 

categorical exclusions that essentially asserted that the Department 

maintained a relaxed threshold for what constitutes information that has no 

significant effect on the human environment. The comment referenced this 

categorical exclusion concerning construction of trails as an example of that 

relaxed threshold. 

The Department considered the comment raising the concern of adopting a 

relaxed threshold for the impact of activities to include construction of 

trails in non-environmentally sensitive areas where run-off, erosion, and 

sedimentation during construction are capable of mitigation through 

implementation of Best Management Practices. The Department notes that 

section 3.2 in Appendix A of the directive contains a list of conditions and 
172 

extraordinary circumstances that must be satisfied in the application of this 

categorical exclusion to a specific program or activity within the 

Department. These conditions and extraordinary circumstances were developed 

in recognition that, while the vast majority of Department activities in this 

category do not have potential for significant impacts to the environment, 

activity proponents within the Department need to be alert for rare and 

unique conditions that may require more extensive evaluation of the potential 

for environmental impacts under NEPA. This evaluation would include not only 

the immediate effect of the Department’s decision, but also the potential 

environmental effects that may indirectly result from implementing the 

decision and the cumulative effects of the decision on the quality of the 

human environment. 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

DOE 

Reference: 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B. 

B1.13 Construction, acquisition, and relocation of onsite pathways and 

short onsite access roads and railroads. 

 

USBP 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment Proposed JTF-6 mission JT423-

98 Marfa, Texas February 1998 resulting in a FONSI signed in February 

of 1998 

The scope of this EA addresses the potential impacts of proposed 

improvements on approximately 89.7 miles of existing road rights-ofway, construction of 1.8 miles of new road, and construction of some 

support facilities (e.g., helicopter landing pads, K-Span buildings, 

landing strips, obstacle course, etc.) in the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) 

Marfa Sector in Presidio and Jeff Davis counties, Texas. In addition, 

this EA also addresses the potential cumulative impacts associated with 

a Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) action in west Texas. 

A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) was prepared in 

1994 for the INS and JTF-6 proposed projects that facilitate Law 

Enforcement Agency (LEA) missions to reduce illegal drug activity along 

the southwestern border of the United States. The PEIS addresses the 

cumulative effects of past and future projects undertaken by JTF-6 for 

numerous LEAs within the four southwestern states (Texas, New Mexico, 

Arizona, and California). This EA tiers from the PEIS. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment on Proposed JTF-6 mission 

JT032-93 Laredo, Texas July 1993 resulting in a FONSI 

The proposed action, Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) Mission JT032-93, 

would involve four separate actions at several locations in six south 

Texas counties. The proposed action would involve (1) repair and 

construction of approximately 150 miles of existing fire breaks along 
173 

highway right-of-ways, (2) the repair/upgrade of approximately six 

miles of road along the Rio Grande within or near Laredo, (3) the 

upgrade/repair of three small-arms firing ranges at Freer, 

Hebbronville, and Laredo (4) the construction of a fitness/obstacle 

course at the Laredo Junior College in Laredo, Texas. 

Analysis: Based on the finding of this environmental assessment and the 

mitigations which would be utilized during the construction phase, no 

significant impacts would occur during the proposed project. 

 

ARMY 

Reference: 32 CFR 651 

 (3) Road or trail construction and repair on existing rights-ofways or on previously disturbed areas. 

 

USDA – Forest Service 

Reference: FSH 1909.15 - ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND PROCEDURES HANDBOOK 

Section 31.2 

1. Construction and reconstruction of trails. Examples include but 

are not limited to: 

a. Constructing or reconstructing a trail to a scenic overlook. 

b. Reconstructing an existing trail to allow use by handicapped 

individuals. 

E8* Construction of aquatic and riparian habitat in streams and ponds on Departmentmanaged land, using native materials or best natural resource management practices. 

Examples include, but are not limited to: 

(a) Installing or repairing gabions with stone from a nearby source, 

(b) Adding brush for fish habitat, 

(c) Stabilizing stream banks through bioengineering techniques, and, 

(d) Removing and controlling exotic vegetation, not including the use of herbicides or nonnative biological controls. 

This CATEX would encompass property management activities primarily at properties 

within the U.S. Coast Guard, Science and Technology Directorate, and the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Centers. 

 

The Panel recognized that construction of aquatic and riparian habitat in 

streams and ponds was a type of natural resource management activity that 

could be addressed within the types of activities contemplated under 

categorical exclusion E5. However, the Panel believed that it was necessary 

to address these types of natural resource management activities separately 

from others types of natural resource management activities due to the unique 

and more sensitive nature of the aquatic environment. Nevertheless, much of 

the same basis for E5 applies to E8 and the legacy administrative record 

brought into the Department supports both types of activities. 

 

The Department of Homeland Security is not a major land managing agency in 

the Federal government. These natural resource management activities in 
174 

aquatic and riparian habitat contemplated under this categorical exclusion 

would be performed by components with real property management 

responsibilities, but only those with sufficient property where such 

activities may be possible. Several components of the Department may manage 

one or two land parcels where these benefits may be realized. However; the 

U.S. Coast Guard manages the largest number of real properties in the 

Department and in sensitive aquatic environments along all maritime coasts 

and several rivers in the U.S. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers 

and the Science and Technology Directorate manage a smaller number of 

properties that may include fresh water ponds, streams, and riparian habitat. 

 

The activities to construct aquatic and riparian habitat on Department 

managed property contemplated in this categorical exclusion would be of a 

small scale and limited to a single locality. Furthermore, recognizing the 

sensitivity of the maritime and freshwater environments to the introduction 

of non-indigenous species, the Panel was careful to limit the nature of the 

activities that would be categorically excluded to only those activities 

using native materials or best natural resource management practices. These 

types of natural resource management activities would be undertaken to 

achieve small scale benefits to native flora and fauna. Any potential for 

environmental impacts would likewise be of a small scale and confined to more 

localized impacts. As a result of these limitations and in consideration of 

the administrative record, the Panel determined that this categorical 

exclusion contemplated activities that would inherently have no potential for 

significant impacts to the human environment. 

 

In addition, this categorical exclusion is supported by a long-standing 

categorical exclusion and administrative record brought to the Department 

that themselves would have only been developed through a process consistent 

with NEPA regulatory requirements. In particular, the Panel identified 

legacy categorical exclusions from the U.S. Coast Guard and the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. The U.S. Border Patrol brought a legacy of 

environmental assessments and findings of no significant impact for its land 

based activities. The Panel identified the U.S. Coast Guard operations to be 

of the greatest scope and intensity of any of the Department components, 

while also inclusive of operations of a similar nature as all of the 

Department components. Based upon this history of environmental analyses and 

the experience of its members, the Panel found that actions of a similar 

nature, scope, and intensity were performed throughout the Department without 

significant environmental impacts. 

 

The Panel defined this categorical exclusion to be sufficiently related to 

actions that may involve one or more extraordinary circumstances. To ensure 

that only those actions having negligible impacts on the human environment 

are contemplated by this categorical exclusion, the Panel proposed that a 

Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) be prepared to document the 

determination whether the action is either appropriately categorically 

excluded or whether it requires further analysis through an EA or EIS 

process. 

 
175 

The Panel determined that the use of examples in this particular categorical 

exclusion would be helpful to future users in clarifying the types of 

activities envisioned by the categorical exclusion. In providing examples, 

the Panel did not intend to extend the categorical exclusion to actions 

including extraordinary circumstances that may result in the activity having 

significant environmental effects. 

 

The Panel also noted that other Federal agencies have categorical exclusion 

for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that they 

demonstrated to the Panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by the 

Department. Numerous Federal agencies with responsibilities to manage 

similar activities at a larger scale and in a greater variety of natural 

environments, including environments at least as sensitive as those that the 

Department may normally work in, have categorical exclusions that encompass 

the types of activities contemplated for this Department categorical 

exclusion. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, with 

very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. The Panel determined from their experience in or on behalf of 

other Federal agencies, that the characteristics of the activities in the 

Department were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies 

in general, as well as specifically related to the environment. 

 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently did not have individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

human environment. 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

USBP 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Southerly International 

Border Water Improvement Project March 2000 resulting in a FONSI 

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, Public Law 93- 

320, authorized the construction, operation, and maintenance of 

facilities in the Colorado River Basin to control the, salinity of 

water delivered to Mexico by the International Boundary and Water 

Commission. The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to 

identify some proposed options developed by the Bureau of Reclamation, 

Yuma Area Office, and the International Boundary and Water Commission 

for the delivery of water to Mexico across the land boundary at San 

Luis, Arizona. Currently, water is delivered through the Sanchez 

Mejorada Canal at the southerly International Boundary (SIB). The water 

flow at the SIB fluctuates and flow variations render deliveries at the 

SIB unpredictable for both quantity and quality. 

This Environmental Assessment considers the following three 

alternatives to providing improved flows and less salty water to Mexico 

at the SIB: 1) Install variable speed motor controllers at the SIB 

Boundary Pumping Plant (BPP) and construct a diversion channel from the 

BPP to the Bypass Drain, 2) Install variable speed motor controllers at 
176 

the SIB BPP without the construction of a diversion canal; and 3) no 

action. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

Reference: Supplemental Environmental Assessment Immigration and 

Naturalization Service Border Road Maintenance and Construction, Tecate 

to Campo, San Diego County, California April 1997 resulting in a FONSI 

This supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) assesses the potential 

for significant adverse or beneficial environmental impacts of the 

proposed action and alternatives in accordance with provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The proposed action involves 

approximately three miles of new road construction, which includes two 

miles of riparian area rehabilitation and one mile of highly erodible 

land rehabilitation on corresponding abandoned road sections, and 

approximately six miles of maintenance to existing border roads along 

the U.S.-Mexico border between Tecate and Campo, San Diego County, 

California. 

A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) was prepared in 

1994 for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and Joint 

Task Force Six (JTF-6) proposed projects that facilitate law 

enforcement agencies (LEAs) missions to reduce illegal drug activity 

along the southwestern border of the U.S.(U.S. Army 1994). The PEIS 

addressed the cumulative effects of past and reasonably foreseeable 

projects undertaken by JTF-6. Additionally, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USCOE), Los Angeles District, prepared two EAs (Tecate to 

Canyon City; Campo to Jacumba) for border road maintenance and 

construction activities in this region (U.S. Army 1993 and 1994). This 

EA is a supplement to the JTF-6 PETS, and tiers from the PEIS and the 

two previous EAs. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA and the environmental design 

measures to be incorporated as part of the proposed action, it has been 

concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse 

effect on the environment. 

 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment Joint Task Force Six Proposed 

Fence Road Repair and Improvement Project Douglas, Cochise County, 

Arizona February 2001 resulting in a FONSI signed in February of 2001 

A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), prepared in 1994 

for the Immigration arid Naturalization Service (INS) and JTF-6, 

addressed proposed projects that facilitate missions to reduce illegal 

drug activity trafficking. This Environmental Assessment (EA) tiers 

from the 1994 PEIS. 

This EA addresses the potential impacts associated with a proposed 

fence and road improvement project along the U.S.-Mexico border in 

Cochise County, Arizona. The Proposed Action includes landing mat fence 

extension, installation of permanent lighting, road and hydrological 

repairs and improvements, and road maintenance. The Proposed Action 

specifically addresses the extension of an existing landing mat fence 
177 

east of the Port of Entry (POE) for a distance of two miles, 

installation of permanent lighting east of the POE for a distance of 

0.8 of a mile and west of the POE for a distance of one mile; 

repair/improvement the border road and hydrological conditions east of 

the POE for a distance of 4 miles and west of Whitewater Draw for a 

distance of 4 miles; and road maintenance west of the road repair 

section for a distance of eight miles near Douglas, Arizona. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

 

DOE 

Reference: 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B. 

B1.20 Small-scale activities undertaken to protect, restore, or improve 

fish and wildlife habitat, fish passage facilities (such as fish 

ladders or minor diversion channels), or fisheries. 

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Reference: Departmental Manual 516, Part 2 

Series: Environmental Quality Programs APPENDIX 1 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 516 DM 8 

B. Resource Management. 

 (3) The construction of new, or the addition of, small 

structures or improvements, including structures and improvements for 

the restoration of wetland, riparian, instream, or native habitats, 

which result in no or only minor changes in the use of the affected 

local area. The following are examples of activities that may be 

included. 

 (a) The installation of fences. 

 (b) The construction of small water control 

structures. 

 (c) The planting of seeds or seedlings and other 

minor revegetation actions. 

 (d) The construction of small berms or dikes. 

 (e) The development of limited access for routine 

maintenance and management purposes. 

HAZARDOUS/RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 

F1 Routine procurement, transportation, distribution, use, and storage of hazardous 

materials that comply with all applicable requirements, such as Occupational Safety and 

Health Act (OSHA) and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)..

 

The former categorical exclusion F1 language referencing “Routine 

procurement, handling, recycling, and off-site disposal of hazardous 

material/waste that complies with applicable requirement,” was viewed as not 

accurately defining the intent of this categorical exclusion as supported by 
178 

the administrative record. It is more accurate to limit the actions 

contemplated by that language to those applicable to hazardous materials, and 

to do likewise for hazardous waste. In order to ensure that this categorical 

exclusion was sufficiently limited in that fashion without expanding or 

modifying its intended scope, the categorical exclusion published for notice 

and comment as F1 has been limited by defining it as “Categorical exclusion 

F1: Routine procurement, transportation, distribution, use, and storage of 

hazardous materials that comply with all applicable requirements, such as 

OSHA and NFPA,” and “Categorical exclusion F2: Routine reuse, recycling, and 

off-site disposal of hazardous wastes including medical and radiological 

wastes generated incidental to Department activities where such reuse, 

recycling, and off-site disposal complies with applicable requirements such 

as RCRA, OSHA, and state hazardous waste management practices.” 

The Department received comment on categorical exclusion F1 that was related 

primarily to hazardous waste disposal as opposed to hazardous materials 

usage. That comment will be addressed in categorical exclusion F2. 

The Panel examined the various activities undertaken by both the new entities 

created and the existing entities merged into the Department to determine the 

extent to which these various components procured, transported, distributed, 

used, and stored hazardous materials during the normal course of their 

activities. Because a wide variety of materials are considered to be 

hazardous materials, including fuels for vehicles and equipment, it was found 

that actions of a similar nature, scope, and intensity were quite common 

throughout the Department in both operational and support activities. The 

majority of hazardous materials procured, transported, distributed, used, and 

stored were found to consist of commercially available materials (in 

conformance with federal procurement priorities). A more limited quantity of 

hazardous materials were of a type that was provided by commercial sources 

specifically for military (U.S. Coast Guard) or law enforcement purposes. 

Homeland security unique requirements for hazardous materials were found to 

be extremely infrequent and most of these were adaptations of commercially 

available goods and services (in conformance with federal procurement 

priorities). 

 

The Panel examined the existing categorical exclusions brought into the 

Department with the components and found that the U.S. Coast Guard had a 

categorical exclusion that included the routine movement, handling, and 

distribution of hazardous materials. This was significant because the U.S. 

Coast Guard was found to operate in the greatest variety of natural 

environments and have the greatest variety of operations that may have a 

requirement for hazardous materials, including such things as industrial 

operations, motor pool, vessel maintenance, aircraft maintenance, and 

facility maintenance. This long-standing categorical exclusion brought to 

the Department by the U.S. Coast Guard would have only been developed through 

a process consistent with NEPA regulatory requirements. 

 

The Panel found that motor pools, small vessels and boats, aircraft and 

helicopters, and facilities were maintained in a similar fashion throughout 

the Department. The Panel also found that the Department had specific 
179 

legislative authority to seek even higher levels of consistency in its 

operational and maintenance processes. The Panel also found that hazardous 

material activities contemplated by this categorical exclusion are those that 

would be undertaken at facilities or as a part of operations that must meet a 

variety of stringent requirements designed to protect the quality of the 

human environment. The Panel found that actions of a similar nature, scope, 

and intensity were performed throughout the Department in compliance with 

federal, tribal, state, or local law and/or regulatory policy by component 

entities with a history that pre-dates the Department. The Panel further 

noted that these actions resulted in no harm to the environment. 

 

The Panel also noted that other Federal agencies have categorical exclusion 

for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that it could 

be determined that they included a much broader range of activities and 

encompassed activities of generally greater scope and intensity than any in 

the Department. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, 

with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. For example, the volume of materials procured by agencies of 

the Department of Defense dwarf those of the Department. The Panel 

determined from their experience in or on behalf of other Federal agencies, 

that the characteristics of the activities in the Department were no 

different than those performed by other Federal agencies in general, as well 

as specifically related to the environment. 

 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently did not have individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

human environment. 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

USCG 

Reference: COMDTINST M16475.1D Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical 

exclusions 

4. Operational Actions d. the routine movement, handling, and 

distribution of non-hazardous and hazardous materials and wastes in 

accordance with applicable regulations. 

 

ARMY 

Reference: 32 CFR 651 Appendix B. Section II 

(h)(4) Routine management, to include transportation, distribution, 

use, storage, treatment, and disposal of solid waste, medical waste, 

radiological and special hazards (for example, asbestos, PCBs, leadbased paint, or unexploded ordnance), and/or hazardous waste that 

complies with EPA, Army, or other regulatory agency requirements. This 

CX is not applicable to new construction of facilities for such 

management purposes. 

 

FDA

Reference: 21 CFR 25.30 
180 

(m) Disposal of low-level radioactive waste materials (as defined in 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations at 10 CFR 61.2) and 

chemical waste materials generated in the laboratories serviced by the 

contracts administered by FDA, if the waste is disposed of in 

compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local requirements. 

 

DOE

Reference: 10CFR1021, Subpart D, Appendix B. 

B2.6 Packaging, transportation, and storage of radioactive materials 

from the public domain, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act upon a 

request by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or other cognizant agency, 

which would include a State that regulates radioactive materials under 

an agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or other agencies 

that may, under unusual circumstances, have responsibilities regarding 

the materials that are included in the categorical exclusion. Covered 

materials are those for which possession and use by Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission licensees has been categorically excluded under 10 CFR 

51.22(14) or its successors. Examples of these radioactive materials 

(which may contain source, byproduct or special nuclear materials) are 

density gauges, therapeutic medical devices, generators, reagent kits, 

irradiators, analytical instruments, well monitoring equipment, uranium 

shielding material, depleted uranium military munitions, and packaged 

radioactive waste not exceeding 50 curies. 

F2 Reuse, recycling, and disposal of solid, medical, radiological, and hazardous waste 

generated incidental to Department activities that comply with applicable requirements 

such as Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Occupational Safety and 

Health Act (OSHA), and state hazardous waste management practices. Examples include 

but are not limited to: 

(a) Appropriate treatment and disposal of medical waste conducted in accordance with all 

federal, state, local and tribal laws and regulations, 

(b) Temporary storage and disposal solid waste, conducted in accordance with all federal, 

state, local and tribal laws and regulations, 

(c) Disposal of radiological waste through manufacturer return and recycling programs, 

and, 

(c) Hazardous waste minimization activities. 

 

The former categorical exclusion F1 language referencing “Routine 

procurement, handling, recycling, and off-site disposal of hazardous 

material/waste that complies with applicable requirement,” was viewed as not 

accurately defining the intent of this categorical exclusion as supported by 

the administrative record. It is more accurate to limit the actions 

contemplated by that language to those applicable to hazardous materials, and 

to do likewise for hazardous waste. Consequently, categorical exclusion F1 
181 

was developed to be limited to activities with hazardous materials and this 

categorical exclusion F2 was developed to be limited to activities with 

hazardous waste. 

The term “Reuse” was added to emphasis the importance of reutilization of 

hazardous waste; an action that, similar to recycling, reduces the volume of 

waste disposal and the potential for adverse environmental impacts of 

hazardous waste. The phrase “generated incidental to Department activities” 

was added to emphasize that this categorical exclusion only contemplates 

reuse, recycling, and off-site disposal that is required by routine 

Department activities. The phrase “such as RCRA, OSHA, and state hazardous 

waste management practices” was added to exemplify the type of requirements 

that may be applicable to hazardous waste reuse, recycling, and disposal. 

 

The Panel examined the various activities undertaken by both the new entities 

created and the existing entities merged into the Department to determine the 

extent to which these various components reused, recycled, and disposed of 

solid, medical, radiological, and hazardous waste generated incidental to 

their activities. The Panel found that a wide variety of materials are used 

throughout the department, some of which are considered to be hazardous 

materials. The Panel found that some of these materials would not be fully 

used up in Department activities, resulting in small quantities of hazardous 

waste; while others, like batteries for hand held radios, could become 

hazardous waste as a result of their intended use. The Panel also found that 

U.S. Coast Guard and other components are responsible for medical clinics or 

research laboratories that may generate small quantities of medical waste 

that needs to either be treated prior to disposal or disposed through a 

contractor or facility that will treat the medical waste appropriately. 

Other materials, such as fuels for vehicles and equipment, can change their 

nature over time, rendering them inappropriate for use, requiring recycling 

or disposal as hazardous waste. The Panel found that reuse, recycling, and 

disposal actions of a similar nature, scope, and intensity were quite common 

throughout the Department in both operational and support activities. 

 

In regard to the disposal of radiological waste, the Panel found that the 

majority of such situations where radiological wastes would be generated 

within the Department would be associated with activities contemplated under 

categorical exclusion B8. However, the Panel found that some equipment used 

within the department contained materials that were disposed of as 

radiological waste through manufacturer sponsored return and replacement 

programs. 

 

The Panel found that motor pools, small vessels and boats, aircraft and 

helicopters, and facilities were maintained in a similar fashion throughout 

the Department. The Panel also found that the Department had specific 

legislative authority to seek even higher levels of consistency in its 

operational and maintenance processes. The Panel also found that hazardous, 

radiological, or medical waste activities contemplated by this categorical 

exclusion are those that would be undertaken at facilities or as a part of 

operations that must meet a variety of stringent requirements designed to 

protect the quality of the human environment. The Panel found that actions 
182 

of a similar nature, scope, and intensity were performed throughout the 

Department in compliance with federal, tribal, state, or local law and/or 

regulatory policy by component entities with a history that pre-dates the 

Department. The Panel further noted that these actions resulted in no harm 

to the environment. 

 

The Department is generally not interested in establishing or causing to have 

established new landfills or waste disposal facilities and this categorical 

exclusion would not apply to that type of activity. Use of these permitted 

waste disposal facilities by the Department under normal circumstances would 

be the same as any other customer of the facility. The potential for 

environmental impacts, including environmental justice, from established 

permitted landfills and facilities would normally have been evaluated by 

others during the permitting process. Furthermore, the applicable 

requirements contemplated in this categorical exclusion would include the 

requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Subtitle D) and 

state implementing regulations. 

 

The Panel examined the existing categorical exclusions brought into the 

Department with the components and found that the U.S. Coast Guard had a 

categorical exclusion that included the routine movement, handling, and 

distribution of hazardous wastes. This was significant because the U.S. 

Coast Guard was found to operate in the greatest variety of natural 

environments and have the greatest variety of operations that may result in 

the incidental generation of hazardous or medical waste, including such 

things as industrial operations, motor pool, vessel maintenance, aircraft 

maintenance, and facility maintenance. This long-standing categorical 

exclusion brought to the Department by the U.S. Coast Guard would have only 

been developed through a process consistent with NEPA regulatory 

requirements. 

 

The Panel determined that the use of examples in this particular categorical 

exclusion would be helpful to future users in clarifying the types of 

activities envisioned by the categorical exclusion. In providing examples, 

the Panel did not intend to extend the categorical exclusion to actions 

including extraordinary circumstances that may result in the activity having 

significant environmental effects. 

 

The Panel also noted that other Federal agencies have categorical exclusion 

for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that it could 

be determined that they included a much broader range of activities and 

encompassed activities of generally greater scope and intensity than any in 

the Department. In addition, the Panel recognized that all Federal agencies, 

with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the 

environment. For example, the volume of materials procured by agencies of 

the Department of Defense dwarf those of the Department. The Panel 

determined from their experience in or on behalf of other Federal agencies, 

that the characteristics of the activities in the Department were no 

different than those performed by other Federal agencies in general, as well 

as specifically related to the environment. 

 
183 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed programmatic activities that 

inherently did not have individual or cumulative significant impact on the 

human environment. 

The Department received a comment asserting that that no standard exists by 

which to measure the routine use of hazardous materials/waste. Specifically, 

the comment stated that, absent a deeper explanation of the activities being 

excluded, this categorical exclusion could easily become a rubber stamp to 

nearly all agency activities with hazardous waste. The comment expressed the 

additional concern that a categorical exclusion for these activities could 

mask the cumulative effects of routine hazardous waste use at agency 

facilities. 

The Department considered the comment and notes that section 3.2 in Appendix 

A of the directive contains a list of conditions and extraordinary 

circumstances that must be satisfied in the application of this categorical 

exclusion to a specific program or activity within the Department. These 

conditions and extraordinary circumstances were developed in recognition 

that, while the vast majority of Department activities in this category do 

not have potential for significant impacts to the environment, activity 

proponents within the Department need to be alert for rare and unique 

conditions that may require more extensive evaluation of the potential for 

environmental impacts under NEPA. This evaluation would include not only the 

immediate effect of the Department’s decision, but also the potential 

environmental effects that may indirectly result from implementing the 

decision and the cumulative effects of the decision on the quality of the 

human environment. 

 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

USCG 

Reference: COMDTINST M16475.1D Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical 

exclusions 

4. Operational Actions d. the routine movement, handling, and 

distribution of non-hazardous and hazardous materials and wastes in 

accordance with applicable regulations. 

 

ARMY 

Reference: 32 CFR 651 Appendix B. Section II 

(h)(4) Routine management, to include transportation, distribution, 

use, storage, treatment, and disposal of solid waste, medical waste, 

radiological and special hazards (for example, asbestos, PCBs, leadbased paint, or unexploded ordnance), and/or hazardous waste that 

complies with EPA, Army, or other regulatory agency requirements. This 

CX is not applicable to new construction of facilities for such 

management purposes. 

 

FDA 

Reference: 21 CFR 25.30 
184 

(m) Disposal of low-level radioactive waste materials (as defined in 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations at 10 CFR 61.2) and 

chemical waste materials generated in the laboratories serviced by the 

contracts administered by FDA, if the waste is disposed of in 

compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local requirements. 

 

DOE 

Reference: 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B 

B2.6 Packaging, transportation, and storage of radioactive materials 

from the public domain, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act upon a 

request by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or other cognizant agency, 

which would include a State that regulates radioactive materials under 

an agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or other agencies 

that may, under unusual circumstances, have responsibilities regarding 

the materials that are included in the categorical exclusion. Covered 

materials are those for which possession and use by Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission licensees has been categorically excluded under 10 CFR 

51.22(14) or its successors. Examples of these radioactive materials 

(which may contain source, byproduct or special nuclear materials) are 

density gauges, therapeutic medical devices, generators, reagent kits, 

irradiators, analytical instruments, well monitoring equipment, uranium 

shielding material, depleted uranium military munitions, and packaged 

radioactive waste not exceeding 50 curies. 

F3 Use (that may include the processes of installation, maintenance, non-destructive 

testing, and calibration), transport, and storage of hand-held, mobile or stationary 

instruments, containing sealed radiological and radioactive materials, to screen for or 

detect dangerous or illegal individuals or materials in compliance with commercial 

manufacturers’ specifications, as well as applicable Federal requirements to protect the 

human environment. Examples of such instruments include but are not limited to: 

(a) Gauging devices, tracers, and other analytical instruments, 

(b) Instruments used in industrial radiography, 

(c) Systems used in medical and veterinary practices and, 

(d) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved, sealed, small source radiation 

devices for scanning vehicles and packages where radiation exposure to employees or the 

public does not exceed 0.1 rem per year and where systems are maintained within the NRC 

license parameters at existing facilities. 

This categorical exclusion resulted from a combination of two other 

categorical exclusions previously published for comment as F3 and F2. 

Wording in the former version of F3, i.e., “Use, transportation, and 

placement of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved, sealed, small 

source radiation for scanning and detection devices for inspecting vehicles 

and packages where radiation exposure to employees or the public does not 

exceed 0.1 rem per year and where systems are maintained within the NRC 

license parameters at existing facilities...” did not accurately define the 
185 

intent of this categorical exclusion. Also, the administrative record 

reflected redundancy in the wording of the exclusions. Likewise, language in 

what was categorical exclusion F2 referencing “Use of instruments that 

contain hazardous, radioactive, and radiological materials in a manner that 

meets or exceeds all applicable laws and local regulations. Examples 

include, but are not limited to: 

(a) Gauging devices, tracers, analytical instruments, and other devices 

containing sealed radiological and radioactive sources 

(b) Devices used in industrial radiography 

(c) Installation, maintenance, non-destructive tests, and calibration...” was 

viewed as not accurately defining the intent of this categorical exclusion, 

as supported by the administrative record. 

The Panel realized that it was more accurate to define and describe a 

separate category of activities contemplated as the use (that may include the 

processes of installation, maintenance, non-destructive testing, and 

calibration), transport, and storage of hand-held, mobile or stationary 

instruments, containing sealed radiological and radioactive materials, to 

screen for or detect dangerous or illegal individuals or materials. In so 

doing, this more accurately and more narrowly describes the nature of those 

instruments contemplated as hand-held, mobile or stationary instruments and 

more accurately describe the term “use” to include installation, maintenance, 

non-destructive testing, and calibration of those instruments. In so doing, 

the Department ensured that its activities involving other types of uses and 

other types of instruments would be more accurately described in other 

categorical exclusions such as B1, B3, B8, B9, and G1. 

The rewriting of this categorical exclusion further limits the activities 

contemplated to those involving hand-held, mobile or stationary instruments 

containing sealed radiological and radioactive materials from that which used 

to include the more general term of “hazardous materials” to more accurately 

reflect the intent of the two categorical exclusions now combined into one, 

as included in this grouping of the Department’s list of categorical 

exclusions. This also ensures that Department activities involving 

instruments containing other types of materials, including hazardous 

materials, would be more accurately described in other categorical exclusions 

such as B1, B3, B8, B9, F1, and G1. 

The phrase “...in compliance with commercial manufacturer’s specifications, as 

well as applicable federal requirements to protect the human environment...” 

was added to exemplify the type of requirements that may be applicable to the 

use of these instruments. The example of “Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) approved, sealed, small source radiation devices for scanning vehicles 

and packages where radiation exposure to employees or the public does not 

exceed 0.1 rem per year and where systems are maintained within the NRC 

license parameters at existing facilities...” was retained to exemplify the 

nature of the types of radiation devices that were contemplated and the 

controls on radiation exposure that were contemplated to ensure that there 

would be no significant impacts to the quality of the human environment. 
186 

The Panel also recognized that DHS would not normally be storing or 

transporting large quantities of these instruments. Any storage or transport 

of these instruments that may occur for DHS purposes would be associated with 

activities surrounding the acquisition of the instruments, their distribution 

to appropriate operational units, and the limited numbers of these 

instruments that may be stored at any single unit for their operational 

needs. In addition, operational units may transport small quantities of 

these instruments during operational missions. 

The Panel of environmental professionals examined the various activities 

undertaken by the new entities created and the existing entities merged into 

the Department to determine the extent to which these various components used 

hand-held, mobile or stationary instruments containing sealed radiological 

and radioactive materials to screen for or detect dangerous or illegal 

individuals or materials. The panel found that a wide variety of hand-held, 

mobile or stationary instruments containing sealed radiological and 

radioactive materials are used by various components of the department to 

screen for or detect dangerous or illegal individuals or materials. 

Furthermore, these uses are not only for inspects at land, sea, and air ports 

of entry but may also involve emergency response and recovery activities. 

For example, the components of the U.S. Coast Guard, Transportation Security 

Administration, and Customs and Border Protection perform the activities 

contemplated at land, sea, and air ports of entry; while the Office of State 

and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness trains non-Federal 

entities in the appropriate use of these instruments. Furthermore, the Panel 

found that the appropriate use of these instruments included the processes of 

installation, maintenance, non-destructive testing, and calibration. The 

Panel found that actions of a similar nature, scope, and intensity were quite 

common throughout DHS in operational activities. 

The Panel found that hand-held, mobile or stationary instruments containing 

sealed radiological and radioactive materials were used to screen for or 

detect dangerous or illegal individuals or materials in a similar fashion 

throughout DHS. The Panel also found that DHS had specific legislative 

authority to seek even higher levels of consistency in its operational 

processes. The Panel also found that these hand-held, mobile or stationary 

instruments containing sealed radiological and radioactive materials 

contemplated by this categorical exclusion must be used in a manner that 

meets a variety of stringent requirements designed to protect the quality of 

the human environment. The Panel further noted that these actions resulted 

in no harm to the environment. 

The panel examined the existing administrative record brought into DHS with 

the components included the use of hand-held, mobile or stationary 

instruments containing sealed radiological and radioactive materials to 

screen for or detect dangerous or illegal individuals or materials. The 

panel noted the record from the Customs and Border Protection, the Science 

and Technology Directorate, and the Preparedness Directorate. 

The panel determined that the use of examples in this particular CATEX would 

be helpful to future users in clarifying the types of activities envisioned 
187 

by the CATEX. In providing examples, the panel did not intend to extend the 

CATEX to actions including extraordinary circumstances that may result in the 

activity having significant environmental effects. 

The panel of interdisciplinary experts also noted that other Federal agencies 

have CATEX for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that 

they demonstrated to the panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by DHS. In 

addition, the panel recognized that all Federal agencies, with very few 

limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the environment. The 

panel determined from their experience in other Federal agencies and from the 

expertise of the consultants, that the characteristics of the activities in 

DHS were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies in 

general, and similarly had negligible impacts on the human environment. 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed CATEX encompassed programmatic activities that inherently did not 

have individual or cumulative significant impact on the human environment. 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

AIR FORCE 

Reference: 32 CFR 989 Appendix B 

A2.3.27. Normal or routine basic and applied scientific research 

confined to the laboratory and in compliance with all applicable 

safety, environmental, and natural resource conservation laws. 

ARMY 

Reference: 32 CFR 651 Appendix B. Section II 

(h)(1) Use of gauging devices, analytical instruments, and other 

devices containing sealed radiological sources; use of industrial 

radiography; use of radioactive material in medical and veterinary 

practices; possession of radioactive material incident to performing 

services such as installation, maintenance, leak tests, and 

calibration; use of uranium as shielding material in containers or 

devices; and radioactive tracers (REC required). 

USBP 

Reference: Programmatic Environmental Assessment for GAMMA Imaging 

Inspection Systems resulting in a FONSI 

In March 2004, The United States (U.S.) Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP), analyzed A new method of conducting inspections involves the use 

of Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) equipment based on technologies such 

as low-energy X-ray or low-energy gamma radiation sources to “see” into 

cargo containers and identify potential contraband. The Applied 

Technology Division (ATD) of CBP has examined gamma-imaging 

technologies for their suitability as parts of CBP’s inspection 

program. 

The Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) documents a top-level 

evaluation of the potential environmental consequences resulting from 
188 

deploying, installing, and operating of gamma imaging systems to 

inspect cargoes at air, sea and land ports of entry (POEs) throughout 

the U.S. and Puerto Rico. 

Analysis: After considering all relevant factors and issues, the PEA 

concludes that Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) equipment would not 

significantly affect the physical, cultural, and socioeconomic 

environments. However this PEA mentioned that site-specific analyses 

will be performed for each location in the U.S. or Puerto Rico, where 

CBP installs VACIS II, Mobile VACIS, Pallet VACIS and/or Rail VACIS. 

Each site-specific analysis will be reported in a Supplemental 

Environmental Document, which will tier off of this PEA in accordance 

with 40 CFR Part 1508.28. 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for Pulsed Fast Neutron Analysis 

Cargo Inspection System Test Facility at Ysleta Port of Entry 

Commercial Cargo Facility, El Paso, Texas 2003 resulting in a FONSI 

This EA analyzed an extended real-life trial of Pulsed Fast Neutron 

Analysis (PFNA) system, a radiation-based method of Non-Intrusive 

Inspection Technology that allows CBP to examine cargoes without having 

to physically unload the cargo containers. Based on a review of 

candidate locations having a high volume of incoming commercial 

traffic, the Ysleta Commercial Cargo Facility in El Paso, Texas was 

identified as the best test site. Under the proposed action, the 

government will construct a test facility (approximately 9 months) and 

operate it with the commercial stream-of-commerce (for a maximum period 

of 6 months). 

Analysis: The EA analyzed the many potential environmental consequences 

and determined that all impacts would be negligible or minor. With the 

exception of radiation, the effects and consequences of the proposed 

action are not unlike constructing and operating a drive-through 

tollbooth plaza. With regard to radiation and air quality, a very 

small amount (a fraction of 1 percent of EPA’s allowable threshold) is 

released to the atmosphere. A small amount of solid radioactive waste 

will be disposed of using licensed contractors who typically handle 

hospital waste. Analyses have shown that the system is safe to 

operators, cargo and the general public. A stowaway in the cargo 

vehicle will be subjected to a maximum radiation dose the same as OSHA 

allows for general public over the course of a year. Weapons of mass 

destruction will not be initiated by the system. Analysis of possible 

accidents shows that worst-case radiation doses are below acceptable 

standards. The EA concluded that this trial would not significantly 

affect the physical, cultural, and socioeconomic environments. 

Reference: Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Gamma Imaging 

Inspection Systems, Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs 

and Border Protection, Applied Technology Division, March 12, 2004 

resulting in a FONSI 

Customs and Border Protection wrote this PEA to analyze the use of NonIntrusive Inspection (NII) equipment based on technologies such as lowenergy X-ray or low-energy gamma radiation sources to “see” into cargo 

containers and identify potential contraband. The PEA evaluated 
189 

potential environmental consequences resulting from deploying, 

installing, and operating the four different configurations of gamma 

imaging systems [known as the Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System 

(VACIS)] to inspect cargoes at air, sea and land ports of entry (POEs) 

throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico. 

Analysis: The PEA analyzed the likely environmental consequences, 

including the radiological consequences, and concluded that VACIS is 

not expected to significantly affect the physical, cultural, and 

socioeconomic environments. 

DOE 

Reference: 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B. 

B2.6 Packaging, transportation, and storage of radioactive materials 

from the public domain, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act upon a 

request by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or other cognizant agency, 

which would include a State that regulates radioactive materials under 

an agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or other agencies 

that may, under unusual circumstances, have responsibilities regarding 

the materials that are included in the categorical exclusion. Covered 

materials are those for which possession and use by Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission licensees has been categorically excluded under 10 CFR 

51.22(14) or its successors. Examples of these radioactive materials 

(which may contain source, byproduct or special nuclear materials) are 

density gauges, therapeutic medical devices, generators, reagent kits, 

irradiators, analytical instruments, well monitoring equipment, uranium 

shielding material, depleted uranium military munitions, and packaged 

radioactive waste not exceeding 50 curies. 

B3.12 Siting, construction (or modification), operation, and 

decommissioning of microbiological and biomedical diagnostic, treatment 

and research facilities (excluding Biosafety Level-3 and Biosafety 

Level-4; reference: Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical 

Laboratories, 3rd Edition, May 1993, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services Public Health Service, Centers of Disease Control and 

Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health (HHS Publication No. 

(CDC) 93-8395)) including, but not limited to, laboratories, treatment 

areas, offices, and storage areas, within or contiguous to an already 

developed area (where active utilities and currently used roads are 

readily accessible). Operation may include the purchase, installation, 

and operation of biomedical equipment, such as commercially available 

cyclotrons that are used to generate radioisotopes and 

radiopharmaceuticals, and commercially available biomedical imaging and 

spectroscopy instrumentation. 

B7.2 Approval of import or export of small quantities of special 

nuclear materials or isotopic materials in accordance with the Nuclear 

Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 and the ``Procedures Established Pursuant 

to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Act of 1978'' (43 FR 25326, June 9, 

1978). 

NRC 
190 

Reference: 10 CFR § 51.22 

14) Issuance, amendment, or renewal of materials licenses issued 

pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40 or part 70 

authorizing the following types of activities: 

(i) Distribution of radioactive material and devices or products 

containing radioactive material to general licensees and to 

persons exempt from licensing. 

(ii) Distribution of radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent 

kits and/or sealed sources to persons licensed pursuant to 10 CFR 

35.18. 

(iii) Nuclear pharmacies. 

(iv) Medical and veterinary. 

(v) Use of radioactive materials for research and development and 

for educational purposes. 

(vi) Industrial radiography. 

(vii) Irradiators. 

(viii) Use of sealed sources and use of gauging devices, 

analytical instruments and other devices containing sealed 

sources. 

(ix) Use of uranium as shielding material in containers or 

devices. 

(x) Possession of radioactive material incident to performing 

services such as installation, maintenance, leak tests and 

calibration. 

(xi) Use of sealed sources and/or radioactive tracers in welllogging procedures. 

(xii) Acceptance of packaged radioactive wastes from others for 

transfer to licensed land burial facilities provided the interim 

storage period for any package does not exceed 180 days and the 

total possession limit for all packages held in interim storage 

at the same time does not exceed 50 curies. 

(xiii) Manufacturing or processing of source, byproduct, or 

special nuclear materials for distribution to other licensees, 

except processing of source material for extraction of rare earth 

and other metals. 

(xiv) Nuclear laundries. 

(xv) Possession, manufacturing, processing, shipment, testing, or 

other use of depleted uranium military munitions. 

(xvi) Any use of source, byproduct, or special nuclear material 

not listed above which involves quantities and forms of source, 

byproduct, or special nuclear material similar to those listed in 

paragraphs (c)(14) (i) through (xv) of this section (Category 

14). 

TRAINING AND EXERCISES 

G1 Training of homeland security personnel, including international, tribal, state, and 

local agency representatives using existing facilities where the training occurs in 
191 

accordance with applicable permits and other requirements for the protection of the 

environment. This exclusion does not apply to training that involves the use of live 

chemical, biological, or radiological agents except when conducted at a location designed 

and constructed to contain the materials used for that training. Examples include but are 

not limited to: 

(a) Administrative or classroom training, 

(b) Tactical training, including but not limited to training in explosives and incendiary 

devices, arson investigation and firefighting, and emergency preparedness and response, 

(c) Vehicle and small boat operation training, 

(d) Small arms and less-than-lethal weapons training, 

(e) Security specialties and terrorist response training, 

(f) Crowd control training, including gas range training, 

(g) Enforcement response, self-defense, and interdiction techniques training, and, 

(h) Techniques for use in fingerprinting and drug analysis 

The panel of environmental professionals found that training activities of 

varying nature, scope, and intensity were performed at facilities throughout 

DHS. Nearly every component of DHS has some type of training activity. One 

component, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, has the training of 

law enforcement and homeland security personnel and the operation of 

associated training facilities as its primary mission. The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency and the Preparedness Directorate provide training, with the 

operation of associated training facilities, to first responder personnel in 

Federal, tribal, state, and local governments. Another component, the U.S. 

Coast Guard, has a recruit training center, an academy for the training of 

military officers, and several locations for the training of military 

personnel in specific mission requirements and maintenance of skills. Other 

components maintain smaller training programs to meet mission specific 

requirements. 

The panel of environmental professionals found that training activities of a 

similar nature, scope, and intensity were performed throughout DHS in 

compliance with federal, tribal, state, or local law and/or regulatory policy 

by component entities with a history that pre-dates the Department. The 

panel also found that these training activities contemplated by this 

categorical exclusion have been undertaken within facilities that are 

operated under stringent requirements designed to protect the quality of the 

human environment. The Panel further noted that these training activities 

have resulted in no harm to the environment. 

The panel specifically limited this categorical exclusion to training at 

existing facilities. The acquisition or construction of new training 

facilities was not contemplated with this categorical exclusion. 

The panel limited the applicability of the training activities contemplated 

with this categorical exclusion to those where the training occurs in 
192 

accordance with applicable permits and other requirements for the protection 

of the environment. 

The panel recognized that there were issues of particular environmental 

sensitivity associated with training that involved the use of live chemical, 

biological, or radiological agents. Therefore, this categorical exclusion 

has been limited to training that involves the use of live chemical, 

biological, or radiological agents only when conducted at locations designed 

and constructed to contain the materials used for that training. These 

existing facilities are highly contained and controlled to allow realistic 

training scenarios while protecting the environment, the surrounding 

communities, and, most importantly, the health and safety of the 

participants. 

The panel determined that the use of examples in this particular CATEX would 

be helpful to future users in clarifying the types of activities envisioned 

by the CATEX. In providing examples, the panel did not intend to extend the 

CATEX to actions including extraordinary circumstances that may result in the 

activity having significant environmental effects. 

This categorical exclusion is supported by long standing CATEX and 

administrative records brought to DHS by its components. The U.S. Coast 

Guard and the Federal Emergency Management Agency had existing categorical 

exclusions for training activities. The Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Centers and the U.S. Border Patrol brought extensive administrative records 

to support that there was no potential for significant impact to the human 

environment from their training activities. 

The panel of interdisciplinary experts also noted that other Federal agencies 

have categorical exclusions for similar activities that are sufficiently 

descriptive such that they demonstrated to the panel that those activities 

were similar in nature, scope, and impact on the human environment to those 

performed by DHS. In addition, the panel recognized that all Federal 

agencies, with very few limitations, must meet the same requirements to 

protect the environment. The panel determined from their experience in other 

Federal agencies and from the expertise of the consultants, that the 

characteristics of the activities in DHS were no different than those 

performed by other Federal agencies in general, as well as specifically 

related to the environment. 

Through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the proposed CATEX 

encompassed programmatic activities that inherently do not have an individual 

or cumulative significant impact on the environment. 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

USDA-ARS 

Reference: 7 CFR 1b.3 

(4) Educational and informational programs and activities... 
193 

USCG 

Reference: COMDTINST M16475.1D Figure 2-1 Coast Guard Categorical 

Exclusions 

3. Training a. Defense preparedness training and exercises conducted 

on Coast Guard controlled property that do not involve undeveloped 

property or increased noise levels over adjacent property and that 

involve a limited number of personnel, such as exercises involving 

primarily electronic simulation or command post personnel. (Checklist 

and CED required.) b. Defense preparedness training and exercises 

conducted on other than USCG property, where the lead agency or 

department is not USCG or DOT and the lead agency or department has 

completed its NEPA analysis and documentation requirements. c. 

Simulated exercises, including tactical and logistical exercises that 

involve small numbers of personnel. d. Training of an administrative 

or classroom nature. 

FEMA 

Reference: 44CFR 10.8 (d) (2) 

(v)Training activities and both training and operational exercises 

utilizing existing facilities in accordance with established procedures 

and land use designations 

ARMY 

Reference: 32CFR651 Appendix B. Section II 

(i)(2) Training entirely of an administrative or classroom nature. 

DOE 

Reference: 10CFR1021, Subpart D, Appendix B . 

B1.2 Routine training exercises and simulations including, but not 

limited to: 

Emergency response and security training. 

Fire fighting, rescue, and spill response/cleanup training. 

B1.2 Training exercises and simulations (including, but not limited to, 

firing-range training, emergency response training, fire fighter and 

rescue training, and spill cleanup training). 

FLETC 

Reference: Environmental Assessment for the Construction of a Physical 

Security Training Facility, Building 15, for the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) at Glynco, Georgia, resulting in a 

FONSI signed on September 9, 2000. 

The proposed action would consist of construction a new building 

(Building #15) at the intersection of Legislative Drive and Records 

Avenue to house the physical security training that is presently being 

conducted in Building #146. The building would be called the Physical 

Security Training Facility. The work would include: 

(1) Construction of a 12,000 square foot, one-story, standing 

seem galvanized steel roofed building, with architectural 

concrete masonry for the exterior bearing walls; 

(2) Site improvements consisting of storm drainage, walkways and 

landscaping; 
194 

(3) Connection to the FLETC-wide underground chilled water and 

natural gas distribution loops. The new chilled water loop 

(supply and return lines) would connect to the nearest existing 

valve pit located approximately 800 feet southeast of the new 

facility; 

(4) Restoration of a roughly 5,000 square-foot existing paved 

area for parking; 

(5) Relocation of the training activities from Building #146; and 

(6) Modification and reuse of the existing training facility for 

other ongoing FLETC activities. 

Analysis: Based upon the findings of this analysis no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from these activities. 

Reference: An Amendment to Include a Covered Outdoor Firing Range to an 

Environmental Assessment for the Canine Enforcement Training Center 

Front Royal, Virginia, Department of the Treasure U.S. Customs Service, 

National Logistics Center 6026 Lakeside Boulevard Indianapolis, Indiana 

46278. Original document dated April, 1994; Amendment dated January 3, 

1995. 

This is an addendum to include a Covered Outdoor Firing Range to the 

original Environmental Assessment that encompassed both Site “A”, the 

13.4 acre main campus, and Site “B”, location of proposed construction 

of new facilities on a 282 acre tract of land, (hereafter referred to 

as the Master Plan). The following is a description of the proposed 

covered outdoor firing range at Site “B”. 

Analysis: There is no anticipated adverse environmental effect as the 

range will be used only during scheduled class times and will be 

maintained on a regular basis keeping lead particulates confined to the 

concrete slab and the bullet trap. Rain and snow runoff will be 

controlled by the roof covering and downspouts minimizing the potential 

for any lead particulates to enter into the local watershed. The sound 

generated will be attenuated by the enclosed design and sound absorbing 

materials creating a possible reduction in the current noise level. 

G2 Projects, grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, or activities to design, develop, 

and conduct national, state, local, or international exercises to test the readiness of the 

nation to prevent or respond to a terrorist attack or a natural or manmade disaster and 

where conducted in accordance with existing facility or land use designations. This 

exclusion does not apply to exercises that involve the use of chemical, biological, 

radiological, nuclear, or explosive agents/devices (other than small devices such as practice 

grenades/flash bang devices used to simulate an attack during exercise play). 

The panel found that DHS provides direct support, technical assistance, and 

funding to plan, conduct, and evaluate training exercises based on incidents 

of natural disaster and chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or 

explosive (CBRNE) terrorism. These training exercises may involve planning 

exercises, actual conduct of these exercises, and evaluation drills and 
195 

exercises to test preparedness, response, and recovery. These training 

exercises are developed in accordance with long standing procedures that 

involve careful consideration of the nature of the exercise, the development 

of the scenarios, selection of the appropriate physical location, and 

recognition of the variety of requirements that may apply to their conduct. 

These procedures are a part of this administrative record. 

The Panel recognized that components consolidated into the Department planned 

and conducted national-level exercises of the type contemplated by this 

categorical exclusion for many years with a history of no adverse impact to 

the environment. Since consolidation into the Department, national-level 

exercises have been generally conducted almost annually under a FEMA 

categorical exclusion applicable through the Department’s Savings Clause 

found within the Homeland Security Act of 2002. That categorical exclusion 

governs, “Training activities and both training and operational exercises 

utilizing existing facilities in accordance with established procedures and 

land use designations.” Because of the increasingly greater focus on the 

involvement of Federal, state, tribal, and local emergency responders, it is 

important that this categorical exclusion adopt that language and note their 

involvement in these exercises. The categorical exclusion is also 

descriptive of the various administrative activities that could develop these 

exercises, to include grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, or project 

activities conducted directly by government personnel. 

Exercises take place in communities around the nation, and involve members 

from several response disciplines. The exercises may consist of workshops, 

drills, tabletop exercises, and full-scale exercises. Two of the most common 

types of exercises are the tabletop and the full-scale exercise. Tabletop 

exercises are conducted indoors with participants working through scenarios 

verbally or through computer simulations. Full-scale exercises (FSE) are 

usually conducted outdoors, and always in a strictly controlled environment. 

The Panel found that realistic training scenarios that involve local, state, 

and federal agencies are necessary to simulate the actual conditions first 

responders will face in the event of a disaster, whether from terrorist 

attack or other natural or manmade causes. The skills and the lines of 

communication that are developed when training for response operations must 

be learned in advance of the catastrophe, not on the job when the event is 

actually happening. Exercises provide first responders a “risk free 

environment” in which they practice prevention, reduce vulnerabilities, and 

sharpen response capabilities. 

These exercises help states and municipalities assess their capacity to 

prevent, deter, respond to and recover from a disaster. Lessons learned from 

the exercises are used to modify and improve protocols and procedures. The 

exercises also provide DHS a feedback mechanism to assess the quality of 

training, protocols, and equipment. 

FSE are the largest and most complex of these training activities. FSE are 

necessary to practice what is learned in classroom training and in the table 

top exercises. Selection of a site for a FSE must meet the parameters of the 
196 

scenario and includes a visual inspection of the site and determination of 

boundaries that will confine exercise play. FSEs are normally of limited 

time duration and geographic scope. FSEs are purposefully designed with the 

participation of the other relevant governments and response organizations to 

provide as realistic a scenario as possible without making unacceptable 

demands on available emergency response resources or unacceptable impacts on 

the communities where they occur. 

One of the assumptions in developing a FSE scenario is that terrorists would 

want to target large public events for maximum effect. Therefore, FSE 

activities contemplated in the development of this categorical exclusion were 

those normally conducted in venues such as public buildings, sports stadiums, 

fairgrounds, ports, or other sites designed to accommodate large public 

gatherings and activities. For example, some CBRNE FSE training exercises 

are conducted indoors in arenas or convention centers, and others involve 

exercises at sports stadiums or fairgrounds. 

Disaster contingency planning and training exercises have been conducted by a 

variety of federal agencies with no discernable environmental impact. The 

former Department of Justice, Office of Domestic Preparedness, now merged 

into the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, 

has conducted terrorist attack response exercises since 1997. The Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (now merged into the DHS Emergency Preparedness 

and Response Directorate) has conducted these types of training exercises for 

many years to provide effective responses to natural disasters. 

DHS must meet all requirements to protect the quality of the human 

environment in preparing for and conducting these exercises. The panel found 

that each of these exercises; including airborne emissions, waterborne 

effluents, outdoor noise, and solid and bulk waste disposal practices; must 

be performed in compliance with all applicable Federal, tribal, state, and 

local laws and regulations, including those designed to protect the 

environment. Panel members with experience with these exercises stated that 

they have not caused a significant impact to the human environment. 

The panel determined that it would be appropriate to limit the nature of 

activities included in the categorical exclusion to conform to the current 

practices and experience. Therefore, the scope of activities included in the 

categorical exclusion has been limited to those training exercises conducted 

“in accordance with existing facility or land use designations.” Likewise, 

the scope of activities included in the categorical exclusion has been 

limited to those training exercises that do not involve the use of chemical, 

biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive agents/devices, since that is 

not the normal practice and use of those types of agents or devices in an 

open environment could potentially have an adverse environmental impact. 

This means that the entire exercise including airborne emissions, waterborne 

effluents, outdoor noise, and solid and bulk waste disposal practices must be 

in compliance with existing applicable Federal, state and local laws and 

regulations. 
197 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed CATEX encompassed programmatic activities that inherently did not 

have individual or cumulative significant impact on the human environment. 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

FEMA 

Reference: 44 CFR Part 10 Environmental Considerations 

 Subpart B_Agency Implementing Procedures 

Sec. 10.8 Determination of requirement for environmental review. 

 (d) Categorical Exclusions (CATEXs). 

 (2) List of exclusion categories. 

 (v) Training activities and both training and operational exercises 

utilizing existing facilities in accordance with established procedures 

and land use designations; 

FAA 

Reference: FAA Order 1050.1d Chapter 31 (a) 

(3) Planning grants which do not imply a project commitment 

Reference: FAA Order 5050.4A Chapter 3, Section 23 

(b) (3) Issuance of airport planning grants. 

ARMY 

Reference: 32 CFR 651 Appendix B. Section II 

(b)(2) Emergency or disaster assistance provided to federal, state, or 

local entities (REC required). 

DOE 

Reference: 10 CFR 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B. 

B1.2 Routine training exercises and simulations including, but not 

limited to: 

Emergency response and security training. 

Fire fighting, rescue, and spill response/cleanup training. 

B1.2 Training exercises and simulations (including, but not limited to, 

firing-range training, emergency response training, fire fighter and 

rescue training, and spill cleanup training). 

UNIQUE CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION 

H1 Approval or disapproval of security plans required under legislative or regulatory 

mandates unless such plans would have a significant effect on the environment. 

This is a legacy categorical exclusion brought into DHS with TSA. It was a 

legacy categorical exclusion used by TSA in their programs that they obtained 

from the Federal Aviation Administration. Clauses in both the Aviation 
198 

Transportation Security Act and the Homeland Security Act provide for TSA to 

carry this categorical exclusion into DHS. 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

FAA 

Reference: FAA Order 1050.1d Chapter 31 (a) 

(5) Policy and planning documents not intended for or which do not 

cause direct implementation of project or system actions 

Reference: FAA Order 5050.4A Chapter 3, Section 23. 

(b) (6) Issuance of airport policy and planning documents including the 

National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), Airport 

Improvement Program (AIP) priority system, advisory circulars on 

planning, design, and development programs which are not intended for 

direct implementation or which are issued by FAA as administrative and 

technical guidance to the public. 

H2 Issuance or revocation of certificates or other approvals, including but not limited 

to: 

(a) Airmen certificates, 

(b) Security procedures at general aviation airports, and, 

(c) Airport security plans. 

This is a legacy categorical exclusion brought into DHS with TSA. It was a 

legacy categorical exclusion used by TSA in their programs that they obtained 

from the Federal Aviation Administration. Clauses in both the Aviation 

Transportation Security Act and the Homeland Security Act provide for TSA to 

carry this categorical exclusion into DHS. 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

FAA 

Reference: FAA Order 1050.1d Chapter 31 (a) 

(8) the approval or issuance of certificates covering medicals for 

airmen, delegated authority, ground schools, out-of-agency training, 

and aircraft repair or maintenance not affecting noise, emissions, or 

wastes. 

Reference: FAA Order 5050.4A Chapter 3, Section 23. 

(b) (7) Issuance of certificates and related actions under the Airport 

Certification Program (14 CFR Part 139). 

UNIQUE CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FOR THE U.S. VISIT PROGRAM 
199 

I1* A portable or relocatable facility or structure used to collect traveler data at or 

adjacent to an existing port of entry where the placement or use of the facility does not 

significantly disturb land, air, or water resources and does not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant environmental effect. The building footprint of the facility must be less 

than 5,000 square feet and the facility or structure must not foreclose future land use 

alternatives. 

The Panel found that activities involving the construction or installation of 

a portable or relocatable facility or structure used to collect traveler data 

near to an existing port of entry were types of activities that would be 

performed within the U.S. VISIT program. The Panel also found that the 

administrative record supported the application of this CATEX to the US VISIT 

program. 

However, the Panel, including the US VISIT program, was concerned that 

activities involving the construction or installation of a portable or 

relocatable facility or structure used to collect traveler data near to an 

existing port of entry could involve activities with potential for impact to 

the human environment. In order to avoid this potential, the CATEX has been 

limited to facilities or structures with a footprint of less than 5,000 

square feet and that would not foreclose future land use alternatives. 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed categorical exclusion encompassed activities that inherently did not 

have individual or cumulative significant impact on the human environment. 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

US-VISIT 

Reference: DHS, US- Visit, Administrative Record for Categorical 

Exclusion F-2 Temporary Facilities On Or Adjacent To Existing Port 

Facilities, 2004. This document offers an extensive analysis to 

support the inclusion of CATEX F-2, now I-1, in these procedures. Some 

of the documents summarized in this analysis are referenced and 

summarized individually in this document. 

UNIQUE CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS FOR THE FEDERAL LAW 

ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER 

J1* Prescribed burning, wildlife habitat improvement thinning, and brush removal for 

southern yellow pine at the FLETC facility in Glynco, Georgia. No more than 200 acres 

will be treated in any single year. These activities may include up to 0.5 mile of lowstandard, temporary road construction to support these operations. 
200 

The Panel found that management of southern yellow pine forests involving 

prescribed burning, thinning to improve wildlife habitat, and brush removal 

is a form of property maintenance that is unique to the mission of Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Center. The Panel found that the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center has a history of this type of activity dating 

back several years. The panel identified that this type of forest management 

could be considered a normal part of facility maintenance that might 

otherwise be included in CATEX D3 or E5. However, the panel found that this 

particular form of facility maintenance was unique to the Glynco, Georgia 

facility. Based on the above, the panel determined that management of 

southern yellow pine forests involving prescribed burning, thinning to 

improve wildlife habitat, and brush removal warranted its own categorical 

exclusion. 

The panel of interdisciplinary experts also noted that other Federal agencies 

have CATEX for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that 

they demonstrated to the panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by DHS. In 

addition, the panel recognized that all Federal agencies, with very few 

limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the environment. The 

panel determined from their experience in other Federal agencies and from the 

expertise of the consultants, that the characteristics of the activities in 

DHS were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies in 

general, and similarly had negligible impacts on the human environment. 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed CATEX encompassed programmatic activities that inherently did not 

have individual or cumulative significant impact on the human environment. 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

USFS 

Reference: FSH 1909.15—Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook 

Chapter 30—Categorical Exclusion from Documentation 

31.2—Categories of Action for Which a Project or Case File and Decision 

Memo Are Required. Routine, proposed actions within any of the 

following categories may be excluded from documentation in an EIS or an 

EA; however, a project or case file is required and the decision to 

proceed must be documented in a decision memo (sec. 32). As a minimum, 

the project or case file should include any records prepared, such as 

(1) the names of interested and affected people, groups, and agencies 

contacted; (2) the determination that o extraordinary circumstances 

exist; (3) a copy of the decision memo (sec 30.5 (2); (4) a list of the 

people notified of the decision; (5) Copy of the notice required by 

36 CFR Part 217, or any other notice used to inform interested and 

affected persons of the decision to proceed with or to implement an 

action that has been categorically excluded. Maintain a project or case 

file and prepare a decision memo for routine, proposed actions within 

any of the following categories. 

* * * * * 
201 

10. Harvest of live trees not to exceed 50 acres, requiring no more 

than 1/2 mile of temporary road construction. Do not use this category 

for even-aged regeneration harvest or vegetation type conversion. The 

proposed action may include incidental removal of trees for landings, 

skid trails, and road clearing. Examples include but are not limited 

to: 

a. Removal of individual trees for sawlogs, specialty products, or 

fuelwood. 

b. Harvest of trees to reduce the fuel loading in an overstocked stand 

adjacent to residential area and construction of a short temporary road 

to access the stand. 

c. Commercial thinning of overstocked stands to achieve the desired 

stocking level to increase health and vigor. 

11. Salvage of dead and/or dying trees not to exceed 250 acres, 

requiring no more than 2 mile of temporary road construction. The 

proposed action may include incidental removal of green trees for 

landings, skid trails, and road clearing. Examples include but are not 

limited to: 

a. Harvest of a portion of a stand damaged by a wind or ice event and 

construction of short temporary road to access the damaged trees. 

b. Harvest of fire damaged trees. 

12. Sanitation harvest of trees to control insects or disease not to 

exceed 250 acres, requiring no more than 1/2 mile of temporary road 

construction, including removal of infested/infected trees and adjacent 

green trees up to two tree lengths away if determined necessary to 

control the spread of insects or disease. The proposed action may 

include incidental removal of green trees for landings, skid trails, 

and road clearing. Examples include but are not limited to: 

a. Felling and harvest of trees infested with southern pine beetles and 

immediately adjacent green trees to control expanding infestations. 

b. Harvest of green trees infested with mountain pine beetle and trees 

already killed by beetles. 

NAVY 

Reference: 32 CFR 775.6 

(32) Routine maintenance of timber stands, including issuance of downwood firewood permits, hazardous tree removal, and sanitation salvage. 

ARMY 

Reference: 32 CFR 651 Appendix B. Section II 

(g)(1) Routine repair and maintenance of buildings, airfields, grounds, 

equipment, and other facilities. Examples include, but are not limited 

to: Removal and disposal of asbestos-containing material (for example, 

roof material and floor tile) or lead-based paint in accordance with 

applicable regulations; removal of dead, diseased, or damaged trees; 

and repair of roofs, doors, windows, or fixtures (REC required for 

removal and disposal of asbestos-containing material and lead-based 

paint or work on historic structures). 

BLM 
202 

Reference: Department of the Interior Departmental Manual – Part 516 

5.4 Categorical Exclusions 

C. Forestry. 

(2) Sale and removal of individual trees or small groups of trees which 

are dead, diseased, injured or which constitute a safety hazard, and 

where access for the removal requires no more than maintenance to 

existing roads. 

(4) Precommercial thinning and brush control using small mechanical 

devices. 

J2 Harvest of live trees on Federal Law Enforcement Training Center facilities not to 

exceed 70 acres, requiring no more than 1/2 mile of temporary road construction. Do not 

use this category for even-aged regeneration harvest or vegetation type conversion. The 

proposed action may include incidental removal of trees for landings, skid trails, and road 

clearing. Examples include but are not limited to: 

(a) Removal of individual trees for saw logs, specialty products, or fuel wood, and, 

(b) Commercial thinning of overstocked stands to achieve the desired stocking level to 

increase health and vigor. 

The Panel found that harvest of live trees is a form of property maintenance 

that is unique to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. The Panel 

found that the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center has a history of this 

type of activity dating back several years. The panel identified that this 

type of forest management could be considered a normal part of facility 

maintenance that might otherwise be included in CATEX D3 or E5. However, the 

panel found that this particular form of facility maintenance was unique to 

the Glynco, Georgia facility. Based on the above, the panel determined that 

harvest of live trees warranted its own categorical exclusion. 

The panel determined that it would be appropriate to limit the nature of 

activities included in the categorical exclusion to exclude even-aged 

regeneration harvest or vegetation type conversion experience. The Panel 

believed that these types of forest management activities had a greater 

potential for significant impact on the quality of the human environment. 

Therefore, the scope of activities included in the categorical exclusion has 

been limited to not include even-aged regeneration harvest or vegetation type 

conversion. 

The panel determined that the use of examples in this particular CATEX would 

be helpful to future users in clarifying the types of activities envisioned 

by the CATEX. In providing examples, the panel did not intend to extend the 

CATEX to actions including extraordinary circumstances that may result in the 

activity having significant environmental effects. 

The panel of interdisciplinary experts also noted that other Federal agencies 

have CATEX for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that 

they demonstrated to the panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by DHS. In 

addition, the panel recognized that all Federal agencies, with very few 
203 

limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the environment. The 

panel determined from their experience in other Federal agencies and from the 

expertise of the consultants, that the characteristics of the activities in 

DHS were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies in 

general, and similarly had negligible impacts on the human environment. 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed CATEX encompassed programmatic activities that inherently did not 

have individual or cumulative significant impact on the human environment. 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

USFS 

Reference: FSH 1909.15—Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook 

Chapter 30—Categorical Exclusion from Documentation 

31.2—Categories of Action for Which a Project or Case File and Decision 

Memo Are Required. Routine, proposed actions within any of the 

following categories may be excluded from documentation in an EIS or an 

EA; however, a project or case file is required and the decision to 

proceed must be documented in a decision memo (sec. 32). As a minimum, 

the project or case file should include any records prepared, such as 

(1) the names of interested and affected people, groups, and agencies 

contacted; (2) the determination that o extraordinary circumstances 

exist; (3) a copy of the decision memo (sec 30.5 (2); (4) a list of the 

people notified of the decision; (5) Copy of the notice required by 

36 CFR Part 217, or any other notice used to inform interested and 

affected persons of the decision to proceed with or to implement an 

action that has been categorically excluded. Maintain a project or case 

file and prepare a decision memo for routine, proposed actions within 

any of the following categories. 

* * * * * 

10. Harvest of live trees not to exceed 50 acres, requiring no more 

than 1/2 mile of temporary road construction. Do not use this category 

for even-aged regeneration harvest or vegetation type conversion. The 

proposed action may include incidental removal of trees for landings, 

skid trails, and road clearing. Examples include but are not limited 

to: 

a. Removal of individual trees for sawlogs, specialty products, or 

fuelwood. 

b. Harvest of trees to reduce the fuel loading in an overstocked stand 

adjacent to residential area and construction of a short temporary road 

to access the stand. 

c. Commercial thinning of overstocked stands to achieve the desired 

stocking level to increase health and vigor. 

11. Salvage of dead and/or dying trees not to exceed 250 acres, 

requiring no more than 2 mile of temporary road construction. The 

proposed action may include incidental removal of green trees for 

landings, skid trails, and road clearing. Examples include but are not 

limited to: 
204 

a. Harvest of a portion of a stand damaged by a wind or ice event and 

construction of short temporary road to access the damaged trees. 

b. Harvest of fire damaged trees. 

12. Sanitation harvest of trees to control insects or disease not to 

exceed 250 acres, requiring no more than 1/2 mile of temporary road 

construction, including removal of infested/infected trees and adjacent 

green trees up to two tree lengths away if determined necessary to 

control the spread of insects or disease. The proposed action may 

include incidental removal of green trees for landings, skid trails, 

and road clearing. Examples include but are not limited to: 

a. Felling and harvest of trees infested with southern pine beetles and 

immediately adjacent green trees to control expanding infestations. 

b. Harvest of green trees infested with mountain pine beetle and trees 

already killed by beetles. 

J3 Salvage of dead and/or dying trees on Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

facilities not to exceed 250 acres, requiring no more than 1/2 mile of temporary road 

construction. The proposed action may include incidental removal of live or dead trees for 

landings, skid trails, and road clearing. Examples include but are not limited to: 

(a) Harvest of a portion of a stand damaged by a wind or ice event and construction of 

a short temporary road to access the damaged trees, 

(b) Harvest of fire damaged trees, and, 

(c) Harvest of insect or disease damaged trees. 

The Panel found that salvage of dead and/or dying trees for purposes other 

than facilities landscaping or road maintenance is a form of property 

maintenance that is unique to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. 

The Panel found that the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center has a 

history of this type of activity dating back several years. The panel 

identified that this type of forest management could be considered a normal 

part of facility maintenance that might otherwise be included in CATEX D3 or 

E5. However, the panel found that this particular form of facility 

maintenance was unique to the Glynco, Georgia facility. Based on the above, 

the panel determined that salvage of dead and/or dying trees warranted its 

own categorical exclusion. 

The panel determined that it would be appropriate to limit the nature of 

activities included in the categorical exclusion to salvage of dead and/or 

dying trees over areas less than 250 acres, requiring no more than 1/2 mile 

of temporary road construction. The Panel believed that these types of 

forest management activities, when conducted over larger acreages had a 

greater potential for significant impact on the quality of the human 

environment. 

The panel determined that the use of examples in this particular CATEX would 

be helpful to future users in clarifying the types of activities envisioned 

by the CATEX. In providing examples, the panel did not intend to extend the 
205 

CATEX to actions including extraordinary circumstances that may result in the 

activity having significant environmental effects. 

The panel of interdisciplinary experts also noted that other Federal agencies 

have CATEX for similar activities that are sufficiently descriptive such that 

they demonstrated to the panel that those activities were similar in nature, 

scope, and impact on the human environment to those performed by DHS. In 

addition, the panel recognized that all Federal agencies, with very few 

limitations, must meet the same requirements to protect the environment. The 

panel determined from their experience in other Federal agencies and from the 

expertise of the consultants, that the characteristics of the activities in 

DHS were no different than those performed by other Federal agencies in 

general, and similarly had negligible impacts on the human environment. 

Accordingly, through a deliberative process, the Panel determined that the 

proposed CATEX encompassed programmatic activities that inherently did not 

have individual or cumulative significant impact on the human environment. 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

USFS 

Reference: FSH 1909.15—Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook 

Chapter 30 

31.2—Categories of Action for Which a Project or Case File and Decision 

Memo Are Required. Routine, proposed actions within any of the 

following categories may be excluded from documentation in an EIS or an 

EA; however, a project or case file is required and the decision to 

proceed must be documented in a decision memo (sec. 32). As a minimum, 

the project or case file should include any records prepared, such as 

(1) the names of interested and affected people, groups, and agencies 

contacted; (2) the determination that o extraordinary circumstances 

exist; (3) a copy of the decision memo (sec 30.5 (2); (4) a list of the 

people notified of the decision; (5) Copy of the notice required by 

36 CFR Part 217, or any other notice used to inform interested and 

affected persons of the decision to proceed with or to implement an 

action that has been categorically excluded. Maintain a project or case 

file and prepare a decision memo for routine, proposed actions within 

any of the following categories. 

* * * * * 

10. Harvest of live trees not to exceed 50 acres, requiring no more 

than 1/2 mile of temporary road construction. Do not use this category 

for even-aged regeneration harvest or vegetation type conversion. The 

proposed action may include incidental removal of trees for landings, 

skid trails, and road clearing. Examples include but are not limited 

to: 

a. Removal of individual trees for sawlogs, specialty products, or 

fuelwood. 

b. Harvest of trees to reduce the fuel loading in an overstocked stand 

adjacent to residential area and construction of a short temporary road 

to access the stand. 
206 

c. Commercial thinning of overstocked stands to achieve the desired 

stocking level to increase health and vigor. 

11. Salvage of dead and/or dying trees not to exceed 250 acres, 

requiring no more than 2 mile of temporary road construction. The 

proposed action may include incidental removal of green trees for 

landings, skid trails, and road clearing. Examples include but are not 

limited to: 

a. Harvest of a portion of a stand damaged by a wind or ice event and 

construction of short temporary road to access the damaged trees. 

b. Harvest of fire damaged trees. 

12. Sanitation harvest of trees to control insects or disease not to 

exceed 250 acres, requiring no more than 1/2 mile of temporary road 

construction, including removal of infested/infected trees and adjacent 

green trees up to two tree lengths away if determined necessary to 

control the spread of insects or disease. The proposed action may 

include incidental removal of green trees for landings, skid trails, 

and road clearing. Examples include but are not limited to: 

a. Felling and harvest of trees infested with southern pine beetles and 

immediately adjacent green trees to control expanding infestations. 

b. Harvest of green trees infested with mountain pine beetle and trees 

already killed by beetles. 

NAVY 

Reference: 32 CFR 775.6 

(32) Routine maintenance of timber stands, including issuance of downwood firewood permits, hazardous tree removal, and sanitation salvage. 

ARMY 

Reference: 32 CFR 651 Appendix B. Section II 

(g)(1) Routine repair and maintenance of buildings, airfields, grounds, 

equipment, and other facilities. Examples include, but are not limited 

to: Removal and disposal of asbestos-containing material (for example, 

roof material and floor tile) or lead-based paint in accordance with 

applicable regulations; removal of dead, diseased, or damaged trees; 

and repair of roofs, doors, windows, or fixtures (REC required for 

removal and disposal of asbestos-containing material and lead-based 

paint or work on historic structures). 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Bureau of Land Management 

Reference: Departmental Manual 516 

5.4 Categorical Exclusions 

C. Forestry. 

(2) Sale and removal of individual trees or small groups of trees which 

are dead, diseased, injured or which constitute a safety hazard, and 

where access for the removal requires no more than maintenance to 

existing roads. 

(4) Precommercial thinning and brush control using small mechanical 

devices. 
207 

UNIQUE CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS FOR THE CUSTOMS AND BORDER 

PROTECTION 

K1 Road dragging of existing roads and trails established by Federal, tribal, state, or 

local governments to maintain a clearly delineated right-of-way, to provide evidence of foot 

traffic and that will not expand the width, length, or footprint of the road or trail. 

The Panel found that road dragging is a form of road maintenance that is 

unique to the mission of Customs and Border Protection. Furthermore, road 

dragging is performed on specifically constructed drag roads made to be wide 

with soft shoulders. These drag roads are intended to be groomed daily for 

evidence of foot traffic from illegal entrants or smugglers. The Panel found 

that Customs and Border Protection has a history of this type of activity 

dating back to 1936, when its predecessor, the U.S. Border Patrol was 

established. The panel identified that road dragging could be considered a 

normal part of facility maintenance that might otherwise be included in CATEX 

D3. However, the panel found that this particular form of facility 

maintenance may occur in areas adjacent to particularly sensitive natural 

environments. Based on the above, the panel determined that road dragging of 

existing roads and trails warranted its own categorical exclusion. 

Drag roads are maintained in the sensitive desert environment of the 

southwest along the border with Mexico. This area contains habitat for a 

variety of threatened and endangered species. It also does not recover very 

quickly from human disturbance. 

In recognition of the sensitive characteristics of the natural environment 

along the border with Mexico, this categorical exclusion has been carefully 

constructed to limit its scope and to avoid activities with potential for 

significant impact on the human environment. It only includes dragging of 

existing roads and trails and does not include any new road construction. It 

also does not include activities that may expand the width, length, or 

footprint of the road or trail. Furthermore, to ensure that its scope is 

limited to appropriate activities within the mission of the U.S. Border 

Patrol, it is limited to road dragging of existing roads and trails 

established by Federal, tribal, state, or local governments. 

This categorical exclusion is supported by an administrative record brought 

to DHS by the U.S. Border Patrol and former Immigration and Naturalization 

Service that itself was developed through a process consistent with NEPA 

regulatory requirements. 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

USBP 

Reference: Draft Environmental Assessment for the Joint Task Force Six 

Operation 91024 Douglas, Cochise County, Arizona, April 1991, resulting 

in a FONSI 
208 

The proposed project, located approximately 20 miles east of Douglas, 

Arizona, along the United States/Mexican border, consists of 

establishing an approximate 3 mile stretch of road to be used as a drag 

road; it will be maintained at a width of approximately 20 feet; it 

will be laid immediately adjacent to the international fence, except 

where environmental constraints recommend modification or movement to 

avoid and/or minimize impacts. The drag road establishment project 

involves removing rocks, leveling/grading operations and installing a 

number of culverts and/or gabion fords to cross existing washes. 

Analysis: It was determined that the proposed project will not result 

in a significant effect on the existing environment. 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Joint Task Force Six 

Operations JT089-93, JT094-93 and JT265-93 Douglas, Cochise County, 

Arizona, February 1993, resulting in a FONSI signed in February 1993 

The purpose of JTF—6 Operations in Douglas, Arizona is to provide 

routine maintenance to existing drag and mountain roads, along the 

U.S.—Mexico Border and to install fences at the U.S. Border Patrol 

Station in Douglas, Arizona. The proposed project includes three 

components: 

JT 265—93, the maintenance, of 24 miles of an existing drag road 

east and west of Douglas, Arizona. 

JT 094—93, the maintenance of about one mile of mountain road 

east of Douglas, Arizona. 

JT 089—93, the installation of fences at the U. S. Border Patrol 

Station at Douglas, Arizona. 

The road maintenance will consist of light scraping, installation of 

culverts, grading and shaping for drainage, placing gravel in a slowly 

flowing wash and resetting existing cattle guards. Road projects will 

be maintained within their existing width. Limited turnarounds and 

passing areas will be coordinated with on—site monitors. 

Analysis: A review of this Environmental Assessment and coordination 

with the appropriate agencies indicate that the actions, as proposed by 

the Joint Task Force Six Operation for road maintenance and fence 

installation, will not have a significant impact on the quality of the 

physical or biological environment. All requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have been satisfied; therefore, 

preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. 

Reference: Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment JTF-6 Road 

Maintenance and Construction Naco - Douglas, Cochise County, Arizona, 

July 1996 resulting in a FONSI 

The scope of the EA covers the impact of performing maintenance on 

approximately 52 miles of existing road, constructing two miles of new 

road, and constructing 2.5 miles of rail barrier, all near Naco and

Douglas, Cochise County, Arizona. This document was tiered off of 

existing EM completed for previous road maintenance activities for 52 

miles of existing road, and a Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement completed for Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) activities along 

the U. 5.-Mexico border. The Immigration and Naturalization Service 

(INS) and the U.S. Border Patrol, Tucson Sector are proposing to 
209 

perform maintenance activities on approximately 52 miles of existing 

road, and to construct two miles of new road near the U.S.-Mexico 

border. 

Analysis: There would be no significant adverse affects to the natural 

environment associated with the proposed projects. The proposed action 

would not impact area land use, water resources, air quality, cultural 

resources, or socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would not 

affect any listed or species proposed for listing as threatened or 

endangered in accordance with the Endangered Species Act. Additionally, 

with environmental design measures specified as part of the proposed 

action, there would be negligible impacts to area soil, water 

resources, and biological resources. 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment on proposed JTF-6 Road Repair 

Projects on the Tohono O’Odham Indian Nation, September 1992, resulting 

in a FONSI 

The proposed action consists of two Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) 

operations. The proposed operations are to repair approximately 32.5 

miles of the existing border road and to establish listening 

post/operation post (LP/OP) sites on the Tohono O’Odham Indian Nation 

in southern Arizona along the United States and Mexico International 

Border. The repair projects would include approximately 29.5 miles of 

the existing border road between Christmas Gate and Ali Chuk and 3.0 

miles of the existing border road south of Au Chuk. The LP/OP sites 

would be constructed on Horse Peak in the Morena Mountains. A 

combination of four-wheel drive vehicles and hiking would be used to 

access the LP/OP sites. 

Analysis: Based on the finding of this environmental assessment, and 

the mitigations which would be utilized during the construction phase 

of proposed repair of the border road from Christmas Gate to Ali Chuk, 

no significant impacts would occur from the proposed action. 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment on Proposed JTF-6 Mission 

JT032-93 Laredo, Texas, July 1993, resulting in a FONSI 

The proposed action, Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) Mission JT032-93, 

would involve four separate actions at several locations in six south 

Texas counties. The proposed action would involve (1) repair and 

construction of approximately 150 miles of existing fire breaks along 

highway right-of-ways, (2) the repair/upgrade of approximately six 

miles of road along the Rio Grande within or near Laredo, (3) the 

upgrade/repair of three small-arms firing ranges at Freer, 

Hebbronville, and Laredo (4) the construction of a fitness/obstacle 

course at the Laredo Junior College in Laredo, Texas. 

Analysis: Based on the finding of this environmental assessment and the 

mitigations which would be utilized during the construction phase, no 

significant impacts would occur during the proposed project. 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed JTF- Levee 

Road Maintenance and Repair Project Brownsville, Texas April 2000 

resulting in a FONSI signed in July of 2000 
210 

This Final Environmental Assessment (EA) identifies the potential 

adverse and beneficial environmental impacts that would occur upon 

implementation of maintenance and repair activities of levee and access 

roads near the Brownsville, Texas area in accordance with provisions of 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Army Regulation 200-2. 

The scope of this EA covers the potential impacts of maintenance and 

repair of approximately 11 miles of roads located on flood control 

levees owned/controlled by the U.S. Section, International Boundary and 

Water Commission’s (US City of Brownsville, and/or Cameron County. The 

upgrades include resurfacing with caliche or comparable road-base 

material to enhance the safety of any roads in disrepair. In addition, 

about 2.6 miles of access roads and six ramps are proposed to be 

improved. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Road Improvements along 

King’s Ranch Road and the U.S-Mexico Border near Douglas, Cochise 

County, Arizona, February 2002, resulting in a FONSI signed in February 

2002 

The Proposed Action Alternative involves major road and drainage 

repairs/improvements along a 2-mile section of border road that JTF-6 

did not complete under a previous NEPA document. This alternative also 

includes one mile of major road improvements along King’s Ranch Road, 

which runs north-south from the new Douglas Border Patrol station to 

the U.S.-Mexico border. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA and the environmental design 

measures to be incorporated as part of the proposed action, it has been 

concluded that the proposed action would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the environment. 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Border Road Maintenance & 

Repair Naco, Cochise County Arizona, February 1993, resulting in a 

FONSI signed in February 1993 

The proposed project consists of 22 miles of an existing road east and 

west of Naco, Arizona. The road maintenance will consist of light 

scraping, installation of culverts, grading and shaping for drainage, 

and placing gravel in several washes. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

Reference: Environmental Assessment on Proposed JTF-6 Projects in West 

Texas, September 1993, resulting in a FONSI 

The proposed action would involve four separate projects at several 

locations in seven southwest Texas counties. The proposed projects are: 

(1) the repair/upgrade of approximately 150 miles (241 kilometers) of 

existing roads in Terrell, Brewster, Presidio, Jeff Davis, Culberson, 
211 

and Hudspeth counties; (2) the construction of helicopter landing zones 

at radio repeater stations on Christmas Mountain, Santiago Peak, and 

Tres Hermanos in Brewster County and Mount Livermore in Jeff Davis 

County; (3) the upgrade of an existing firing range near Fabens in El 

Paso County; and (4) the construction of a U.S. Border Patrol check 

station on U.S. Highway 62-180 in El Paso County. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Border Fence Construction 

and Road Repair Naco, Cochise County, Arizona JTF-6 Operation JT044-94, 

resulting in a FONSI signed in April 1994 

This Environmental Assessment prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (COE), Los Angeles District (LAD) for the Joint Task Force 

Six (JTF-6) project for Naco, Arizona. JTF—6 coordinates all Title 10 

Department of Defense support to Federal, state and local law 

enforcement agencies as requested by Operation Alliance and approved by 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the efforts to disrupt illegal drug 

operations along the southwest land border and protect national 

security. The purpose of JTF—6 Operation at Naco, Arizona, is to assist 

law enforcement agencies in the prevention of illegal importation of 

drugs along the U.S./Mexico border. The proposed project consists of 

replacing 3 miles of existing chain-link fencing with 10 feet high 

steel landing mat fencing, installation of culverts and repair of 

approximately 1 mile of existing road parallel to the fence along 

International Boundary at Naco, Arizona. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

K2 Repair and maintenance of existing border fences that do not involve expansion in 

width or length of the project, and will not encroach on adjacent habitat. 

Border fences are unique structures designed for a unique purpose to prevent 

illegal entry into the U.S. of persons or vehicles. The panel identified 

that repair and maintenance of existing border fences could be considered a 

normal part of facility maintenance that might otherwise be included in CATEX 

D3. However, the panel found that this particular form of facility 

maintenance may occur in areas adjacent to particularly sensitive natural 

environment. Furthermore, repair and maintenance of existing border fences 

is a form of facility maintenance that is unique to the mission of Customs 

and Border Protection. Therefore, the panel determined that repair and 

maintenance of existing border fences warranted its own categorical 

exclusion. 

Border fences are maintained in the sensitive desert environment of the 

southwest along the border with Mexico. This area contains habitat for a 
212 

variety of threatened and endangered species. It also does not recover very 

quickly from human disturbance. 

In recognition of the sensitive characteristics of the natural environment 

along the border with Mexico, this categorical exclusion has been carefully 

constructed to limit its scope and to avoid activities with potential for 

significant impact on the human environment. It only includes maintenance of 

existing border fences and does not include any new construction. It also 

does not include activities that may expand the width or length of the border 

fence or encroach on adjacent habitat. 

This categorical exclusion is supported by an administrative record brought 

to DHS by the U.S. Border Patrol and former Immigration and Naturalization 

Service that itself was developed through a process consistent with NEPA 

regulatory requirements. 

LEGACY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS AND COMPARABLE AGENCY CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

INS 

Reference: 28 CFR 61 Appendix C 

10. Actions Which Normally Do Not Require Either An Environmental 

Impact Statement Or An Environmental Assessment: (a) Construction 

projects for existing facilities including but not limited to: 

Remodeling; replacement of building systems and components; maintenance 

and operations repairs and general improvements when such projects do 

not significantly alter the initial occupancy and program of the 

facility or significantly impact upon the environment. 

USBP 

Reference: Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the 

Replacement and Maintenance of the San Diego Surf Fence San Diego, 

California, May 2002, resulting in a FONSI signed in April 2002 

The proposed action consists of replacement and maintenance of the 

Pacific Ocean surf fence by the Immigration and Naturalization Service 

(INS), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) in San Diego, California. This 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) analyzes the potential for 

significant adverse or beneficial impacts of the proposed action. This 

document is a supplement to the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for 

the Joint Task Force Six Operation (JT 305-93/306-93) Border Fence 

Construction San Diego County, California prepared by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE), Los Angeles District in 1993. This proposed 

action is the replacement and maintenance of the surf fence from the 

toe of Monument Mesa extending west approximately 465 feet into the 

Pacific Ocean beyond the low mean tide line. All proposed work would be 

conducted by units from Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) with the support 

of INS and USBP. Since the original construction, the fence has been 

compromised due to vandalism and the effects of the continuous 

weathering and corrosion from saltwater. As a result, the surf fence 

has been compromised to a point where illegal entry into the United 
213 

States is possible. INS and USBP need to replace and maintain the surf 

fence in order to fulfill their mission of maintaining and controlling 

the border region of the United States. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the SEA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

environment. 

Reference: Final Report Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the 

Replacement and Maintenance of the San Diego Surf Fence San Diego, 

California, May 2002, resulting in a FONSI signed in April 2002 

The primary purpose of the proposed action is to replace and maintain 

the Pacific Ocean surf fence to enhance the U.S. Border Patrol’s 

capability to gain, maintain, and extend control of the U.S./Mexico 

border. This proposed action is the replacement and maintenance of the 

existing surf fence from the toe of Monument Mesa extending west 

approximately 465 feet into the Pacific Ocean beyond the low mean tide 

line. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the Supplemental EA and the 

environmental design measures to be incorporated as part of the 

Proposed Action, it has been concluded that the Proposed Action will 

not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. 

Reference: Supplemental Environmental Assessment JTF-6 Fence and Road 

Construction, Douglas, Cochise County, Arizona, July 1997, resulting in 

a FONSI 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential for 

significant adverse or beneficial environmental impacts in accordance 

with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This 

document was tiered from existing EAs completed for previous 

construction activities (U.S. Army 199la, 1993) in the same vicinity, 

and a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement completed for Joint 

Task Force Six (JTF-6) activities along the U.S.-Mexico border (U.S. 

Army 1994). The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the 

U.S. Border Patrol, Tucson Sector are proposing to replace 

approximately six miles of fence, construct 0.5 miles of new road, and 

improve 0.8 miles of road along the U.S.-Mexico border at Douglas, 

Cochise County, Arizona. Approximately .1.3 miles would be of 

decorative fence, with the remaining 4.9 miles of steel landing mat. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Border Fence Construction 

and Road Repair Naco, Cochise County, Arizona JTF-6 Operation JT044-94 

resulting in a FONSI signed in April of 1994 

This Environmental Assessment prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (COE), Los Angeles District (LAD) for the Joint Task Force 

Six (JTF-6) project for Naco, Arizona. JTF—6 coordinates all Title 10 

Department of Defense support to Federal, state and local law 

enforcement agencies as requested by Operation Alliance and approved by 
214 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the efforts to disrupt illegal drug 

operations along the southwest land border and protect national 

security. The purpose of JTF—6 Operation at Naco, Arizona, is to assist 

law enforcement agencies in the prevention of illegal importation of 

drugs along the U.S./Mexico border. The proposed project consists of 

replacing three miles of existing chain-link fencing with 10-foot high 

steel landing mat fencing, installation of culverts and repair of 

approximately one mile of existing road parallel to the fence along 

International Boundary at Naco, Arizona. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

Reference: Final Report Environmental Assessment for Infrastructure 

within U.S. Border Patrol Naco-Douglas Corridor Cochise County, 

Arizona, August 2000, resulting in a FONSI 

The Proposed Alternative would allow the infrastructure projects 

currently approved or funded and those anticipated to be completed over 

the next five years. Infrastructure improvements that will be addressed 

include, but are not limited, to roads, fences, vehicle barriers, 

helipads, USBP stations, remote video surveillance (RVS) sites, lights, 

and checkpoints. The cumulative effect of these improvement projects 

since 1995 and into the reasonably foreseeable future, and in 

conjunction with other programs or projects proposed or implemented by 

other agencies, is the primary focus of this EA. 

Analysis: Based on the findings of this analysis and assuming that all 

mitigation measures recommended herein are implemented, no significant 

adverse impacts would occur from the preferred alternative 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment JTF-6 Border Fence 

Construction and Maintenance Calexico, Imperial County, California, 

March 1997, resulting in a FONSI signed in March 1997 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) assesses the potential for 

significant adverse or beneficial environmental impacts of the proposed 

action which involves approximately 5.75 miles of fence replacement and 

the concurrent removal of 5.75 miles of existing fence by JTF-6, along 

the U.S.-Mexico border, near Calexico, Imperial County, California. 

This document was tiered from the Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement completed for Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) activities along 

the U.S.-Mexico border (U.S. Army 1994b). A Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (PEIS) was prepared in 1994 for the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) and JTF-6 proposed projects that 

facilitate law enforcement agencies (LEAs) missions to reduce illegal 

drug activity along the southwestern border of the U.S. The PEIS 

addresses the cumulative effects of past and reasonably foreseeable 

projects undertaken by JTF-6 for numerous LEAs in the four southwestern 

states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California). Construction of 

approximately 2.5 miles of landing mat fence on the west side of the 

Calexico port-of-entry and 3.25 miles of ballard fence on the east side 

of the Calexico port-of-entry is proposed to replace the existing 
215 

chainlink fence. The new fence would be placed approximately two feet 

north of the international boundary. Proposed fence construction 

activities would occur within a 25 feet wide area north of the U.S .-

Mexico border. An existing unimproved road parallel to the existing 

fence would be used during construction and no road improvements are 

planned under the proposed action. 

Analysis: There would be no significant adverse affects to the natural 

environment associated with the proposed projects. 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment Immigration and 

Naturalization Service Us Border Patrol Pedestrian Fence along the 

International Border, USBP El Paso Sector, Texas January 2003 resulting 

in a FONSI signed on 1/7/03 

The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) proposes to 

improve and extend an existing pedestrian (chainlink) fence for the 

U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) El Paso Sector, near Anapra, New Mexico. The 

Proposed Action Alternative includes the improvement of 0.2 miles along 

the eastern end of the existing fence and the horizontal extension of 

0.17 miles and 0.41 miles of the current eastern and western ends, 

respectively. The proposed action would involve the excavation and 

removal of approximately 0.1 cubic yards of soil from each hole where 

fence poles would be located, but would not significantly affect the 

existing environment. The footprint of the proposed fence was surveyed 

for sensitive biological and cultural resources. 

Analysis: No major, long-term, adverse impacts are anticipated to any 

resources analyzed within this document. Therefore, no further analysis 

or documentation (i.e., Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 

The INS, in implementing this decision, would employ all practical 

means necessary to minimize the potential adverse impacts on the local 

environment. 

Reference: Final Environmental Assessment for Border Road and Fence; 

Construction and Repair Tecate to Canyon City, San Diego County, 

California, October 1993, resulting in a FONSI signed in October 1993 

This document analyzes the actions to be taken for border road 

construction and repair, and fence construction and repair. This PEA 

has been prepared to assess any environmental concerns associated with 

this action segments; the installation and/or repair of fencing; and 

the installation of culverts on about 10 miles of the U.S/Mexico border 

in the vicinity of Tecate, California. The project will include some 

widening of roads. A detailed project description is included in 

Section 4.0 of this FEA. 

Analysis: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been concluded that 

the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

natural or human environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e., 

Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted.