Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
June 20 2008 Customs and Border Protection border wall Talking Points

June 20 2008 Customs and Border Protection border wall Talking Points

|Views: 13|Likes:
Published by Scott Nicol
2008 Customs and Border Protection emails with attached docs outlining their public responses to criticisms of their border wall constrcution plans
2008 Customs and Border Protection emails with attached docs outlining their public responses to criticisms of their border wall constrcution plans

More info:

Published by: Scott Nicol on Jul 05, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Sunday, June 22, 2008 5:47 PM
FW: document addressing community concerns
Local fencing concerns by sector.doc; Court Orders Eminent Domain Actions.doc; Effective Control and Agents.doc; Environmental Concerns & Responses.doc
Page 1of 6Fw: document addressing community concerns9/28/2009 
Please respond to the tasker listed below regarding community concerns. If you have any questions or feel I have tasked you inerror, please let me know ASAP so I can redirect.
Fri 6/20/2008 10:00 PM
Fw: document addressing community concerns
HiWe have received the following tasker from Greg. Please forward your response to me NLT 2:00 Monday, June 23.
Thanks much,
----- Original Message -----
Cc:Sent: Fri Jun 20 17:39:45 2008
Subject: Fw: document addressing community concerns
We need a para specifically covering the public input/community concerns for M2-A to better address the concern in last letter.
Would like to have it Mon by 1600.
Greg G
----- Original Message -----
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY;Cc: PAGAN, DAVID G.- HQ;FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;Sent: Fri Jun 20 17:13:01 2008
Subject: RE: document addressing community concerns
(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)
(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)(b) (6)
Responses to Environmental Concerns1. What are we doing to avoid fragmenting the already stressed animal habitat betweenthe two “sky islands” of Otay Mountain and Cerro San Isidro in Mexico?
For A-1, the primary species of conservation concern (including transborder conservationstrategies) are endemic plants, invertebrates (e.g., Thorne’s hairstreak, Quino checkerspotbutterfly), herpetofauna (e.g., arroyo southwestern toad), birds (e.g., California gnatcatcher,least Bell’s vireo), and mammals (e.g., Bighorn sheep, mountain lion, and Americanbadger). Plant propagules capable of long-distance dispersal (e.g. windblown seeds) wouldnot be impacted by the bollard style fence. Invertebrates would be able to pass between or over the bollards. Birds would be able to fly through or over the fence. Herps would be ableto pass through the fence – between the bollards. Big-horn sheep and mountain lion are notknown from the A-1 vicinity. American badger may occur in the area although no signs of this species were observed during multiple field sessions. If badgers do occupy the area,they would be able to move through the bollard fence. The Tijuana River and Mexicanhighway just south of A-1 would pose much more substantial barriers to badger movement.Construction of the pedestrian fence in A-1 would allow habitat north of the fence to recover from years of abuse due to transborder trespass grazing and movement of illegal aliensthrough the area.Finally, it should be noted that the additional protection from accidental wildfires provided bythe Project, and the improved access for control when these events occur, will be extremelybeneficial to the fragile ecosystem and also human life and property.
2. How are we securing wildlife migratory corridors without closing them off?
The J2 reach of the El Paso Sector’s TI program is a 3-mile long segment located south of Sunland Park, New Mexico. It should be noted that the pedestrian fence for the J2 segmentwas planned to be an aesthetically pleasing fence, which would allow the passage of mostanimals, with the exception of larger mammals.Only minor impacts associated with restriction of transborder movement of wildlife wouldoccur. Although, the aesthetic fence would preclude transborder migration of largemammals (
mule deer), and thus fragmenting habitat within the project corridor, theseimpacts would be considered minimal. Many areas along the project corridor area, such asthe Santa Teresa POE, are disturbed or developed and provide a limited transborder migratory corridor to wildlife species. The design of the aesthetic fence would most likelyallow migration of smaller animals, particularly lizards, snakes, toads and rodents. Habitatfragmentation typically affects species with small population sizes or that are dependent uponmigration to obtain spatially or temporally limited resources. The pedestrian fence would notbe expected to affect the genetic variability of such species, especially since they areregionally common. Therefore, no significant adverse effects are anticipated.
Responses to Environmental Concerns3. Provide specific mitigation plans or an evaluation of the impact of the project onmigratory paths, particularly in the B-5A.2 sub-segment. 
For B-5A, the primary species of conservation concern with a potential for being observed inthe project area, are endemic plants (Algodones dunes sunflower and Peirson’s milk-vetch),birds (Southwestern willow flycatcher and possibly the Yuma clapper rail), and a reptile(Flat-tailed horned lizard ). Plant propagules capable of long-distance dispersal (e.g.windblown seeds) will not be impacted by the bollard style fence. Birds will be able to flythrough or over the fence. Reptiles will be able to pass through the fence between thebollards.Planned mitigations include compensation for the permanently disturbed flat-tailed hornedlizard habitat. In addition, an independently contracted biological monitor will be on-siteduring construction to help ensure planned Best Management Practices are implemented tominimize any impacts and provide training to construction contractors on sensitive species inthe project corridor.
4. Provide specific mitigation plans or an evaluation of the impact on Fish and Wildlifeland and historical sites around Los Ebanos, TX. [O-segments]
For Sections O-1 through O-3, and O-11 through O-21, the primary species of conservation concern are three species of plants (Texas ayenia, Walker’s manioc, andZapata bladderpod); and two mammals, the ocelot and the jaguarundi. Plant propaguleswhich are capable of long-distance dispersal (e.g. wind blown seeds) will not beimpacted by the fence styles planned for these sections. Cat openings, designed toallow passage of the ocelot and jaguarundi have been incorporated into the fence designand specific placement of such coordinated with USFWS. Other wildlife in the area,including deer, coyotes, and other species with large enough dispersal distances for thefence to be a potential factor, will be capable of either going through the cat openings, or around the ends of the fence sections.CBP has coordinated with USFWS and the Lower Rio Grande Valley National WildlifeRefuge (actually a system of Refuge units) from the beginning of the environmentalanalysis process and made changes to reduce and avoid impacts to Refuge lands wherepossible, without compromising the mission. Examples include shortening of O-1 so itwould not extend onto Refuge lands at the western end of the section, shifting of fencealignments to skirt rather than transect Refuge units, and the incorporation, to the extentpracticable, of wildlife friendly versus relatively impermeable fence types where eachwas recommended by USFWS.
The Los Ebanos Ferry is the only cable-anchored, hand-drawn international ferryservice on the border of the continental United States. To ensure the preservation of this significant historic resource, CBP and USACE have developed a two-steppreservation program. The first step was redesigning the fence in the vicinity of the ferryto minimize impacts. The redesigned fence alignment will avoid the landmark ebony

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->