1 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
ACTIONS TO ADDRESS AN INCREASED INFLUX OF
UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN AND FAMIL Y UNITS ACROSS THE SOUTHWEST
BORDER OF THE UNITED STATES

1.0 Introduction

The June 2, 2014 Preside ntial Memorandum Response to the Influx of Unaccompanied Alien Children
Across the Southwest Border described the influx as an “urgent humanitarian situation requiring a unified and coordinated Federal response. ” The memorandum is available on

- line at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the

- press

- office/2014/06/02/presidential

- memorandum

- response

- influx

unaccompanied

- alien

- chil dren

- acr

. In this memorandum, the President directed the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (Secretary) to establish an interagency Unified Coordination Group to ensure unity of effort across the executive branch in responding to the humanit arian aspects of th e situation, consistent with the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and Homeland Security Presidential
Directive

- 5 (Management of Domestic Incidents)

, including coordination with State, local, and other
nonfederal entities.

In addition to th e influx of unaccompani ed alien children, there is also an increase in the number of family units entering the Unites States. The Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) is responsible for the apprehension, processing, detention , and removal of such persons crossing the southwest border into the United States without authorization. The unprecedented increase in the number of apprehended

persons has the potential to fill or exceed the capacity of the DHS supporti ng infrastructure (real property for processing and housing apprehended persons

, services including medical care , transportation, utilities, meals, hygiene, recreation, etc.) currently available. Therefore, action is being considered at the DHS Headquarters level to provide increas ed and expedited alloc ation of D epartmental resources in the following three areas :

1) P rovide adequate facilities for Customs and Border Protection ( CBP ) to safely house unaccompanied alien children (normally for no more than 72 hours) and family units until they
can be transfe rred to the Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS ) and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) respectively

, and provide adequate facilities for ICE to safely
house famil y units ; 2) P rovide transportation (land, air, water) between intake, processi ng, and housing facilities, as well as between these facilities and physicians and dentists offices, hospitals, consular offices, and airports or other transportation hubs , and 3) P rovide medical care, including care to treat , prevent, and minimize the spread of
communicable illnesses.

1.1 Definitions

DHS and HHS use the same terminology for practices and processes regarding unaccompanied alien
children . C onsistent with the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Section 279(g) DEFINITIONS: (1) the term ‘‘placement’’ me ans the placement of an unaccompanied alien child in either a detention facility or an alternative to such a facility; and (2) the term ‘‘unaccompanied alien child’’ means a child who (A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States; (B) has not a ttained 18 years of age; and (C) with respect to whom (i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or (ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.2 This document uses the followi ng definition of “f amily unit ” from ICE’s Family Detention and Intake
Guidance (August 14, 2009): a family unit means a group of detai nees that includes one or more non

United States citizen juvenile(s) ac companied by his/her/their parent(s) or legal guard ian(s). For purposes of ICE custody, any individual detained as part of a family unit must be a non

- criminal and have no history of violence , sexual, or substance abuse.

1.2 Geographic Location

The location of the Proposed A ction is primarily the southweste rn U.S./Mexico international border region area, extending from the Pacific Coast to the Gulf of Mexico, as shown on Figure 1

. However, housing locations as well as related resources may be located and/or obtained elsewhere in the country depending on the availability of existing facilities that can be repurposed or availability of land where
new facilities can be constructed.

Figure 1: Southwestern US Border Area with US Border Patrol Sectors Shown

1.3 Applicability

This Programmatic Environmental Assess ment (PEA) is intended to cover DHS activities under existing authorities during the current increased influx of unaccompanied alien children and family units and any future such influx as result of which any component of DHS requires rapid acquisition of housing or detention space for such persons . DHS recognizes that this PEA may need to be revised or augmented or new environmental analysis may be needed if there are policy or legislative changes that would require significant changes to DHS’ operations w ith regard to unaccompanied alien children and/or family units
that enter into the U nited States illegall y. If DHS makes any substantive changes to the PEA, DHS will make the revised document available to the public

.3 2. 0 Background

2 .1.1 The De partmen t of Homeland Security Mi ssion

The DHS consists of O perational Components and Support Components (generally headquarter s

- level
Directorates and Offices ) responsible for the implementation of five homeland security missions: 1) prevent terrorism and enhan cing security; 2) secure and manage our borders; 3) enforce and administer our immigration laws; 4) safeguard and secure cyberspace ; and 5) prepare for, respond to, recover from and mitigate the effects of disasters. In the current humanitarian situation

, CBP and ICE predominantly accomplish the first three listed missions with additional support provided by other DHS Components including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) , the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) , the Federal Emergency Manage ment Agency (FEMA) , the Office of Health Affairs (OHA) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) . These six DHS Components work collaboratively across the Department and with external entities as part of the Feder al response to the influx of

una ccompanied alien children and family units who have crossed the southwest border into the United
States.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) The mission of CBP is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the U.S., while also facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel. CBP includes three law enforcement offices: the Office of Field Operations, the Office of Air and Marine , and U.S. Border Patrol. CBP law enforcement offices place specific operational emphasis on terrorists and t heir weapons, criminals, and smugglers of
both human s and narcotics who have illegally entered into the U.S. The O ffice of F ield O perations is responsible for the land, air and seaports of entry into the U.S. The U.S. Border Patrol is responsible for
bord er areas betwe en the various Ports of Entry. The Office of Air and Marine provides surveillance and apprehension capabilities in the air and over rivers, lakes and ocean areas of the border. Upon apprehension, CBP law enforcement agents and officers proce ss and determine the appropriate course of action for each detainee. Because large numbers of unaccompanied alien children and family units are apprehended in border areas between the various Ports of Entry, and because the U.S. Border Patrol is largely r esponsible for detention of undocumented entrants while they are in CBP custody, the U .S.
Border Patrol has played the largest role within CBP in responding to the influx of unaccompanied alien
children.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
The mi ssion of ICE is to promote homeland security and public safety through criminal and civil
enforcement of federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration. While the mission of CBP, and specifically, USBP is to physically prevent illeg al entries into the United States, ICE determines the legal immigration status of individuals believed to be illegally present in the interior of the United States through the immigration courts and removes those who are determined to either be
inadmissibl e or removable and are not eligible for any relief from removal

. The Justice Department’s
Executive Office for Immigrat ion Review conducts the immigration proceedings for both unaccompanied
alien children and family units , in accordance with the requiremen ts of Section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act

. Unaccompanied alien children are in the custody of a sponsor until disposition of their cases, and family units stay together in Family Residential Centers until disposition of their cases.
The full range of facility, services

, and case management requirements for the ICE mission of
enforcement and removal include s, but is not limited to, the following: providing office space, bed space,

courtrooms, space for services such as medical exams, recreatio n, and religious services, attorney

- client meetings, processing space , and transportation

.4 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
The mission of FEMA is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to buil d, sustain and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from and mitigate all hazards. With regard to the F ederal response to the influx of unaccompanied alien
children across the southwest border and the Presidential Mem orandum

, the DHS Secretary directed the
Administrator of FEMA , subject to the oversight, direction, and guidance of the DHS Secretary, to serve
as the Federa l Coordinating Official

. The F ederal Coordinating Official leads the U nified Coordination Group (as described in Section 2.2.1) and ensures Federal agency authorities and the resources granted to the departments and agencies under Federal law (including personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, and managerial, technical, and advisory services) are uni fied in providing humanitarian relief to the affected children, including housing, care, medical treatment, and transportation. The F ederal Coordinating
Official executes these responsibilities consistent with all applicable laws and regulations, including legal requirements governing the appropriate care and custody of unaccompanied alien children . In addition,

FEMA is providing administrative services such as phone line answering services, records review, and
translation services thr ough IAA funding to CB P and HHS, and developing hurricane evacuation plans for all facilities identified by the Unified Coordination Group, where applicable.

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)
The mission FLETC is to provide cost

- effective, high

- quality training for Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. In order to train and prepare law enforcement officers for deployment to their parent agencies, FLETC operates a wide variety of facilities so that the students might encounter the full range of situat ions they can expect to face in the exercise of their duties. One of the FLETC training
facilities is providing support to the ICE mission in support of processing family units.

United States Coast Guard (USCG)
One of the five armed forces of the United States and the only military organization within DHS, the
USCG safeguards our Nation's maritime safety, security and environmental stewardship. USCG provides airlift capability in support of other DHS needs, including support to CBP in the transport of app rehended persons, including unaccompanied alien children and family units to CBP processing centers. USCG has the authority to provide this assist ance pursuant to 14 United States Code 141, the USCG Authorization

Act.

Office of Health Affairs (OHA)
OHA se rves as the Department’s principal authority for all medical and health issues. OHA provides medical, public health, and scientific expertise in support of the DHS mission to prepare for, respond to, and recover from all threats. OHA serves as the principa l advisor to the Secretary on medical and public
health issues. OHA ’s Health Threats Resilience Division strengthens national capabilities to prepare and secure the nation against the health impacts of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear inciden ts and other intentional and naturally occurring events

. OHA is providing health services support in DHS processing facilities for unaccompanied alien children and family units and is a liaison with HHS

.

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) TSA, c reated in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, secures the nation’s airports and screens all commercial airline passengers and baggage. TSA works closely with transportation, law enforcement, and intelligence communities to maintain the security of the traveling public and to protect the Nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. TSA provides a liaison role to the Unified Coordination Group

.5 2 .1.2 The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Mission

HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement To address the particular needs of unaccompanied children who have unlawfully enter ed , the United States, Congress gave HHS the task of providing care and housing for certain unaccompanied alien
children [ t hose from Mexico and Canada may be treated differently] . Care and custody of these unaccompanied alien children are entrusted to the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).

U naccompanied alien children are defined as people under the age of 18 apprehende d by CBP without a parent or legal guardian or without a parent or legal guardian in the United States available to provide care and physical custody . U nder the law, unaccompanied alien children from non

- co ntiguous countries, as well as unaccompanied alien children from contiguous countries who meet certain criteria relating to whether the child is a victim of a severe form of a trafficking, fears persecution upon return to his or her country, and is able to independently decide to withdraw the application for admission to the United States, are referred to HHS

- ORR for placement in a designated ORR shelter . ORR typically houses and cares for such children for a short time, until the children can be released (usually t o a parent, or other relative) while awa iting removal proceedings in immigration court. Transportation from CBP custody to ORR is conducted by ICE via contract air, commercial air, or ground. As a result, CBP releases unaccompanied alien children into the custody of ORR while relea sing famil y u nits to ICE.

HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) was created under the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to lead the nation in preventing, preparing for, and responding to the adverse health effects of public health emergencies and disasters. ASPR focuses on preparedness planning and response; building federal emergency medical operational capabilities; counter measures research, advance development, and procurement; and grants to strengthen the capabilities of hospitals and health care systems in public health emergencies and medical
disasters. ASPR provides federal support, including medical professionals throu gh ASPR’s National Disaster Medical System, to augment state and local capabilities during an emergency or disaster. HHS ASPR is providing medical services support to unaccompanied alien children who are housed in HHS
ORR facilities. ASPR is authorized to provide this support under sections 2811 and 2812 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U nited States Code

, 200hh

- 10, 300hh

- 11.

2

. 2 The current situation Illegal migration of unaccompanied alien children is not new; however, the number has risen over the past several years and the countries of origin of the migrants ha ve also changed. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2008

, fewer than 7 ,000 unaccompanied alien children were apprehended and referred to ORR by DHS . In FY 2009, more than 19,000 unaccompanied alien childre n were apprehended (82% were from Mexico , and the remaining 17% were from El S alvador, Honduras and Guatemala). As of mid

- July 2014

, unaccompanied alien children from El Salvador, Honduras

, and Guatemala constituted 73% of the more than 47, 000 apprehended and Mexico was home to 25%. United States l aw requires treating unaccompanied alien childre n from non

- neighboring countries differently than those from neighboring
nations.

Unaccompanied alien children are also increasing as a portion of total apprehe nsions made by CBP. From January t hrough June, 2014, there have been more than 381, 0 0 0 individuals apprehen ded

, representing an increase of 21% from the same period in in 2013. The number of u naccompanied alien children apprehensions has increased disprop ortionately : approximately 57, 500 u naccompanied alien children were detained from January through June 2014

– an increase of 106% from the same period in 2013 and 220% from the same period in 2012. Similar trends have been identified for the number of fam ily units.
The more than doubling of u naccompanied alien children as well as the increase of u naccompanied alien
children from non

- neighboring countries ha ve resulted in a humanitarian situation that threatens to exceed6 the capacity of CBP and ICE to proce ss people entering the United States illegally and to overwhelm the capacity of the federal government to house un accompanied alien children and family units until disposition of their cases and subsequent necessary action (e.g., release, removal to their country of origin)

. Additional data on the number of u naccompanied alien children and family unit apprehensions is
available on the CBP website at http://www.cbp.gov/n ewsroom/stats/southwest

- border

- unaccompanied

children , and additional information on the Department’s response to the humanitarian situation is
available on the DHS website at http: //www.dhs.gov/unaccompanied

- children

- southwest

- border

.

2 .2 .1 The process

Figures 2 and 3 below illustrate DHS operations with regard to u naccompanied alien children and family
units

.

As previously noted, CBP is the DHS Component that is primarily respo nsible for border security. Thus, the vast majority of u naccompanied alien children are apprehended by CBP

. Unaccompanied alien
children apprehended by CBP are held until such time as they can be transferred to HHS

- ORR for placement in a designated ORR fac ility. CBP representatives determine requirements for operational
activities at CBP transition facilities. CBP facilities include, but are not limited to, Ports of Entry, Pre

Clearance Locations, Processing Centers, Border Patrol Traffic Checkpoints and Bo rder Patrol stations

. CBP acquires space in several ways, including but not limited to the following: expanding, renovating, or

re

- purposing its own existing facilities; leasing new space through GSA; or utilizing Department of
Defense installations , which is typically accomplished through execution of a M emorandum of Understanding or Agreement. Under certain criteria, CBP also has authority from GSA to directly execute its own real property leases

.

Figure 2

In addition t o the CBP hol ding and processing facilities and the CBP and ICE transportation operations as
shown in the above figure for the u naccompanied alien children process, ICE operates separate processing facilities for family units. ICE Enforcem ent and Removal Operations is responsible for the7 docket management and all arrangement s for removal for family units apprehended and processed at the
southwest border by CBP and released from CBP custody or transferred to the custody of ICE. ICE family residential cente rs are operated in compliance with the agency’s Family Residential Standards (see https://www.ice.gov/detention

- standards/family

- residential/ ) and are designed and/or retro

- fitted for family units who were placed in adm inistrative immigration proceedings and subject to mandatory detention. ICE family residential centers operate as an effective and humane alternative that maintain s family unity with special consideration given to the unique needs of children as famil y units await the outcome of immigration hearings or are return ed to their home countries. To ensure the safety and well

being of family units in ICE custody, only non

- criminal adults and non

- delinquent juveniles are house d in
these facilities. These facilities adequately provide for the safety, security, and medical needs of family
units . ICE ensures that these facilities operate in an open environment, which includes classrooms with

state

- certified teachers, access to an online legal library, and bilingual teachers.

Figure 3

ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations developed the F amily Residential Standards to addres s the unique nature of family units held in ICE custody. While developing these standards, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations solicited guidance from medical, psychological and educational subject matter
experts and collaborat ed with various organizations including the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties and many non

- g overnmental organizations (NGOs). In late 2007, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations approved the F amily Residential Standards, which contain many revisions based on public comments.

Namely, ICE uses the following housing facilities :

• Service Processing Centers (SPCs), owned and operated by ICE

. SPCs may use contract guard services to perform basic custodial duties.

• Contract Detention Facilities (CDFs), contractor

- owned; operated jointly with ICE

. CDFs provide detention services under competitively bid contracts.

• Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGSAs). An IGSA is a contract between ICE and a state,
county

, or municipal government for the purpose of providing the services and staffing to house
and care for ICE detainees. The non

- Federal party then uses a third party commercial contracto r to operate the facility. IGSA’ s may include existing facilities or the construction of new facilities.8 Famil y units who are apprehended by CBP are transferred to ICE for detention after their immigration

status h as been examined and it is determin ed they are removable from the United States and suitable detention space is available for these individuals. Because of the influx in migrants and backlogs in the immigration courts, ICE currently faces a potential short age of adequate facilities in which to detain family units until their hearing dates

. Furthermore , although CBP normally deliver s unaccompanied alien
children to HHS w ithin 72 hours of apprehension , absent exceptional circumstances

, HHS facilities have
be en and may become stretched to and sometimes beyond their capacity when there is an increased influx
of unaccompanied alien children . In the absence of HHS capability to accept and house unaccompanied
alien children , CBP has a need to increase its capacity to detain unaccompanied alien children in a manner consistent with health and safety standards until HHS can receive them. In addition, CBP needs to provide risk

- based Occ upational Safety and Health controls for its workforce in a high

- volume population

e nvironment.

At the direction of the President and the DHS

, the U nified Coordination Group was established on June 1, 2014, to leverage Federal resources to provide humanitarian relief to the ongoing situation and to ensure

cross agency logistical coordina tion. The U nified Coordination Group operates to support the mission s in
DHS and HHS to address the influx o f unaccompanied alien children. As such it is comprised of many organizational elements of DHS and HHS, with liaisons from the Department of Defense , Department of Justice, General Services Administration, National Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the
American Red Cross . The U nified Coordination Group has primarily been instrumental in identifying
additional facilities for HHS/ORR use. The pri ority goals of the U nified Coordination Group are outline d
below:

1. Health and safety:
i. Ensure the safety and health of unaccompanied children, Federal employees, responders and the public.
ii. Expedite the identification of tender

- age children (≤ 11 years), pre gnant females, and newborns to prioritize transfer to appropriate HHS facilities and ensure they remain in sibling groups.
iii. Support contingency plans, to include hurricane evacuation plans, in coordination
with FEMA r egion al offices and state and local emer gency managers.

2. Shelter:
i. Identify viable geographic locations that will support the establishment of HHS
shelters.
ii. Identify and assess specific shelter facilities to include beyond traditional models for occupancy.
iii. De

- compress over capacity issues in all CBP Sectors.
iv. Expedite bringing transition facility online, including medical support.

v. Implement HHS home

- based services plan in DOD temporary shelters and HHS permanent facilities.
vi. Identify long

- term options for HHS that can be used to shelter the proje cted increase in unaccompanied children.

3. Expedited processing
i. Expedite and optimize the HHS child release process to exceed the average number of children apprehended per day into the most integrated setting.
ii. Increase through

- put and improve the HHS unacc ompanied children transfer

process

.9 4. Informing stakeholders, Consular, Congressional and government officials, and the public of activities by creating and implement ing an effective notification and
announcement program.

5. Ensur ing agencies optimize financ ial tracking systems.

3 .0 Legal and Regulatory Framework

a. Statutes

The complex legal framework for apprehension, care and custody, transportation, processing and repatriation of illegal migrants

— and specifically as to unaccompanied alien children

— is b ased primarily in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection and Reauthorization Act of 2008.

The legal framework for considering the impacts of federal actions on the human environment rests on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts
1500

- 1508).

The response to the influx of unaccompanied alien children , individual adults and family units across the southwest border is not covered by the Stafford Act exemption for certain emergency actions for declared disasters, and therefore, is subject to the statutory require ments for NEPA compliance. As defined in the CEQ regulations (Part 1508.9), an Environmental Assessment (EA) is a concise public document prepared by the responsible Federal agency that serves to 1) briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for dete rmining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a finding of no significant impact; 2) aid an agency's compliance with NEPA when no environmental impact statement is necessary, and 3) facilitate preparation of a statement when one is necessary. At a minimum, an EA shall include brief discussions of the need for the proposal, alternatives as required by NEPA, th e environmental impacts of the Proposed A ction and alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons
consulted.

A PEA reduce s or eliminate s redundant and duplicative analyses and effectively address es cumulative effects. Agencies rely on programmatic or broad scale analyses to focus the scope of alternatives, environmental effects analysis, and mitigation in subsequent tiered l evels of documentation. PEAs are often regional in scope crossing political boundaries and covering numerous ecosystems and landforms.
The difference between a programmatic approach and a project

- level EA is that a PEA has more emphasis

on multiple similar future activities in differing locations and the potential for cumulative effects of those similar activities all deriving from the same program . See Section 4.0 for additional information.

b. Lit igation Settlement A greement

The care and custody of unacc ompanied alien children also is guided by the 1997 Flores v. Reno Stipulated Settlement Agreement, No. CV 85

- 4544 (C.D. Cal. entered Jan. 17, 1997), in which the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) agreed to certain standards and procedures with respect to the immigration custody and processing of unaccompanied alien children . In the Homeland Security Act, Congress transferred responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children from the
for mer INS to HHS

- ORR.10 c. Preside ntial D irection

As previously noted, the federal response to the current situation is organized under the terms o f the
Presidential Memorandum Response to the Influx of Unaccompanied Alien Children Across the Southwest
Border (June 2, 2014).

The Preside ntial Memorandum directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish an interagency

U nified Coordination Group to ensure unity of effort across the executive branch in responding to the humanitarian aspects of this situation, consistent with the Homela nd Security Act of 2002 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

- 5 (Management of Domestic Incidents), including the coordination with State, local, and other nonfederal entities. The Secretary of Homeland Security directed the Administrator
of FEMA , s ubject to the oversight, direction, and guidance of the Secretary, to serve as the Federal Coordinating Official. The F ederal Coordinating Official leads the Unified Coordination Group and ensures Federal agency authorities and the resources granted to the departments and agencies under Federal law (including personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, and managerial, technical, and advisory services) are unified in providing humanitarian relief to the affected children, including housing, care,
medical tre atment, and transportation. The F ederal Coordinating Official executes these responsibilities consistent with all applicable laws and regulations, including legal requirements governing the appropriate care and custody of unaccompanied alien children . The U nified Coordination Group, as directed by the F ederal Coordinating Official with the oversight by the Secretary

, determines the requirements for facilities and services for the Federa l response to the influx of unaccompanied alien children, based on the n eeds identified by the relevant agencies. The Presidential Memorandum requires all Federal departments and agencies to provide full and prompt cooperation , resources, and support, as appropriate and consistent with their own responsibilities for addressing this situation under existing authorities and in compliance with statutory requirements.

d. Within DHS

The Under Secretary for Management is responsible for budget, finance, human resources, information technology systems, facilities, and performance mea surements related to the responsibilities of the Department. The Chief Readiness Support Office (CRSO) has been delegated responsibility for real property, asset and logistics management, headquarters consolidation, and sustainability and environmental pro grams (SEP ). The U nder S ecretary for M anagement requested the CRSO/ SEP to establish a Working Group and provide a unified approach to environmental compliance across the Department to demonstrate the Secretary’s attention to the Presidential Memorandum on unaccompanied
alien children and also the expanding needs for family units.

Requirements under DHS Directive 023

- 01
The DHS Directive and Instruction 023

- 01, Environmental Planning Program

, establish the policy and procedures DHS follows to comply with NE PA and the CEQ regulations. Existing delegation of authority for NEPA compliance in DHS is delegated by the DHS Secretary to the Under Secretary for Management, Chief Readiness Support Office, Sustainability and Environmental Programs (SEP)

. In

some cases, a delegation of authority from SEP to DHS Compon ents for NEPA compliance exists; such delegation is currently held by FEMA, CBP, USCG, and FLETC. These Components will follow their existing processes to execute NEPA compliance for specific proposed projec ts and activities to address
the large influx of unaccompanied alien children and family units , and will coordinate with SEP in circumstances specified in the DHS Directi ve and Instruction and in accordance with the August 5, 2014

, memo from the DHS Acting Under S ecretary for Management to Component Heads

, NEPA Compliance Activities in Support of Increased Border Apprehensions

. The Director SEP retains authority to approve

NEPA analyses for DHS Components, including ICE, that do not have a delegation of aut hority

.11 Requirements under other environmental laws and regulations In addition to NEPA and the laws listed above, numerous federal environmental statutes, regulations, and
Executi ve Orders may apply to the Proposed A ction. Adherence to these federal req uirements, as well as state and local regulations, is part of the PEA. The following is a list of major laws, presidential orders, and DHS policy and guidelines with broad applicability to the Proposed Action.

• DHS Directive and Instruction 017

- 01, Histor ic Preservation in Asset Management and Operations

• DHS Environmental Justice Strategy

• EO 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

Income Populations

• EO 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environment Quality

• EO 11988, Floodplain Management

• EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands

• EO 12196, Occupation Safety and Health of Federal Employees

• EO 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs

• EO 13084, Consultation with Indian Tribal Governments

• EO 13112, Invasive Spe cies

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

• Archaeological Protection Act

• Clean Air Act

• Clean Water Act

• Endangered Species Act

• Farmland Protection Policy Act

• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act

• Coastal Barrier Resources Act

• Coastal Zone Management Act

• National Historic Preservation Act

• Native American Graves and Repatriation Act

• Occupational Safety and Health Act

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

• Solid Waste Disposal Act

• Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Act

4 .0 Programmatic Approach

This PEA is intended to serve the following purposes: 1. It provides a gener al f ramework to evaluate potential environmental impacts of common activities
undertaken by DHS to accomplish the requirements of the Presidential Memorandum, but which
will occur at differ e nt locations (including locations that are unknown at the time of preparing this PEA) . When necessary, s eparate analysis will be conducted on a location

- specific basis to determine if the proposals 1) are covered by a DHS CAT EX, 2) meet the criteria listed in Table 1 and are covered by this PEA, 2) require a Supplemental EA tiered from this document, 3) require a standalone EA, 4) or require development of alternative arrangements with CEQ pursuant to 40
CFR 1506.11 for activi ties that would normall y require preparation of an EIS.

2. It frames activities which ordinarily occur solely within DHS mission space in the context of the broader cooperative “whole of government” response of the Executive Branch

.12 3. It serves to establish a D epartmental process to frame information on the who, what, why, where, when and how of NEPA compliance for DH S actions related to the implement ation of the
Presidential Memorandum on unaccompanied alien children and also to address the existing DHS
mission s involved in processing family units.

4. Support decisions to be made by leadership at DHS Headquarters regarding implementation of
the Presidential Memorandum.

The multiple missions of DHS Component programs and operations (as summarized in Section 2.2.1 above) involved in the Federal response include a range of separable elements of facilities and services
for unaccompanied alien children as identified by the Unified Coordination Group and for family units as identified by ICE. As with many border secur ity issues, t he future directions or expan sion of unaccompanied alien children and family unit populations entering the U.S. along the southwest border are difficult to predict. However, the facilities and services along the southwest border provide a

geo graphical origination reference point for the start of the DHS process followed for unaccompanied
alien children and family units entering the U.S.

DHS delegation of authority (De legation 00501) for the DHS NEPA Policy (Directive 023

- 01) identifies
the Di rector SEP as the decision

- maker for this Department

- level analysis of the appropriate process for NEPA compliance for the DHS response to the influx of unaccompanied alien children and family units. The Director SEP has determined that a programmatic appr oach is appropriate for NEPA review of the DHS response to the influx of unaccompanied alien children and family units. This PEA was prepared in accordance with NEPA, the CEQ regulations and guidance

, and DHS Directive and Instruction 023

- 01.

The followin g figure illustrates how DHS will use this PEA in its NEPA review and decision

- making:13 Figure 4

5 .0 Decisions Supported by the PEA

Th is PEA is developed to support the following decisions :

• Department

- level decisions in volved in implementing the Presidential Memorandum

• Department

- level concurrence on NEPA compliance for DHS C omponents to proceed with project ( s ) that meet established criteria in Directive 023

- 01 for non

- asterisked ( undocumented ) Categorical Exclusions un der these extraordinary circumstances ;14 • Department

- level concurrence on NEPA compliance for DHS Components with existing delegation of authority for NEPA complia nce (i.e., CBP, FEMA, FLETC, USCG) to proceed with project ( s ) that meet established criteria in Directive 023

- 01 for asterisked (documented) Categorical Exclusions under these extraordinary circumstances ; and

• Department

- level determinations of NEPA compliance for DHS Components with out existing delegation of authority for NEPA compliance (i.e., ICE ) to proceed with project(s) that meet
established criteria in Directive 023

- 01 for asterisked (documented) Categorical Exclusions under these extraordinary circumstances; and

• Department

- level or DHS Component decisions that the preparation of an Environment al Assessment tiered to this PEA is required to determine that a specific project w ill have no significant impact or to pursue developing alternative arrangements with CEQ for that specific project

.

6.0 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Proposed A ction is to implement the DHS response to the influx of unaccompanied
alien children and family units entering the United States across the southwestern border, and to identify a process for efficient and effective environmental review for action(s) subject to NEPA.

DHS is responsible for apprehension, processing

, detention , and removal of persons crossing the border
into the United States without authorization. U naccompanied alien children and family units are crossing
the border at a higher

- than

- anticipated r ate. The need for the P roposed A ction is based on the existing and expected increase in the number of apprehended persons being processed that may exceed the then

current capacity of the DHS support infrastructure ( e.g., housing and associated services, tr ansportation,
and medical care). In addition, the need for the Proposed A ction is to meet the requirements in the June 2,
2014 Presidential Memorandum to address the humanitarian situation

.

7.0 Interagency Coordination
, Consultation and Public Involvement

This PEA was developed by NEPA practitioners at DHS Headquarters in close coordination with the NEPA program leads and environmental law counsel for the DHS Components participating in the
response to the influx of unaccompanied alien children and family units across the southwest border. DHS recognizes that the types of actions analyzed in this PEA feature some jurisdictional complexity and that the agencies involved have different missions and authorities. Therefore, collaboration and cooperation

are cr itical among Federal agencies and state and local governments in the affected jurisdictions. DHS has consulted on this PEA through the U nified Coordination Group and through counsel with HHS, DOD,
GSA , CEQ, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

. Efforts to address the current influx of unaccompanied alien children and family units are being managed according to the Unified Coordination Group

.

Open communication with the American public in the environmental planning process, consistent with
othe r federal requirements, is DHS policy. Potentially affected communities are kept apprised of potential
DHS efforts to address the influx of unaccompanied alien children and family units through DHS press releases and DHS

- led media tours , news media coverag e, and social media. DHS has discretion under the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1501.4 (b) and 1506.6(a)) regarding the type and level of public involvement and the length of any public comment period in P EA preparation. Because of the urgent need to address
the influx of unaccompanied alien children and family units while also being compliant with NEPA, the
Director SEP is making this PEA and FONSI available to the public for thirty (30) days via the DHS NEPA webpage at http://www.dhs.gov/national

- environmental

- policy

- act

. The

SEP

- EPHP@hq.dhs.gov email address is available for interested parties to request additional information
on this PEA.15 8.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternat ives

8.1 No Action Alternative

The President has directed DHS to take action by way of the June 2, 2014, Presidential Memorandum. Therefore, taking no action is not an option. While NEPA does not apply to the President, the manner in which federal agencie s comply with a Presidential direction are subject to NEPA to the extent of agency discretion in carrying out that direction. The President has proposed several actions to address a long term
influx in unaccompanied alien children and family units to the C ongress and requested funds to accomplish th ose actions . Unless and until Congress acts on and funds those actions, they are not within
the discretion of DHS.

Inclusion of the No Action Alternative is prescribed by CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.14) as the benchmark against which proposed federal actions are evaluated. DHS has the discretion to try to resolve
the humanitarian situation without acquiring additional facilities or services. In the routine operation of border protection and immigration enforcem ent, planning processes accommodate projected needs for facilities to hold, detain

, and process unaccompanied alien children and family units . Those planning processes include NEPA. But in immediate response to the most recent influx of unaccompanied alien
children and family units , the critical need for additional facilities and services leaves not acquiring such
additional space as the default “No Action Alternative

. ”

Under the No Action Alternative, no additional facilities and services would be acquir ed in an accelerated
fashion. Unaccompanied alien children and family units c ould be detained in custody for unacceptable lengths of time in overcrowded and potentially unsafe and unhealthy conditions which do not meet standards acceptable to the United St ates. The No Action Alternative is reflected in the background explanation of how DHS performs its mission as it relates to apprehending, detaining, transporting, processing, and repatriating or releasing unaccompanied alien children and family units (Sect ion 2 above) , but with the added issues of inadequate space to safely perform those tasks.

To proceed along the entirely hypothetical No Action Alternative of acquiring and providing no additional facilities and services, would result in existing holding facilities becoming increasingly overcrowded with potential for deteriorating health and safety conditions of the inhabitants. In addition, transportation services, on

- going care, and medical treatment of unaccompanied alien children and family units by DH S would continue to be strained, resulting in potential ly unsafe working conditions.

Because of the potential for adverse impacts to human health and safety if there is no accelerated increase
in facilities and services to address the influx of unaccompa nied alien children and family units, the No

Action Alternative is not viable

.

8.2 Proposed Action

DHS proposes to increase, in accelerated fashion, its capacity for managing unaccompanied alien children and family units crossing the southwest border of the United States during the present humanitarian
situation until said persons can have their status determined or, in the case of unaccompanied alien
children , can be transferred to HHS

- ORR

. Increased DHS capacity is needed in the following areas:
tempor ary detention space and housing, transportation, childcare, and medical care. The DHS actions do
not include the HHS actions taken to meet the needs of unaccompanied alien children while in HHS care and custody.16 8.2.1 Detention Space and Housing

DHS a ctions include the emergency acquisition of sufficient space , renovation of existing space, and additions to existing facilities (1) for CBP to detain (a) unaccompanied alien children until HHS can
accept t ransfer of them and (b) family units until ICE can take custody of them an d (2) for ICE to detain family units pending the outcome of their removal proceedings, until granted a form of relief, until released on bond or other appropriate means of supervision, or until ready for repatriation

. Additional

in formation on the routine DHS process, facilities

, and services for unaccompanied alien children and family units is provided in Section 2 .2.1.

Real property actions could include the following: leasing or purchasing new properties ; constructing new
facili ties ; and/or expanding or modifying existing property. Interior modifications to existing buildings
could include replacement , removal, or addition of walls ; addition of security , surveillance and protective equipment; addition of toilets, sinks and shower s ; sleeping accommodations ; storage units; medical examination areas; office space and equipment ; food preparatio n, dispensing and dining areas; clothes washing areas and equipment; indoor and outdoor recreational areas and equipment ; religious services

ar eas ; heating, ventilation and air conditioning; potable water and solid waste and wastewater
infrastructure ; and any needed occupational safety and health workplace controls including specialized ventilation, barriers, and floors and walls c apable of decon tamination. E xterior modifications to existing
facilities could include minor improvements to roads , parking lots, and driveways ; addition of security fencing, entry gates , and vehicle and pedestrian barriers, including minor ground disturbance for footing s ; addition of security equipment such as cameras, lighting , employee identification and building access
card readers ; and physical measures to meet compliance requirements under the Americans with
Disabilities Act

. New facility construction would require space for the same activities and services described immediately above.

8.2.2 Transportation

ICE utilizes its own and contracted transportation to provide secure and safe ground transportation of
individuals to and from locat ions designated by the Agency ; t hese may include transportation from the
ICE field locations where individuals are taken into custo dy. Usually such transportation i s set to a pre

defined radius or travel time from the destination to eliminate unnecessarily long transportation times.

T his transportation can include routine non

- emergency transportation to p hysician or dental offices, and specialty medical facilities and/or hospitals when needed. It can also include routine transportation needs
to consular offices or other local needs. It also includes the transportation needs to airports or other common carrier destinations for the purposes of removing aliens from the United States by air or assisting their boarding of common carriers when a release has been authorized. This transportati on utilizes a variety of vehicle siz es including but not limited to: short and long range passenger buses, 15

- 20 passenger airporters and 10

- 12 passenger vans.

ICE also utilizes air transportation on common carrier aircraft and through lease agreements wi th chartered aircraft performing domestic transportation functions as well as international transportation.
The international trans portation is most typically to C ent ral and S outh America n destinations, but special charter missions are performed based on the need to other locations around the globe.

USCG may provide short

- term support to CBP, such as the use of its C

- 130 heavy lift aircraft to provide

once

- or twice

- daily flights to relocate apprehended persons as a stop gap measure ( typically for a
durat ion of no more than a couple of weeks) while CBP works to secure contract transportation services. These USCG transportation activities are consistent with the agency’s existing mission and operation, and resource availability would depend on the USCG’s op erational status.17 8.2.3 Medical Care

The Flores Agreement requires that unaccompanied alien children have access to emergency medical
assistance. CBP’s Office of Border Patrol’s Policy for Encounters with Injured Subjects requires that all
individuals w ho are injured or require medical a ssistance when encountered by Border Patrol agents be provided access to medi cal treatment. In addition, the Office of Border Patrol ’s Hold Room and Short

Term Custody policy specifies that a qualified medical profession al, such as an emer gency medical
technician , paramedic, or physician, evaluate detainees who require medical attention or display symptoms of serious infectious diseases or contagions such as tuberculosis, severe acute respiratory

sy ndrome, or pandemic inf luenza. B order Patrol agents may observe that juveniles require medical assistance or juvenil es may request such assistance.

CBP provides medical assistance at ports of entry when encountering unaccompanied alien children who
need medical care. The Office of Field Operations policy, Secure Detention, Transport and Escort Procedures at Ports of Entry, requires that all persons placed in a secure area at its facilities be asked whether they have a medical problem or condition that may require medical attenti on.

CBP personnel, when they apprehend and process unaccompanied alien children , identify injured juveniles and in cases of medical emergencies, transport or escort unaccompanied alien children to hospitals and monitor their condition. When appropriate, unaccompanied alien children are returned to Border Patrol stations or ports of entry to complete administrative processing.

8.3 Screening Among Alternative Locations

As previously described in Section 2.2, i nitial screening of alternatives i s performed at the Unified Coordination Group level with results cascaded to DH S Component s for implementation at the field level. The Unified Coordination Group responds to requirements provided by DHS and HHS, based upon
feedback from four task forces related to hol ding, transportation, shelter and facilities, and child processing and release. The Unified Coordination Group Shelters and Facilities Task Force identif ies potential facilities that meet pre

- designated HHS, CBP or ICE criteria and also eliminate s alternat ives from further consideration. The facility list is also provided to GSA for evaluation. GSA returns a listing of recommended properties based on availability and leasing information. The GSA list of recommended properties is then provided to DHS for sel ection or consideration for further review. Where GSA provides
facilities for DHS missions related to unaccompanied alien children and family units , GSA is responsible
for NEPA review and documentation . DHS is responsible for NEPA review and compliance for DHS

owned facilities or facilities operated through IGSAs.

9.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The following table identifies the affected environmental resources, conditions for implementation, and the extent of impacts anticipated from implementation of the Proposed A ction. Specific activities under
the Proposed A ct ion that would not meet these conditions or requirements, or that would exceed the identified impacts w ould require a site

- or activity

- specific EA tiered from this PEA, a standalone EA, or the development of alternative arrangements with CEQ pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.11 for activities that
would normall y require preparation of an EIS.

For example, p roposed actions that would require extensive ground disturbance on previous ly undisturbed or undeveloped land , extensive disturbance or removal of habitat, or that would require significant changes to buildings and infrastructure (e.g., transportation

, energy , water supply , water treatment) that may exceed existing or planned cap acities are not considered within the scope of this PEA and would require additional environmental review.18 Table # 1

Resource/Area of
Evaluation Activities under the Proposed Action must meet the criteria or requirements listed below

(when app licable) in order to be covered by
this PEA Anticipated Impacts

Land Use Proposed actions would be c onsistent with respective State Coastal Zone Management plans.

Proposed actions would not be located in a Coastal Barrier Resources System unit.

Pro posed actions would score less than 160 points on Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (Form AD

- 1006)

Proposed actions would not result in the removal
of a significant amount of l ands designated for special use.

Proposed actions would be taken consistent w ith
40 U nited States Code 3312 , Compliance with Nationally Recognized Codes

. The proposed action would have temporary or minor permanent i mpacts to land use.

Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Proposed actions in areas characterized by susceptibility to sei smic, volcanic, tsunamis, landslide or mudslide activity, structural instability, excessive erodibility, or steep slopes
would be mitigated using appropriate engineering techniques

.

Appropriate construction best management practices and erosion control m easures would be
followed.

Hazard evacuation plans would be in place. Grading and contouring of sites would have minor impact s to surface soils of the site but would not significantly change the conditions of the soil

, the types of soil , or the geology at the site.

I mpacts from the proposed action to geology, soils, and sei smicity would be
minor.19 Water Resources A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) would be prepared where required by local, state, or federal regulations. During any

construc tion activities , the best management

p ractices identified in the SWPPP would be implemented

.

Proposed n ew facilities w ould be in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, including obtaining certification as a public water system and performing monito ring and sampling of the water according to applicable regulation s, when water is not provide by a municipal water

source

.

All required water quality permits such as a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System and state permits would be obtained and all permit conditions would be met.

Existing service providers would have existing capacity to meet increase in demand for potable water, or water could be purchased from commercial sources and delivered to facility.

Existing i nfrastructure would be ca pable of handling increase in wastewater.

C ontaminated wastewater would be pre

- treated
to disinfect it to prevent the spread of diseases
that c ould be transmitted by wastewater and

, depending on the system , could contaminate drinking water supplies and bo dies of water used for outflow if not properly treated. I mpacts (chemical, physical, or biological effects) would be either not
detectable or minor

.

Alterations in water quality and hydrologic conditions relative to historical baseline may occur, however

, only on a localized and short

- term basis.

Floodplains Proposed actions would not be located in a floodplain, or the decision

- making process prescribed in EO 11988 would be conducted
and documented for actions where there is not a
feasible alternative l ocated outside of the floodplain, and appropriate mitigation would be
included. There would be no impacts to floodplains for proposed actions located outside of floodplains.

If locating proposed actions in floodplains is unavoidable, impacts
would be min or through the implementation of appropriate engineering controls and flood mitigation measures.20 Wetlands Proposed actions would not be located in wetlands, or proposed actions located near or adjacent to wetlands would utilize appropriate engineering c ontrols and best management practices to avoid impacts to wetlands, or proposed actions would meet criteria for US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide or Regional General Permits including adherence to standard permit conditions and best
management practices. There would be no impacts to wetlands,

or impacts to wetlands would be limited
to minor works under the USACE Nationwide permit program.

Biological

Resources

– Vegetation, Birds
and Wildlife Activities would occur at existing facilities or in

p reviously disturbed areas, therefore s ufficient habitat would remain to maintain viability of all species.

USCG flight operations in support of CBP w ould
follow existing standard operating procedures to prevent unnecessarily flying over sensitive
environm ental habitat areas, including critical habitat, migratory bird sanctuaries, marine
mammal haul

- outs and rookeries, and sea turtle nesting beaches. If it would be necessary to fly over such areas, an altitude of 2,000 feet above ground level would be maint ained

.

B est management p ractices would be implemented as necessary for the protection of wildlife from the presence of unaccompanied
alien children and family units who are in DHS custody

, as we ll as for the protection of unaccompanied alien children and family units who are in DHS custody from any potential
wildlife encounters (e.g., coyotes, wood rats

,
sn akes, opossums, raccoons). Impacts to native species, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them

may be detectable, but would be minor
and are not expected to be outside the natural range of variability.

Occasional responses to disturbance by some individuals could be expected, but without interference to feeding, reproduction, or other factors affecting population levels.

Potential impac ts to unaccompanied alien children and family units from
wildlife that may surround housing
facilities would be addressed through
the utilization of comprehensive, integrated pest managemen t and vermin control techniques to minimize the likelihood of pot en tial contact between
wildlife and residents.21 Biological

Resources

– Listed Species, Critical Habitat, and Special Status Species Activities would occur

a. at existing facilities or in previously disturbed or developed areas where these resources are not p resent; or b. where these resources are present and
DHS is able to make a “No Effect” determination; or

c. where these resources are present and DHS is able to propose a “ May effect
but n ot l ikely to a dversely a ffect ” determination regarding impacts to
threaten ed and endangered species, critical habitat, or essential fish habitat
for which upon informal consultation,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or
National Marine Fisheries Service provides written concurrence with the Department’s proposed determination

o n effects to listed resources or requests additional information. (Depending on site specific facts,
additional tiered NEPA documentation may be needed).

USCG flight operations in support of CBP

w ould follow existin g standard operating procedures to preve nt unnecessarily flying over sensitive environmental habitat areas, including critical habitat, migratory bird sanctuaries,
marine mammal haul

- outs and rookeries, and sea turtle nesting beaches. If it would be necessary to fly over such areas, an altitude of 2,000 feet above ground level would be
maintained

.

Ground transportation activities would be limited to existing routes and roadways and would not require disturbance or removal of
habitat.

Note: Proposed actions that result in a “Jeopardy” finding a re not covered by this PEA and require supplemental analysis

. There would be no e ffects on listed species or designated critical habitat in project areas where these resources are
not present or, if present, DHS has made
a “No effect” determination

.

Or, t here would be no significant effects on listed species or designated critical
habitat in project areas where DHS
obtained concurrence from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service or National Marine
Fisheries Service in a “ May effect but

n ot l ikely to a dversely a ffect”
determination.

Or, under normal ESA consultation timelines and/or under expedited consultation timelines for emergency situations (pursuant to 50 CFR 402.05),
there would be a determination of “Not Likely to Jeopardize” listed species or design ated critical habitat and any effects would be mitigated to insignificance through appropriate
conservation measures identified in
consultation with the Services.

.22 Hazardous
Materials/Waste Hazardous or toxic materials and/or wastes
would be safe ly and adequately managed in accordance with all applicable local, state, and
Federal regulations and policies . This would
include storage and disposal of hazardous
chemicals if needed for disease decontamination.

Temporary increases of the generation of hazardous materials may occur (e.g., removal or mitigation of asbestos containing materials, lead based paint, petroleum contaminated materials, or mold) and may be necessary during renovations of existing facilities. However, any
abatement actions would b e completed by licensed/certified contractors utilizing best management practice s and industry standard practices to properly mitigate, remove and/or dispose of any hazardous materials and protect
human health and the environment. The generation of any haz ardous
materials would be minor and temporary and limited to
construction/renovation activities.

Utilities &
Infrastructure E xisting landfill s would be available off

- site and have sufficient capacity to handle the temporary
construction debris and addit ional waste for operation of detainee housing facilities.

Existing service providers would have the capacity to meet the increased demand for

energy, or alternative sources of energy are feasible and can be utilized (e.g., generators

, renewable sources such as solar photovoltaics,
fuel tanks ). This would include additional energy necessary to meet occupational safety and health
controls such as ventilation.

Installation of any new electrical conduit would be placed within previously disturbed areas, suc h as existing roads and shoulders. Impacts to utilities and infrastructure would be minor and temporary.23 Historic Properties DHS is able to make a determination of “No Historic Properties Affected” for proposed actions at existing non

- historic buildings (e.g., renovation) or for proposed

- ground disturbing activities where it has been previously
determined that no archae ological resources are
present and the relevant State Historic
Preservation Officer/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO/THPO) has provide d written concurrence with the DHS
determination

.

Or, for proposed actions that may affect historic properties (e.g., existing buildings, archaeological sites), DHS makes a “Finding of
No Adverse Effect” and the relevant
SHPO/THPO provides written concurrence with
the DHS determination.

Or, for proposed actions that result in an “adverse effect” finding, DHS is able to resolve those effects through measures agreed to in a Memorandum of Understanding or Programmatic Agreement negotiated with the
rel evant SHPO/THPO, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (if participating), and consulting parties. This would also include public involvement, as specified in the regulations for implementing the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800).

N

OTE: Adverse effects to historic properties involving the following are not covered by this PEA and require supplemental analysis: a high level of public controversy; loss of integrity of a large grouping of historic properties (e.g.,
historic district, ar chaeological site ); National
Historic Landmarks. There would be no impacts to historic properties, or anticipated impacts would
be avoided, minimized

, or mitigated through the National Historic
Preservation Act Section 106 consultation process.24 Air Quality Appropriate construction best management practice s, including maintaining equipment per manufacturers recommendations, limiting idling of equipment, and using appropriate dust control technologies, such as watering disturbed areas, would be implem ented to reduce impacts to air quality during these activities.

All new so urces of air emissions would not generate emissions above the de minimis
thr esholds or contribute to a violation of any Federal, state, or local air regulation.

Additional provisi ons would be put in place in

non

- attainment areas.

Impacts to air quality during renovation or
construction activities would be minor and temporary, such as those resulting from dust and
emissions from construction vehicles and equipment

.

Emissions from vehicles and aircraft used in transportation operations would not result in measureable impacts to air quality, as any
increases in vehicle and aircraft use would be
short

- term and intermittent. Impacts to air quality would be minor and temporary.

Noi se Noise levels would exceed natural sounds but would not exceed typical noise lev els from construction equipment, vehicles, aircraft, or
generators.

Human

- generated outdoor noise (e.g., recreational activities, playgrounds) would be limited to daytime h ours when practicable and
would adhere to local noise ordinances and use noise buffers where required. Noise generated by construction or renovation activities would be minor and temporary and limited to daytime
hours.

Noise generated by operation of
faci lities (e.g., playgrounds, vehicle transport) would be minor to moderate and mitigated through noise buffers where required.

Greenhouse Gas
and Climate Change C onstruction

- or transportation

- related air
emissi ons of carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide equiv alents would be below th e Federal de
minimis threshold. I mpacts would be minor and temporary.25 Traffic and Transportation Systems Roadway construction and changes in traffic flow patterns would not require major reconfiguration
of local traffic routes

.

Traffic impacts during construction would be addressed through providing warning signage, limiting the use of public right

- of

- ways for staging of equipment or materials, using flag persons when needed, and coordinating de tours if traffic access points wou ld be obstructed.

Construction of new access roads for detention
facilities would not require removal of significant amount of lands designated for special use, destruction of wildlife habitat, or impacts to archaeological resources.

Transportation of in dividuals would use existing
modes and routes.

Any increase in the number of leased vehicles, distance travelled, or number of trips would not overwhelm existing transportation systems. Impacts would be minor and
temporary.

Human Health & Safety Hypothe tical increases in crime, illnesses, and safety (in regard to unaccompanied alien children family units, and populations in the surrounding communities) would be mitigated through the use of security staff, physical security measures, and medical care (inc luding immunization screenings, vaccinations, and treatment).

Individuals would be housed within a secured facility and would not interact with the surrounding communities.

Individuals with communicable diseases (e.g.,
tubercul osis, measles) would be kep t in quarantine and treated, and specialized equipment to remove the air of airborne pathogens would be used to prevent the spread of disease.

DHS would follow existing Occupational Safety
and Heal th protocols for its personnel, as well as standard operat ing pro cedures for detention, escort, and transport activities to ensure the safety and security of both detained persons and DHS personnel.

DHS would develop e vacuation plans

, as

necessary , for facilities located in areas prone to
natural hazards such as hurricanes. Implementation of t he proposed action
would have beneficial impacts to the
health and safety of unaccompanied
alien children , family units, DHS personnel, and the surrounding communities by providing safe and
secure facilities with sufficient space and services.

Environmental
J ustice Actions would be consistent with the Executive
Order and the DHS Environmental Justice Strategy.26 9 .1 Physical Environment

The most probable existing physical environment s of the Proposed A ction would be locati ons where there
is already existing infrastructure to support the requirements for additional facilities and services for unaccompanied alien children and family units. Utilization of e xisting built environments would be the

most cost

- effective and time ef f icient way for DHS to respond to the current humanitarian situation

. Existing DHS and non

- DHS facilities where expansion and/or modification is possi ble to accommodate unaccompanied alien children, family units , and personnel and services are potential s ites identified by
the U nified Coordination Group and considered for selection by CBP and ICE.

No significant impacts are anticipated, provided that existing facilities and their proposed use , proposed new sites and new facility construction, and existin g or proposed new transportation routes fall within the thresholds presented in Table 1 and/or would be covered by a DHS CATEX. Sites

, facilities , and transportation routes that fall within the thresholds presented in Table 1 and follow applicable mitigati on measures in Section 11 would not require additional NEPA analysis beyond this PEA

.

It is also important to note that CBP is currently developing a P rogrammatic Agreement pursuant to the
National Historic Preservation Act for CBP undertakings in states located along the southwest border of the United States. The Programmatic Agreement is a result of a multi

- year coordination effort between CBP, S tate Historic Preservation Officers, Tribes, several other Federal agencies (consulting parties) with
mission s or jurisdiction in southwestern border states, and potentially interested parties.

Proposed sites, facilities, and /or transportation routes t hat cannot be covered by a DHS CATEX or that do not fall within the thresholds presented in Table 1 would requi re an addition al analysis of environmental
effects tiered to this PEA

.

9 .2 Biological Environment

The most probable existing biological environments of the Proposed A ction would be managed landscapes including low maintenance vegetated areas adjacent to existing infrastructure to support the requirements for additional facilities and services for unaccompanied alien children and family units. Existing DHS and non

- DHS facilities which have additional areas for expansion and/or site modification are potenti al sites identified by the U nified Coordination Group and considered for selection by CBP and
ICE.

No significant impacts are anticipated, provided that existing facilities and their proposed use, proposed new sites and new facility construction, and exi sting or proposed new transportation routes fall within the thresholds presented in Table 1 or would be covered by a DHS C ATEX. Therefore, s ites, facilities, and transportation routes that fall within the thresholds presented in Table 1 and follow applicab le mitigation measures in Section 11 would not require additional NEPA analysis beyond this PEA.

Conversely, proposed site s, facilities , or transportation routes that do not fall within the thresholds presented in Table 1 or cannot be covered by a DHS C ATEX are expected to have a higher potential for impacts to biological resources ; therefore, additional analysis of environmental effects tiered to this PEA would be required

.

9 .3 Social Environment

Communities and their resources in close proximity to the proposed additional facilities and services for unaccompanied alien children and family units constitute the existing affected social environment s

. The Unified Coordination Group may identify facilities for CBP and ICE to review and select. Ultimately the27 action agency makes the decision on selection and path forward. DHS recognizes that its activities have the potential to have human health, social, economic and/or or environmental effects and is committed to meeting the goals of EO 12898, "Federal Ac tions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populatio ns and Low

- Income Populations,” as well as to fulfilling its own Environmental Justice Strategy (see http://www.dhs.gov/dhs

- env ironmental

- justice

- strategy ).

The use of existing facilities and transportation routes is not anticipated to have disproportionately high and adverse human health, social, economic or environmental effects on minority popula tions, low

income populations , or children

. For proposed new or expanded facilities or transportation routes, potential impacts under EO 12898 will receive further evaluation to determine if mitigation measures are

necessary. However, the overall DHS response to the influx of unacco mpanied alien children and famil y units across the southwest border is not anticipated to have disproportionately high and adverse human health, social, economic or environmental e ffects on minority or low

- income populations

.

Implementation of the Propos ed A ction is anticipated to have beneficial impacts to the health and safety
of unaccompanied alien children , family units, DHS personnel, and the surrounding communities by providing safe and secure facilities with sufficient space and services. In additi on, there is the potential for economic benefits, including increased employment opportunities, to the surrounding communities because of the increased need for a variety of services to shelter and care for unaccompanied alien
children and family units

.

B oth DHS and HHS are increasing Spanish

- speaking case management staff, increasing staff handling incoming calls from parents or guardians, raising awareness of the Parent Hotline (provided by FEMA and operated by HHS), surging staff to manage the intake of CBP referrals to track shelter bed capacity, and facilitate shelter designations. DHS is developing ways to expedite background checks for sponsors
of unaccompanied alien children , integrate CBP and HHS information sharing systems, and increase capacity t o transport and place children in a timely manner

.

In addition, DHS has initiat ed and intensif ied its public affairs campaign in Spanish, with radio, print, and TV spots . One goal if this campaign is to communicate the dangers of sending unaccompanied ch ildren on the long journey from Central America to the United States, and the dangers of using criminal smuggling organizations to transport the children

.

Additional information about the Department’s efforts to address the dangers of illegal immigration into the United States, particularly for unaccompanied alien children , is available on the DHS website at http://www.dhs.gov/unaccompanied

- children

- southwest

- border

.

No disproport ionately high and adverse human health, social, economic or environmental effects to low

income or minority populations are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action . Potential impacts to the surrounding communities where housing and transportation ac tivities would take place would be addressed through sa fety and security protocols, open communica tion between DHS and the public, and adherence to the Department’s Environmental Justice Strategy and the requirements of EO 12898.

10 .0 Cumulative Impact

T he analysis of c umulative impact considers whether the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the overall effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of reasonably fo reseeable projects , regardless of what agency (federal or non

federal) or persons undertake such other actions (44 CFR 1508.7)

. When the incremental impact
associated with a Proposed Action is not significant, the discussion shall briefly indicate why the cumulative impact is not significant

.28 The Proposed Action evaluated in this PEA is limited to acquisition, renovation, and minor expansion of existing facilities , use of existing transportation routes, and new construction or transportation routes in

area s where environmentally sensitive resources are either not present or where impacts to such resources
would be avoided , minimized, or mitigated to insignificance; consequently, significant incremental effects are not anticipated

. However, given the broad g eographic area considered in this PEA, the fact that specific locations have not been identified

, and the assumption that similar activities are ongoing in potential project locations due to normal economic and commercial processes, such as bus iness expans ion
and relocation , the determination of need for additional, tiered site

- specific reviews will take cumulative effects on potentially impacted resources into account

.

10.1 Land Use

Impacts from the Proposed A ction would be limited to the immediate proje ct area (e.g., existing facility, new facility construction site, ground transportation ro ute ). Changes in or modifications to land use are not anticipated for the majority of activities ; however, the construction of new housing facilities in certain

geogr aphic locations may, depending on the number of occupants and level or lack of existing supporting
infrastructure

, result in some change in land use

. However, because the majority of locations are anticipated to be consistent with 40 U .S.C. sec. 3312, Com pliance w ith Nationally Recognized Codes

, no more than minor cumulative impacts on land use are expected.

10 .2 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

The Proposed Action would not materially alter localized geologic conditions . Activities c ould require
disturbanc e to the topography within the immediate work area s in order to meet operational and facility
needs. Activities c ould include excavation, contouring

, and filling to achieve gradient that allows construction of proposed structures, driveways, parking, etc. Grading and contouring of sites would have a minor impact to surface soils of the site but would not significantly change the conditions of the soil or the types of soil at the site. In addition, c ommercial or residential activities undertaken by non

- DHS
entities may contribute to cumulative impacts due to the expansion of existing or construction of new
facilities. Therefore, minor cumulative impacts on geology or soils from the Proposed Actions are expected.

10.3 Water Resources

To be covered by this PEA , impacts to water resources must fall within the criteria listed in Table 1

. The Proposed Action may impact surface water and groundwater, but would be covered under existing applicable permits or under modification s to those permits. Therefore, cumulativ e impacts to water

resources resulting from the Proposed Action would not be significant and would be addre ssed by water conservation measures in existing per mits and by following best management practices during
construction activities

. For impacts to wat er resources that are not covered by this PEA, such as substantial increases in water consumption, and new wastewater management and /or water treatment requirements

, analysis of cumulative impacts in supplemental NEPA documentation would be required.

10.3. 1 Floodplains

The Proposed Action would not be located in floodplains or, if located in floodplains

, appropriate flood mitigation measures and evacuation plans would be in place. Commercial or residential construction activities undertaken by non

- DHS enti ties in floodplains may contribute to cumulative impacts to this

resource , but such activities would be required to be in compliance with local floodplain management
ordinances . Therefore, minor c umulative effects to floodplains as a result of the Proposed Action are expected.29 10.3 .2 Wetlands

The Proposed Action would avoid wetlands or would involve minor works that comply with USACE
Nationwide P ermit conditions and best management practices for actions in or affect ing wetlands

. Therefore, cumulative effe cts to wetlands as a result of the proposed action would be minor

.

10 .4 Biological Resourc es

10.4.1 Vegetation , Birds, and Wildlife

Impacts to vegetation would be limited to the immediate site s of facility construction and renovation and would only occur during the grading phase of a project. Disturbed areas would be re

- vegetated following the completion of construction activities. The use of existing transportation routes would not contribute to cumulative impacts to vegetation , as vegetation would have p reviously been cleared from roadways

. DHS will follow best management practices which may include pre

- construction survey as appropriate to avoid impacts to biological resources (see section 11.2 below)

. Vegetation on neighboring properties

c ould exist an d could potentially provide nesting for migratory birds or habitat for wildlife

. Nevertheless,
b ecause the majority of DHS actions to address the influx of unaccompanied alien children and family units are anticipated to occur on previously disturbed or pr eviously developed land, it is anti cipated that cumulative impacts to vegetation, birds, and wildlife would be minor.

10.4.2 Biological Resources

– Listed Species, Critical Habitat, and Special Status Species

Under the Proposed Action, t hreatened and end angered species and critical habitat are not anticipated to
be on

- site and even if present nearby, a “no effect” determination will normally be appropriate

. If these resources are present, potential impacts would be addressed through consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service as described in Table 1

. T here could be other projects undertaken by DHS or non

- DHS entities at the same time of the P roposed A ction or in the future

. If other federal projects are propo sed that could impact listed species or their designated critical habitat, approvals for those projects would require consultation and mitigation of the impacts. Because the majority of DHS actions to address the influx of unaccompanied alien children and family units are anticipated to occur on previously disturbed or previously developed land

, it is anticipated that cumulative
effects to l isted s pecies, c ritical h abitat, and special s tatus s pecies would be none to minor

.

10.5 Hazardous Materials/Waste

Const ruction and renovation activities under the Proposed Action c ould result in the storage and use of small quantities of hazardous materials including fuels, oils

, and lubricants and in the abatement of lead based paint, asbestos containing materials, or mold. Operations of the proposed housing facilit ies c ould result in the storage of fuel ( for vehicles ) and small quantities of oils and lubricants. B est management practices would be utilized to minimize the potential for spills of hazardous materials. Any hazardous

waste generated during construction, renovation or operational activities would be limited in volume and disposed of at currently licensed facilities by appropriately certified/licensed personnel. Other actions in the vicinity of DHS project s would also be subject to requirements for the storage, handling and disposal
of hazard materials and waste. The refore, the Proposed A ction is expected to contribute to only minor cumulative impacts to hazardous materials and waste.

10.6 Utilities and Inf rastructure

Impacts to utilities and infrastructure from the Proposed Action must meet the criteria in Table 1 in order to be covered by this PEA. DHS anticipates that most housing facilities would be located in previously30 developed or previously disturbe d sites in developed urban areas, where e xisting infrastructure such as potable water supply, wastewater conveyance and treatment, sewer services, and energy services would already exist. Foreseeable DHS activities when combined with other similar state an d municipal activities along with other public, private commercial and non

- commercial activities are not expected to cumulatively exceed the available and planned capacity of available utilities and infrastructure. Therefore, only minor cumulative impac ts are anticipated.

However, additional analysis of cumulative impacts to utilities and infrastructure would be necessary if projects undertaken by DHS, when consider ed with other local or regional projects undertaken by other
entities , may result in exce eding the current or planned capacity of available utilities and infrastructure, or
would require installation of new services where none currently exist.

10.7 Historic Properties

Each specific undertaking ( as regards historic properties ) which forms a pa rt of the Proposed Action must meet the criteria in Table 1 in order to be covered by this PEA. If an undertaking does not meet those criteria, a further NEPA action which reflects NHPA compliance and is tiered to this PEA is required.

The Proposed A ction would either not affect or not adversely affect historic properties ; or where adverse impacts are identified, such impacts would be avoided, minimized or mitigated through the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultation process and a ppropriate documentation

. Other Federal undertakings in project areas in the vicinity of DHS undertakings would also be subject to NHPA requirements. T here fore, the Proposed Action is expected to result in no or minor cumulative impacts to historic propert ies.

10.8 Air Quality

Impacts to air quality from the Proposed Action must meet the criteria in Table 1 in order to be covered by this PEA. Construction and renovation activities under the Proposed Action would be short term.
Similar construction and ren ovation activities by non

- DHS entities, such as commercial activities

, would
also have de minimis levels of emissions or th ose activities would be subject to additional permit requir e ments . Therefore, the P roposed A ction would have negligible cumulative ef fect s to air quality

.

10.9 Noise

Noise impacts are directly related to the intensity of the noise source and the distance of the receptor from the source. Noise attenuates rapidly as distance from the source increases. Cumulative contributions to
noise impacts resulting from construction, renovation, or transportation activities under the Proposed Action are expected to be short term and minor. However, cumulative impacts to noise resulting from
DHS operation and inhabitation of housing facilities when combined with other sources of noise are expected to be minor to moderate.

10.1 0 Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change

Construction, renovation, transportation and operational activities under the Proposed Action will contribute de minimis volumes of greenho use gases. However, research on the contributions of greenhouse gasses to climate change has concluded that past and present emissions have resulted in major ongoing impacts to climate of increasing significance mainly from the electricity generation, per sonal and commercial transportation, and fossil fuel for indus trial power generation sectors. The Federal government has a number of programs in place to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions inventory, and DHS is participating fully in those efforts. There fore, although the baseline climate impacts are already cumulatively significant, the Proposed Action, in combination with other DHS initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be negligible in the context o f overall contributions to climate chang e.31 10.11 Traffic and Transportation Systems

To be covered by this PEA, impacts to traffic and transportation systems must fall within the criteria
listed in Table 1. Therefore, proposed actions under this PEA would contribute only minor impacts to

ex isting individual transportation systems and overall cumulative impacts to traffic and transportation systems would be minor. However, additional analysis of cumulative impacts to traffic and transportation would be necessary if other projects undertaken b y DHS or non

- DHS entities could result in exceeding the current capacity of existing transportation systems or require major reconfiguration of traffic routes or

new routes in already congested areas

.

10.12 Human Health & Safety

DHS would maintain unaccomp anied alien children and family unit s in secure facilities with negligible
contact with the surrounding resident populations of municipalities where housing and transportation operations would occur . General public health and safety would not be impacted b y acquisition, renovation, expansion, or construction of housing facilities in any way different from any other non

industrial, low i mpact construction activities. DHS operations on a whole would likely increase public safety by removing unaccompanied alie n children and families seeking to evade detection from cities and areas between cities thus reducing the chance for accident s, crime, drug and human trafficking, or other
unsafe or undesirable activities. DHS would follow existing Occupational Safety and Health protocols for its personnel. Therefore, significant cumulative impacts to human health and safety are not anticipated.

10.13 Socioeconomic Impacts

The Proposed Action could generate new employment opportunities in communities during facility

renova tion and construction activities and during operation al activities. Depending on the duration of the
increased influx of unaccompanied alien children and family units and the Department’s response to the
influx , both beneficial and adverse , longer term im pacts to local businesses, public works, property values , etc. could occur. The exact nature of such impacts would be dependent upon local perceptions
and can not be known at this time. Therefore, DHS may further evaluate the long

- term and cumulative
socio economic impacts associated wit h the Proposed Action in supplemental analyses in the future if

necessary.

10.14 Executive 12898 Environmental Justice

Communities in the vicinity of proposed housing sites for unaccompanied alien children and family units may be comprised of minority or low

- income populations. DHS will ensure appropriate consideration of
and outreach to the se communit ies , consistent with the E xecutive O rder and its own Environmental Justice Strategy

. Therefore, the Proposed Action is not an ticipated to result in cumulative impacts that are disproportionately high and adverse to minority or low

- income populations.32 10.15 Summary

Cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed action alternative are sum marized i n the table below:

Table # 2

R esource/Area of Evaluation Cumulative Impacts

Land Use None to M inor Geology, Soils, and Seismicity None to M inor

Water Resources Minor Floodplains None to M inor

Wetlands None to Minor Biological Resources

– Vegetation, Birds and Wildlife None to M inor Biological Resources

– Listed Species, Critical Habitat, and Special Status Species None to Minor

Hazardous Materials/Waste/Solid Waste Minor Historic Properties and Cultural Resources None to M inor Air Quality Minor

Noise Minor to M oderate
Gre enhouse Gas and Climate Change Minor Electricity Minor Traffic and Transportation Systems Minor Human Health & Safety Beneficial
Socioeconomic Minor Beneficial

, Minor Adverse

11 .0 Mitigation

Measures that reduce otherwise anticipated adverse impac ts of a proposed action on the quality of the
human environment a re called mitigation measures. Directive 023

- 01 requires DHS C omponent s to provide mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of a proposed action and to
monitor the effective ness of measures implemented. DHS will take the following measures to the extent practicable and applicable to avoid or further minimize impacts to the qu ality of the human environment. The general mitigation measures outlined in this section may be superseded by higher or more stringent standards required by a particular federal, tribal, state or local government agency issuing a permit, license, or approval for activities undertaken by DHS to address the influx of unaccompanied alien
children an d family units across the border.

11 .1 Measures to avoid impacts to the human environment:

1. Avoid taking actions that modify existing land use patterns ; 2. Avoid areas characterized by susceptibility to seismic or volcanic activity, tsunamis,
lands lides, mudslides, structural instability, excessive erodibility, or steep slopes;
3. Avoid sites in floodplain s ; 4. Avoid sites on important farmlands;
5. Avoid sites on or near T raditional Cultural Properties

6. Avoid sites in wetlands;

7. Avoi d undertaking projects that adversely affect historic properties;
8. Avoid projects that adversely affect threatened and endangered or special stat us species or critical habitat;

9. Follow applicable Occupational Safety and Health requirements;33 10. Fol low applicable detention standards and policies.

11.2 Minimization m easures a nd b est management p ractices for ground

- disturbing/construction
activities:

1. Follow applicable state, territory, tribal, and local permitting requirements for construction;

2. Implement appropriate dust control measures and engineering controls to minimize dust,
such as w ater ing down construction areas ; 3. Enclose or water down exposed dirt storage piles;

4. Minimize the disturbed area and preserve vegetation to the maxi mum extent practicable ; 5. Maintain topsoil whenever possible;

6. Phase construction activities to the extent practicable ; 7. Implement stormwater best management practices ; 8. Implement erosion control measures such as erosion control blankets, bo nded fiber matrices, turf reinforcement mats, silt fences (for moderate slopes), etc.;

9. Temporarily protect storm drain inlets until site is stabilized;
10. Retain sediment on

- site and control dewatering practices by using sediment traps or
basins fo r large areas (> 1 acre) when appropriate;
11. Establish stabilized construction entrances/exits (e.g. large crushed rocks, stone pads, steel wash racks, hose

- down systems, pads);

12. Limit construction activities, including operation of heavy machiner y, to normal business hours (M

- F 7am

- 5pm);
13. Avoid engaging in construction activities within 200 feet of noise

- sensitive receptors such as schools, hospitals, residential areas, nursing homes, etc.
14. Ensure adequate maintenance of equipment, inclu ding proper engine maintenance, adequate tire inflation, and proper maintenanc e of pollution control devices;
15. Ensure equipment at the project site uses the manufacturer’s standard noise control devices (i.e., mufflers, baffling, and/or engine enclosur es);
16. Reduce construction equipment idling to the maximum extent practicable;
17. Prepare and implement an appropriate s p ill prevention and response plan to eliminate and minimize oil or fuel spills from construction equipment;
18. Minimize the im pacts of equipment staging areas;
19. Stabilize slopes promptly through temporary and permanent cover best management practices , including re

- vegetating disturbed areas following completion of construction. Following construction

, all remaining disturbed areas must be re

- vegetated with native seeds and plants in a manner that returns the site to its pre

- co nstruction condition or
better ; 20. When applicable, adopt measures to minimize traffic impacts during construction such as providing warning signage, limit the use of public right

- of

- ways for staging of equipment or materials, use of flagpersons when needed, and coordinate detours if traffic access points will be obstruc ted;

21. Conduct appropriate biological resource surveys and nesting bird surveys o f the project area and adjacent areas for migratory birds during the nesting season (typically March 15th to September 15th) at least two weeks in advance of any construction and implement appropriate exclusion zones around any identified bird nests ; 2 2

. Avoid archeological sites by altering the location and/or depth of ground disturbance in a particular area, when practicable ; 2 3

. To the extent practicable , adopt other feasible measures under the EPA Guidance Potential for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Construction Sector.34 2 4

. Establish an inspection, maintenance, and documentation approach to ensure these measures are being implemented and are working adequately.