FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BORDERAMBASSADORS.com
TO "DEPUTIZE" WINTER TEXANS
McAllen, TX January 28, 2008 All Winter Texans in the Valley are invited to a `party party' at Pepe's Bar and Grill on the Rio Grande from two until five p.m. this Saturday, February 2, 2008. Jeff Reed of Pepe's and BorderAmbassadors.com are hosting the event to `deputize' attendees as BorderAmbassadors to return home and urge their friends, neighbors and relatives to stand with them and Valley residents against `the wall.' According to Reed, musical entertainment will begin as early at 1 p.m. The `party party' will include numerous door prize drawings and area politicos and citizens will answer attendees' questions about the lack of need for a Wall to separate Texas from Mexico.
BorderAmbassadors.com was founded by Jay Johnson-Castro of Del Rio to campaign against construction of the wall as well as to promote tourism and economic growth on the Border. Its membership stretches from Brownsville to El Paso and on to the California coast.
"By deputizing the Winter Texans, who love the ambiance of the Rio Grande Valley, we will have ambassadors all over the U.S. dispelling the un-truths that are being told by many of the talk show hosts and TV commentators," stated Johnson-Castro. We support the actions of our elected officials and landowners who refuse to bow to the heavy-handed tactics of the DHS," he continued. "However, this `party party' is primarily about the camaraderie that Texans enjoy with our great winter visitors."
For more information, call Sarah Boone at 830-768-1100 before 1/31/08.On or after 1/31/08, call Jay Johnson-Castro at 830-768-0768 or cell, 830-734-8636.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Submit Comments on New Border Walls in San Diego, El Paso, Tucson, Yuma, and Marfa
Ignoring the growing opposition to the construction of walls along the border, DHS Secretary Chertoff is pushing for hundreds of miles to be built in 2008. This despite the fact that Chertoff himself said back in July,
"Fencing is not the cure-all for the problem at the border. I think the fence has come to assume a certain kind of symbolic significance which should not obscure the fact that it is a much more complicated problem than putting up a fence which someone can climb over with a ladder or tunnel under with a shovel.”
Instead of searching for substantive solutions to border issues, Chertoff is plowing ahead with the hollow symbol of the wall. To quickly lay the groundwork the Department of Homeland Security has once again hired a private contractor, e2M, to sell the wall. In the past month they have issued a steady stream of reports that are intended to give the impression that the environmental and societal impacts of the wall have been thoroughly evaluated, and that the National Environmental Policy Act is being complied with. One of the requirements of NEPA is public input and openness, so brief public comment periods have been established for each sector's report. It is vital that they hear from us, as our comments will become part of the official public record. DHS has recently taken to lying to Congress and the press about the inclusion of public input into the border wall process. A flood of comments opposing the wall will make it more difficult for them to lie about public support for the border wall.
Below is the information needed to access and comment upon each of the newly released reports.
San Diego, California
4 miles will be added to the existing wall.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available at http://www.borderfencenepa.com/san-diego-sector-eis/
To submit a public comment:
Electronically through this website: SAN DIEGO SECTOR EIS COMMENT FORM
By email to: SDcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
By mail to: San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure EIS, c/o e²M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031
By Fax to: (757) 257-7643
The public comment period ends February 11, 2008
Also near San Diego, California
30 more miles of wall will be built.
The Draft Environmental Assessment is available at
http://www.borderfencenepa.com/san-diego-sector-ea/
To submit a public comment:
By email to: SDEAcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
By mail to: San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o Gulf South Research Corporation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70820
By Fax to: (225) 761-8077
The public comment period ends February 5, 2008
In El Paso, Texas
24.5 miles of wall will be built.
The Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment is available at
http://www.borderfencenepa.com/el-paso-sector-sea/
To submit a public comment:
By email to: DSEAcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
By mail to: El Paso Sector, Deming Station, Tactical Infrastructure SEA, c/o Gulf South Research Corporation, 8081 GSRI Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70820
By Fax to: (225) 761-8077
The public comment period ends February 16, 2008
In Tucson, Arizona
7.6 miles of new wall will be built.
The Draft Environmental Assessment is available at
http://www.borderfencenepa.com/tucson-sector-ea/
To submit a public comment:
Attend and submit comments at the public open house to be held 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on January 31, 2008 at the Tucson Convention Center, 260 South Church Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85701
Electronically through the Web site at: http://www.borderfencenepa.com/
By email to: TSEAcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
By mail to: Tucson Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o Gulf South Research Corporation, 8081 GSRI Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70820
By Fax to: (225) 761-8077
The public comment period ends February 16, 2008.
Near Yuma, Arizona
14 miles of wall will be built.
The Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment is available at
http://www.borderfencenepa.com/yuma-sector-sea/
To submit a public comment:
Attend and submit comments at the public open house to be held 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on January 30, 2008 at the Shilo Inn Hotel, 1550 South Castle Dome Avenue, Yuma, Arizona 85365, (928) 782-9511
Electronically through the Web site at: http://www.borderfencenepa.com/
By email to: YSEAcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
By mail to: Yuma Sector Tactical Infrastructure SEA, c/o Gulf South Research Corporation, 8081 GSRI Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70820
By Fax to: (225) 761-8077
The public comment period ends February 20, 2008
Near Marfa, Texas
11 miles of wall will be built.
The Draft Environmental assessment is available at
http://www.borderfencenepa.com/marfa-sector-ea/
To submit a public comment (if you missed the January 23rd protest):
Electronically through the Web site at: MARFA SECTOR EA COMMENT FORM
By email to: MScomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
By mail to: Marfa Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o e²M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031
By fax to: (757) 299-8444
The public comment period ends February 6, 2008.
"Fencing is not the cure-all for the problem at the border. I think the fence has come to assume a certain kind of symbolic significance which should not obscure the fact that it is a much more complicated problem than putting up a fence which someone can climb over with a ladder or tunnel under with a shovel.”
Instead of searching for substantive solutions to border issues, Chertoff is plowing ahead with the hollow symbol of the wall. To quickly lay the groundwork the Department of Homeland Security has once again hired a private contractor, e2M, to sell the wall. In the past month they have issued a steady stream of reports that are intended to give the impression that the environmental and societal impacts of the wall have been thoroughly evaluated, and that the National Environmental Policy Act is being complied with. One of the requirements of NEPA is public input and openness, so brief public comment periods have been established for each sector's report. It is vital that they hear from us, as our comments will become part of the official public record. DHS has recently taken to lying to Congress and the press about the inclusion of public input into the border wall process. A flood of comments opposing the wall will make it more difficult for them to lie about public support for the border wall.
Below is the information needed to access and comment upon each of the newly released reports.
San Diego, California
4 miles will be added to the existing wall.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available at http://www.borderfencenepa.com/san-diego-sector-eis/
To submit a public comment:
Electronically through this website: SAN DIEGO SECTOR EIS COMMENT FORM
By email to: SDcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
By mail to: San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure EIS, c/o e²M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031
By Fax to: (757) 257-7643
The public comment period ends February 11, 2008
Also near San Diego, California
30 more miles of wall will be built.
The Draft Environmental Assessment is available at
http://www.borderfencenepa.com/san-diego-sector-ea/
To submit a public comment:
By email to: SDEAcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
By mail to: San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o Gulf South Research Corporation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70820
By Fax to: (225) 761-8077
The public comment period ends February 5, 2008
In El Paso, Texas
24.5 miles of wall will be built.
The Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment is available at
http://www.borderfencenepa.com/el-paso-sector-sea/
To submit a public comment:
By email to: DSEAcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
By mail to: El Paso Sector, Deming Station, Tactical Infrastructure SEA, c/o Gulf South Research Corporation, 8081 GSRI Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70820
By Fax to: (225) 761-8077
The public comment period ends February 16, 2008
In Tucson, Arizona
7.6 miles of new wall will be built.
The Draft Environmental Assessment is available at
http://www.borderfencenepa.com/tucson-sector-ea/
To submit a public comment:
Attend and submit comments at the public open house to be held 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on January 31, 2008 at the Tucson Convention Center, 260 South Church Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85701
Electronically through the Web site at: http://www.borderfencenepa.com/
By email to: TSEAcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
By mail to: Tucson Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o Gulf South Research Corporation, 8081 GSRI Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70820
By Fax to: (225) 761-8077
The public comment period ends February 16, 2008.
Near Yuma, Arizona
14 miles of wall will be built.
The Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment is available at
http://www.borderfencenepa.com/yuma-sector-sea/
To submit a public comment:
Attend and submit comments at the public open house to be held 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on January 30, 2008 at the Shilo Inn Hotel, 1550 South Castle Dome Avenue, Yuma, Arizona 85365, (928) 782-9511
Electronically through the Web site at: http://www.borderfencenepa.com/
By email to: YSEAcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
By mail to: Yuma Sector Tactical Infrastructure SEA, c/o Gulf South Research Corporation, 8081 GSRI Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70820
By Fax to: (225) 761-8077
The public comment period ends February 20, 2008
Near Marfa, Texas
11 miles of wall will be built.
The Draft Environmental assessment is available at
http://www.borderfencenepa.com/marfa-sector-ea/
To submit a public comment (if you missed the January 23rd protest):
Electronically through the Web site at: MARFA SECTOR EA COMMENT FORM
By email to: MScomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
By mail to: Marfa Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o e²M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031
By fax to: (757) 299-8444
The public comment period ends February 6, 2008.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Protest the Border Wall in Marfa, Texas on January 23
We invite all those in Big Bend who believe the river should unite us with Mexico and its citizens rather than dividing us to join in a press confernce and peaceful demonstration against the Border Wall on January 23, 2008, at 3:30 p.m. on the public sidewalk adjacent to the Paisano Hotel in Marfa, Texas.
Following the BIG BEND NO BORDER WALL COALITION press conference, Homeland Security will have an Open House in the Paisano Hotel which is hosted by their contracting environmental out-sourcing company.
To read the Draft Environmental Assessment on the Border Wall in Marfa, Texas, go to the website of the private contractor hired by the Department of Homeland Security:
http://www.borderfencenepa.com/marfa-sector-ea
Following the BIG BEND NO BORDER WALL COALITION press conference, Homeland Security will have an Open House in the Paisano Hotel which is hosted by their contracting environmental out-sourcing company.
To read the Draft Environmental Assessment on the Border Wall in Marfa, Texas, go to the website of the private contractor hired by the Department of Homeland Security:
http://www.borderfencenepa.com/marfa-sector-ea
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Del Rio, Texas Border Wall Public Comment Period Open Until February 5
The Department of Homeland Security has announced that 4 miles of new border wall (or border fence, or tactical infrastructure) will be built near Del Rio, Texas beginning in the Spring of 2008. A Draft Environmental Assessment has been released, and public comments will be accepted through February 5th, 2008.
The Draft Environmental Assessment for the Del Rio Sector is available for download at. http://www.borderfencenepa.com/del-rio-sector-ea/ . A paper copy may be requested as well.
You can submit a public comment on the Del Rio, Texas border wall in one of the following ways:
a) Attend and submit comments at the public open house to be held 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. local time on January 24, 2008 at the at the Ramada Inn-Del Rio, 2101 Veterans Boulevard, Del Rio, Texas 78840.
b) Electronically through the Web site at: http://www.borderfencenepa.com/
c) By email to: DRcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.comd) By mail to: Del Rio Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o e²M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031
e) By Fax to: (757) 299-4101
When submitting comments, please include name and address, and identify comments as intended for the Del Rio Sector Draft EA.
All submitted comments are supposed to become a part of the public record. To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act the Final Environmental Assessment should include responses to the public comments that are received.
In fiscal 2007 the Del Rio Sector, where there has never been a wall, saw a 45% drop in apprehensions of border crossers. In contrast, the San Diego sector, where there has been a wall for over a decade, saw a 7% increase. DHS has yet to explain the rationale for importing this failed and expensive project from San Diego to Del Rio, where they seem to be having great success without it.
It is especially important that the public comment on the Del Rio Draft EA because it is a fundamentally flawed document that in no way meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The most glaring deficiency is its description of the purpose for carrying out the proposed action. Rather than establishing national security or the reduction of illegal activity as the purpose, the Draft EA states,
“The purpose of the Proposed Action is to increase border security within USBP Del Rio Sector through the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure in the form of fences, roads, and supporting technological and tactical assets.” (1.2 - 4)
The “proposed action” is described as follows:
“CBP proposes to construct, operate, and maintain tactical infrastructure consisting of primary pedestrian fence; concrete retaining wall; and associated patrol and access roads, and lights along two discrete areas of the U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP Del Rio Sector, Texas” (1.3 – 5)
If the purpose and the proposed action are one and the same - the construction, operation, and maintenance of “tactical infrastructure” - then by definition no other alternatives will be able to achieve the stated purpose. “Additional USBP Agents in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” may in fact be highly effective at preventing unauthorized entries into the United States, but because it is “in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” it will never bring about the stated goal of “the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure.” The same holds true for all of the other “Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Detailed Analysis.” In each case, the phrase “in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” is attached, so by definition none will align with the stated purpose. This is a clear violation of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations.
The private contractor hired by the Department of Homeland Security is apparently more interested in pleasing their employer than complying with NEPA. Instead of producing misleading document with a predetermined outcome, they should go back to the drawing board and produce an unbiased assessment of the environmental and cultural impacts that the border wall will have. A project of this magnitude requires a full Environmental Impact Statement rather than a far less rigorous Environmental Assessment. In either case, the final document should provide objective information rather than a sales pitch.
It is crucial that everyone with these and other concerns about the border wall submit them in writing. The Department of Homeland Security will interpret silence as a lack of interest.
The Draft Environmental Assessment for the Del Rio Sector is available for download at. http://www.borderfencenepa.com/del-rio-sector-ea/ . A paper copy may be requested as well.
You can submit a public comment on the Del Rio, Texas border wall in one of the following ways:
a) Attend and submit comments at the public open house to be held 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. local time on January 24, 2008 at the at the Ramada Inn-Del Rio, 2101 Veterans Boulevard, Del Rio, Texas 78840.
b) Electronically through the Web site at: http://www.borderfencenepa.com/
c) By email to: DRcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.comd) By mail to: Del Rio Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o e²M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031
e) By Fax to: (757) 299-4101
When submitting comments, please include name and address, and identify comments as intended for the Del Rio Sector Draft EA.
All submitted comments are supposed to become a part of the public record. To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act the Final Environmental Assessment should include responses to the public comments that are received.
In fiscal 2007 the Del Rio Sector, where there has never been a wall, saw a 45% drop in apprehensions of border crossers. In contrast, the San Diego sector, where there has been a wall for over a decade, saw a 7% increase. DHS has yet to explain the rationale for importing this failed and expensive project from San Diego to Del Rio, where they seem to be having great success without it.
It is especially important that the public comment on the Del Rio Draft EA because it is a fundamentally flawed document that in no way meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The most glaring deficiency is its description of the purpose for carrying out the proposed action. Rather than establishing national security or the reduction of illegal activity as the purpose, the Draft EA states,
“The purpose of the Proposed Action is to increase border security within USBP Del Rio Sector through the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure in the form of fences, roads, and supporting technological and tactical assets.” (1.2 - 4)
The “proposed action” is described as follows:
“CBP proposes to construct, operate, and maintain tactical infrastructure consisting of primary pedestrian fence; concrete retaining wall; and associated patrol and access roads, and lights along two discrete areas of the U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP Del Rio Sector, Texas” (1.3 – 5)
If the purpose and the proposed action are one and the same - the construction, operation, and maintenance of “tactical infrastructure” - then by definition no other alternatives will be able to achieve the stated purpose. “Additional USBP Agents in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” may in fact be highly effective at preventing unauthorized entries into the United States, but because it is “in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” it will never bring about the stated goal of “the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure.” The same holds true for all of the other “Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Detailed Analysis.” In each case, the phrase “in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” is attached, so by definition none will align with the stated purpose. This is a clear violation of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations.
The private contractor hired by the Department of Homeland Security is apparently more interested in pleasing their employer than complying with NEPA. Instead of producing misleading document with a predetermined outcome, they should go back to the drawing board and produce an unbiased assessment of the environmental and cultural impacts that the border wall will have. A project of this magnitude requires a full Environmental Impact Statement rather than a far less rigorous Environmental Assessment. In either case, the final document should provide objective information rather than a sales pitch.
It is crucial that everyone with these and other concerns about the border wall submit them in writing. The Department of Homeland Security will interpret silence as a lack of interest.
Friday, January 4, 2008
California Border Wall Public Comment Period Open Until January 24
The Department of Homeland Security has announced that 44.6 miles of new border wall (or border fence, or tactical infrastructure) will be built near Calexico, California beginning in the Spring of 2008. A Draft Environmental Assessment has been released, and public comments will be accepted through January 24th, 2008.
The Draft Environmental Assessment for the El Centro Sector is available for download at http://www.borderfencenepa.com/el-centro-sector-ea/ . A paper copy may be requested as well.
You can submit a public comment on the California border wall in one of the following ways:
(a) Attendance and submission of comments at the Pubic Open House to be held on January 9 2008 at the Imperial Valley Expo, 200 East Second Street, in Imperial, California.
(b) Electronically through the web site at: http://www.borderfencenepa.com/
(c) By email to: ECcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
(d) By mail to: El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o e²M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031
(e) By fax to: (757) 299-5585
When submitting comments, please include name and address, and identify comments as intended for the El Centro Sector Draft EA.
All submitted comments are supposed to become a part of the public record. To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act the Final Environmental Assessment should include responses to the public comments that are received.
It is especially important that the public comment on the El Centro Draft EA because it is a fundamentally flawed document that in no way meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The most glaring deficiency is its description of the purpose for carrying out the proposed action. Rather than establishing national security or the reduction of illegal activity as the purpose, the Draft EA states,
“The purpose of the Proposed Action is to increase border security within USBP El Centro Sector through the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure in the form of fences, roads, and supporting technological and tactical assets.” (ES-1)
The “proposed action” is described as follows:
“CBP proposes to construct, operate, and maintain tactical infrastructure consisting of four discrete sections of primary pedestrian fence, lighting, and roads; one section of lighting; and access roads along the U.S. / Mexico International Border in the USBP El Centro Sector, California.” (1.3 – 3)
If the purpose and the proposed action are one and the same - the construction, operation, and maintenance of “tactical infrastructure” - then by definition no other alternatives will be able to achieve the stated purpose. “Additional USBP Agents in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” (2.3.1 – 6) may in fact be highly effective at preventing unauthorized entries into the United States, but because it is “in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” it will never bring about the stated goal of “the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure.” The same holds true for all of the other “Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Detailed Analysis.” In each case, the phrase “in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” is attached, so by definition none will align with the stated purpose. This is a clear violation of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations.
The private contractor hired by the Department of Homeland Security is apparently more interested in pleasing their employer than complying with NEPA. Instead of producing misleading document with a predetermined outcome, they should go back to the drawing board and produce an unbiased assessment of the environmental and cultural impacts that the border wall will have. A project of this magnitude requires a full Environmental Impact Statement rather than a far less rigorous Environmental Assessment. In either case, the final document should provide objective information rather than a sales pitch.
It is crucial that everyone with these and other concerns about the border wall submit them in writing. The Department of Homeland Security will interpret silence as a lack of interest.
The Draft Environmental Assessment for the El Centro Sector is available for download at http://www.borderfencenepa.com/el-centro-sector-ea/ . A paper copy may be requested as well.
You can submit a public comment on the California border wall in one of the following ways:
(a) Attendance and submission of comments at the Pubic Open House to be held on January 9 2008 at the Imperial Valley Expo, 200 East Second Street, in Imperial, California.
(b) Electronically through the web site at: http://www.borderfencenepa.com/
(c) By email to: ECcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
(d) By mail to: El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o e²M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031
(e) By fax to: (757) 299-5585
When submitting comments, please include name and address, and identify comments as intended for the El Centro Sector Draft EA.
All submitted comments are supposed to become a part of the public record. To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act the Final Environmental Assessment should include responses to the public comments that are received.
It is especially important that the public comment on the El Centro Draft EA because it is a fundamentally flawed document that in no way meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The most glaring deficiency is its description of the purpose for carrying out the proposed action. Rather than establishing national security or the reduction of illegal activity as the purpose, the Draft EA states,
“The purpose of the Proposed Action is to increase border security within USBP El Centro Sector through the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure in the form of fences, roads, and supporting technological and tactical assets.” (ES-1)
The “proposed action” is described as follows:
“CBP proposes to construct, operate, and maintain tactical infrastructure consisting of four discrete sections of primary pedestrian fence, lighting, and roads; one section of lighting; and access roads along the U.S. / Mexico International Border in the USBP El Centro Sector, California.” (1.3 – 3)
If the purpose and the proposed action are one and the same - the construction, operation, and maintenance of “tactical infrastructure” - then by definition no other alternatives will be able to achieve the stated purpose. “Additional USBP Agents in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” (2.3.1 – 6) may in fact be highly effective at preventing unauthorized entries into the United States, but because it is “in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” it will never bring about the stated goal of “the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure.” The same holds true for all of the other “Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Detailed Analysis.” In each case, the phrase “in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” is attached, so by definition none will align with the stated purpose. This is a clear violation of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations.
The private contractor hired by the Department of Homeland Security is apparently more interested in pleasing their employer than complying with NEPA. Instead of producing misleading document with a predetermined outcome, they should go back to the drawing board and produce an unbiased assessment of the environmental and cultural impacts that the border wall will have. A project of this magnitude requires a full Environmental Impact Statement rather than a far less rigorous Environmental Assessment. In either case, the final document should provide objective information rather than a sales pitch.
It is crucial that everyone with these and other concerns about the border wall submit them in writing. The Department of Homeland Security will interpret silence as a lack of interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
