DEPARTIVIENT OI{` HOMELAND SECURITY 

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFYCANT IMPACT 

ACTIONS TO ADDRESS AN INCREASED INI+`LUX OF UNACCONiPANIED ALIEN 

CHILDREN AND FAlVIILY UNITS ACROSS THE SOUTHWEST BORDER 

OF THE UNITED STATES 

Bacligt-ound: 

The Jtiile 2, 2014 Presidential Memoi'and11111 Resj)otlse to the I7fl1l,X o,f U11ClccomiX1111edArte11 Cl11rd1"elt 

Ac1°oss tlie Southwest 13o1 -det- desci-ibed the inflttl as a11 "urgent 1luinallitai'Iai1 sittlatioil" requiring a 

utlified aild coordinated Fedei•al respollse. Tlle inemoraadutn is available on-litle at 

llttp://www.whitellouse.g o v/tlle-pi•ess-office/2014/06/02/pi•esidential-ineinorandtiin-respoitse-infltiYtinaccoinpanied-alien-cllildren-aci -. 111 tllis illeinoi-andum, tlle President directed the Secretaty of 

Hotnelaild Security (Secretary) to establisli ati interageticy Unifled Cooi -dinattoil Gl-otup to ensure unity of 

effort across tlle execntive brancli in I-esponding to the liliinailitat -ian aspects of tlie situatioti, consistent 

tivitll the Hoineland Sectit- ity Act of 2002 alid Holllelaild SectiTity Plesidetltial Dil•ective-5 (Manageineiit 

of DOIIIestic IilCideilts), iilclttdillg cooi-dlllatloil witli State, local, atid ot11eT Ilonfedel'al elltitles. 

In addltion to tlle 1i1fl11X of Ullaccoillpatlled alleil cllildPeii, tllet•e is also an increase in the mlinbel' of 

fainily units entering the United States. Tlle Depaitnlent of Hoineland Sectirity (DHS) is i•esponsible for 

the apprehensiotl, processing, detention alid reinoval of stich persons crossing the southNvest border lllto 

tlie United States witllolit alttlioi•ization. The utiprecedented increase in tlie mlinber of appreltended 

pei•sons 11as the potential to flill oI• eYceed the capacity of the DHS supporting infrastructure (real property 

foi- pi'ocessing aild llotlsiilg app2•e1lelided persolls, services including inedical care, trailsportattoll, litilities, 

IIleals, liygieile, i-ecreation, etc.) curreiitly available. Tlierefore, actioll is being collsidel•ed at t11e DHS 

Headcluarters level to pi-ovide illci•eased and eapedited allocation of Depatimental resotirces Iil tlle 

following tllree areas: 1) provide adeqlrate facilities foi- Custoins ailCl Border Protection (CBP) to safely 

llotlse Uilaccoitlpatlied alieti c1111dteIl (IlorInally foI -Ilo lIlore than 72 holn•s) atld family units until they can 

be transfet-ced to the Department of Healtll and Hutnan Services (HHS) atld Iinmigr•ations aiid Custolns 

Eilforcetlleiit (ICE) i-espectively, and pI•ovide adequate facilities for ICE to safely house fainily units; 2) 

provide transportatiotl (latld, ait-, watei) betNveen intake, processitlg, and llotising facilities, as Nvell as 

bettveen tllese facilities and physicians atid dentists offices, hospitals, consular offices, and airpol-ts or 

other transportatioll llubs, atld 3) provide medical care, includitig to treat, preveilt, and ininiinize the 

spread of colnmtutiicable illnesses. 

In accoi-dance witli tlie National E1lviroinnelltal Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, t11e DHS proceduces foIiniplementing NEPA (DHS Dit•ective 023-01, Envit'oIliileiltal Plaililiilg Pt•ogcain), atld tlle C4tiilcil on 

Eiivil•onaleiltal Quality's (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, DHS 

prepared a Pi-ogi-amiilatic Envii-onmeiital Assessment (PEA) to evaluate the potelltial impacts to tlle 

humail envirollinellt resulting ft'oiil iilcreased Depai•tmental activities necessaly to pt•ocess, detain, and 

transport UAC and families. 

Page I of 4 
Applicability: 

This Finditlg of No Sigilificant Impact (FONSI) is intended to cover DHS activities, Nvlletliel• at 

Headquarters or in a Component undet• existitig aiithorities during tlle cut•1•eilt increased influh of 

uilacconipanied alien cliildren atid family uilits atld any fiiture sucll influY as result of wliicli any 

CoII1po11ellt of DHS requii•es rapid acquisition of llousing or deteiition space for such persons. DHS 

i'ecogillZes tllat tllis PEA lnay need to be I'evised ol• altgnlented oT 11eSV eilvli•onniental analysis may be 

needed if there ai•e policy or legislative clianges that Nvould require significatit clianges to DHS' 

operations witll regaicd to uilaccoiiipanied alien clhildi-en and/oi• fainily utiits that eiiter into the United 

States illegally. If DHS makes atly substantive clianges to this FONSI, DHS will make the revised 

docuinent available to the public. 

Ptu-pose and Need for Action: 

The ptirpose of tlle Pi•oposed Action is to implenient DHS response to tlle influx of tnlacconipanied alien 

cliildi-en and fainily lmits entering tlle United States across the solitllwesteril border, alld to ldelltlfy a 

process fox• efficietit and effective envii -onmental review for action(s) subject to NEPA. 

DHS is i•esponsible for appreliensioil, pi•ocessing, detentiori, alld renioval of persons ci•ossing the boi•der 

lilto tlle Ullited States wltlloUt atltllol'1Zatloll. Ullaccoillpailied alietl cllildi -eil and fallllly Uillts aTe clOSslilg 

the boi'dei-at a liigliei'-tllall-anticipated i'ate. The need for the Pi'oposed Actioil ls based oll tlle e11st1lig alld 

expected increase iil the nuinber of apprehended pei -sons being processed that inay exceed tlle theil 

current capacity of the DHS support infi•astrilcture (e.g., housing and associated services, transportation, 

and medical care). In addition, tlle ileed for the Pi -oposed Action is to meet tlle requireinents in the June 2, 

2014 Pi•esideiltial Meinoratidum to address the humanitariali situation. 

Alternatives: 

Tlle PEA evaluated tNvo alternatives: No Action atid Proposed Action. 

hiclusion of tlie No Action Alternative is pi•escribed by CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.14) as the 

benchmark against wliicll pi-oposed federal actions are evaluated. Ujidej -tlle No Action Alteiiiative, no 

additional facilities atid set•vices would be acqtiired in atl accelei•ated fashion. Tllat would result ui 

existing llolding facilities becoming increasingly overcrotivded lvitli potential for deteriorating liealtli and 

safety coiiditions of tlie iiiliabitants. In addition, transpoi-tation services, on-going care, and inedical 

treatinent of tinaccompanied alien cllildren and family units by DHS Nvould continue to be strained, 

i-esllltillg i11 potelltlal Uilsafe Zvol'king coilditioils. 

The No Action altel•native is not viable because it would not satisfy tlle requirements of tlle Presidential 

MeinocandUin, Incllidlllg declsioils tllat lleed to be lllade by tlle Secl•etary put'sliailt to tlle lnenlol'alldtiili, 

and because of the potential for adverse impacts to lluinan liealtli atid safety if tliere is no accelerated 

increase in facilities and seirvices to acldress the iiiflux of unaccompatiied alieii children atid fainily iunits. 

Descrilrtioit of Proposed Actio>!l: 

DHS proposes to inci•ease, in accelerated fashion, its capacity foi' illailaging Lltlaccotllpatlied alieil cllildren 

and fainily uilits cl•ossing the soutliivest bordei -of the United States dluring the present lnlinanitarian, 

situation znitil said persons can liave tlleir status detertnined oi -, in the case of uilaccompanied alien 

cliildi•en, catl be transferred to HHS-ORR. Iilci•eased DHS capacity is lieeded in the following areas: 

temporai•y detention space and liousing, ti'allsportatloll, cllildcal•e, atid iiledical care. Tlle DHS actions do 

not iuicllide the HHS actions taketi to ineet the tieeds of unaccompailied alieii cliildren wliile in HHS care 

Page 2 of 4 
and custody. 

Affected Envil•oninent and Consequences: 

Inipleinentation of tlle Proposed Action llas tlle poteiitial to affect the liuman envil•oninelit. Tlle Pi•oposed 

Actioil is liilllted to acC1111s1t1oI1, rellovatioil, atld iiliiloi• expansion of existiiig facilities, use of existing 

tt'atlspot'tatioil TOAtes, aild new coilstl'llCtloil oP tl'atlspot'tattotl i'oUtes In at•eas wl1el'e eilVIroiiillentally 

sellsitive resotlt•ces are eitl -tel' ilot pTeseilt ol' wllet•e inlpacts to sucll i'esotll•ces would be avoided, 

illlilltllized, ol' ililtigated to II1s1g1I1f1callce. The following table ideiitiftes tlie affected envil'ollilleiltal 

1'esources and tlie extent of iinpacts anticipated fI'olll 1I11plelllelltatloll of tlle PI'oposed Act1oI1. Fol• eacli 

I'esoUPce al'ea, cI'itel'la at'e pi•ovided in Table 1 of tlle PEA tllat co11st1'alll activltles s11C11 tllat t11e allticlpated 

11I1paCts fl'oiil illlplelnentatioll of tlle PI'oposed Actloil aYe llot significant. DHS llas identified initigation 

nieasures wliicll Avould reduce poteiltial iinpacts to a level below sigrliftcance; tllese ineasures are 

presented ill Section 11 of tlle PEA. Pt•oposed actions that would not ilieet these conditions or 

reqltirenlents, oi• tllat wotild exceed tlle identified inipacts Nvotild require a site- or activity-specific EA 

tiered fi•om tllis PEA, a staiid-alone EA, ol• tlle developinent of alternative arraiigemeilts witll CEQ 

pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.11 foi• activities that wotild noriilally 1•equit•e pi•eparation of an EIS. 

Resoul-celArea of Evaluation Antici atetl Im acts 

Land Use None to MiiioiGeology, Soils, and Seisixiicity None to Minor 

Watel• Resources MiiloT 

Flood lains None to Mitloi• 

Wetlands None to Minor 

Biological Resources -- Vegetation, Birds ancl Wildlife None to Minor 

Biological Resoul•ces — Listed Species, Critical Habitat, and Special 

Stattis S Iecies 

None to Mitlor 

Hazarcious Matei•ials/Waste/Solid VYaste Mitior 

Historic Pro Ierties None to Minor 

Air Qtiality Millor 

Noise Minor to Moderate 

Greenllouse Gas ancl Climate Change Minot• 

Electi-icity Minor 

Ti•affic and Ti'aIlsl?oI'tatioil S}'steiils MIIloP 

HiImaIl Health & Safety Beneficial 

,.SocioecollOnlic Mlllot• Beneficial; 

Minor Advei•se 

Findings aud COnclusions: 

Itnpleinentation of the Proposed Action by activities that nieet t11e criteria presented in Table 1 of the 

PEA atld follow applicable nlitigation nieasures in Section 11 of tlle PEA tivotild ilot i'estllt iIl sigilificatlt 

inlpacts to any of tlle resout•ces analyzed ill tlle PEA. Conipliatice witli tlie Endangered Species Act and 

tlle Natioilal Historic Preservatioll Act at•e expected as ilidicated in Table 1 of tlle PEA. Tllerefore, an 

EI1v11•oninental Inlpact Statenient (EIS) will ilot be prepared. Proposed activities tllat do not ineet tlle 

CI'itel'ta pTesented in Table 1 of the PEA, rvliicli may iilclttde but are not limited to activities involving 

exteilslve groUtld dlsturballce oIl previously 1lIldistllrbed or undeveloped land, extensive disttirbailce or 

reiiloval of liabitat, or that would require sigilificant changes to buildings and infi'astTllctlire,lllstoTlc or 

othertvise (e.g., tl"allspoI'tatioii systelns, ellergy, water supply,lvater tPeatinent) that iilay exceed existing 

or platined capacities, niay i -equire additional analysis of the envit•onnleiital effects tiered to tllis PEA, or 

Page 3 of 4 
alternative arratigeinents developed witli CEQ pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.11 for activities that would 

otherwise require preparation of ail EIS. 

DHS, iti implementing the Proposed Actioii, will employ all practical atid reasonable means to avoid, 

minimize, and/or mitigate to a level below significance the potential adverse impacts on the cluality of 

the lluinan envit'oilitleilt, coilsistellt wltll accoinplisllineilt of its iiilssloil aiKl faitllfUl eYectitloil of the 

Presidential Memoraildlilll. Tliei•efore, a Fitiding of No Significant linpact (FONSI) is warranted. 

f-~ r~ --- F 

 ' 

r/ 

Dr. Teresa R. Pohlman te 

Director, DHS Sustaitlability and Envitoiiunental Programs 

Page 4 of 4