P. 1
CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 12/22/10 - FME004281-FME004287 Consolidated CRM San Diego Internal Draft ESP (Final)

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 12/22/10 - FME004281-FME004287 Consolidated CRM San Diego Internal Draft ESP (Final)

|Views: 4|Likes:
Published by CREW
CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence; FOIA Request: CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence; Holder of Document: CREW; Producing Agency: Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Date Received: 12/22/10;
CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence; FOIA Request: CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence; Holder of Document: CREW; Producing Agency: Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Date Received: 12/22/10;

More info:

Published by: CREW on Jan 03, 2011
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
This book can be read on up to 6 mobile devices.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/08/2013

pdf

text

original

FME004281

Comment Response Matrix Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Border Patrol San Diego Sector, CA # Page Location Line Section Comment I have not seen the final recommendations from CBP, but I didn’t think a cover sheet was part of the outline… Reviewer e²M’s Response Decision to retain cover sheet as it is used by DHS communications office. Cooperating agencies was changed to “coordinating agencies” as they are agencies CBP is coordinating with but that does not convey any legal obligation. TRPC BMPs in Table ES-1 have been revised. Spelled out on Cover Sheet. Spelled out on Cover Sheet. TRPC We can email this language to Chris Ingram

1

Cover sheet

JD

If we are including a cover sheet, I’m not sure we should list coordinating agencies, since there’s nothing required legally that they’re coordinating on anymore. 2 Cover sheet JD

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

ES-1 ES-1 ES-1 ES-1 ES-1 ES-1 ES-2 13 10 27 2832 1117

Veg Resources Wildlife Background Background

Insert – during construction after “on site”
“Consider” are we are aren’t we. If so give examples…… avoidance where possible, bio monitor during construction… funding for preservation of other habitat?

KM KM KM KM RD RD

CBP needs to be spelled out at this first use USBP needs to be spelled out at this first use Extra words or punctuation error Please provide this verbiage to GSRC as standard. Also lines 34-37

Seems an explanation of the waiver is appropriate here to explain that the EIS is no longer in play General Comment Please ensure all language is appropriate to the existence of the waiver.

RD The purpose of the ESP was to convert the EIS in order to be consistent with the waiver.

10

RD

FME004282

Comment Response Matrix Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Border Patrol San Diego Sector, CA # Page ES-3 ES-3 ES-4 Location Line Section 2129 29 Wildlife and aquatic resources Comment This paragraph should state that these steps were implemented to the extent they could be without compromising operational requirements BMP needs to be spelled out at this first use Please don’t commit to more than is possible re migratory birds RD Is BLM partaking of the Programmatic Mitigation for impacts to the OMW? If so, note that in Table ES-1. Land Use and Recreation Reviewer e²M’s Response Sentence revised accordingly. Spelled out on Page ES1 line 23 Table reflects approved BMPs. The following sentence was added on ES-3 “CBP will enter into a programmatic mitigation agreement with DOI and fund a mitigation pool for adverse impacts that cannot be avoided. “ EPPs have been added. JD

11 12 13

RD KM

14

ES-4

JD

15

Es-3, Table ES-1, etc 1-2 1-2 1-3 1-3 1-4

32, Surfa ce Wate rs, 11 25 1014 1926 20

Generally, our RFPs require the contractor to write an EPP (Environmental Protection Plan) that discusses Hazardous Waste Where SWPP and Surface Water bmps. I did not see this mentioned in the is discussed document. I suggest adding it. To the extent possible borders Incorporate language used previously in ES-1, lines 28-32 I don’t see why language here is not standard among the contractors 1.4 Is reference to B5-B correct or a typo? How does this relate to the A1 and A2 sections?

16 17 18 19 20

RD RD RD RD KM

TRPC TRPC Text was the same.

Reference to B5-B has been deleted.

FME004283

Comment Response Matrix Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Border Patrol San Diego Sector, CA # Page Location Line Section Hazardous Materials & Waste Comment Unless other direction was provided, have this be its own section, as shown in the ESP outline. JD Reviewer e²M’s Response Hazardous materials and wastes was omitted from detailed analysis, the ESP has been updated to reflect this. Please see (b) s 5/5/08 (6) email, the FOUO designation was removed on the figures as they do not include any FOUO data. Please see (b) ’s 5/5/08 (6) email, the FOUO designation was removed on the figures as they do not include any FOUO data. Maintenance activities have been revised to state that it will either be USBP personnel or contractors. Please see response to comment #24 Sentence revised to state compliance by contractors. Please see response to comment #29. RD

21

22

1-6

THIS DOCUMENT MUST NOT BE APPROVED OR RELEASED CONTAINING FOUO INFORMATION OR THE INDICATION THAT IT CONTAINS SUCH INFORMATION! Remove sector boundary indications

RD

See comment #23 23 1-7 RD

24

1-9

2223 2224 1-6 27

This will not become a contractor activity in perpetuity. Suggest stating that mitigation will be performed by either USBP or contractor, without discussing timeframes.

JD

25 26 27

1-9 1-10 1-10 Chart beinn ing on 111

I believe this level of detail re maintenance was recently removed from another document See comment #9 Explain it is compliance by contractors that is the concern, not compliance with some law or regulation Review the tables for wording and see comment #10 one term that pops up several times is comply. I understand the context, however it would be better to use a less regulatory term.

RD RD RD

28

FME004284

Comment Response Matrix Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Border Patrol San Diego Sector, CA # Page 1-11 – 118 1-12 Location Line Section Comment All bmps should all ready be in RFP, which went out in January. Wording in some of the mitigation measure sections suggests you might not have the language that was in the rfp. All bmps that were a part of the rfp should be listed in this document. Not sure we can commit BLM to for “monitoring responsibility” I’d recommend deleting this entire column in the table since CBP is responsible for these actions Have all of these BMPs been cleared with baker/corps and are included in the contract? Some of these are new to me from bmps we have in the rfps. We need to make sure we are not making new commitments in these beyond what the contract calls for. I think we can remove some of the specificity in these and make them more general We need to include the language from our previous conf call to the effect: Although CBP has no legal requirement to comply with these laws, we are using the standards and procedures embedded within these as a basis for performing our impact analysis and identifying potential BMPs and mitigations.” I provided recommended wording on this previously and I’ll try to find it if you can’t. Maybe its in here and I missed it? Wording needs correction See comment #25 Narrative says that additional surveys will be conducted. By whom? When? DG Reviewer e²M’s Response e2M proposes removing Table 1.3 and replacing with a summary of BMPs from Table ES-1. Column has been deleted. e2M proposes removing Table 1.3 and replacing with a summary of BMPs from Table ES-1.

29

Table 1-3

JD

30

Table 1-3

DG

31

Table 1-3

DG

32

2-1

3

DG

The appropriate language appears in Section 2.1, directly after the heading.

33 34

2-1 2-6

10,11 30,31 1315

RD RD

TRPC Sentence deleted. The eastern access road in Section A-1 was changed from an alignment and has yet to be surveyed. Sentence was deleted per comment. USBP operations noise impacts has been revised accordingly.

35

7-5

36 37

3-5 3-5

6-8 15

I doubt this statement is true, as often projects require night time work We should not discuss USBP operations beyond actions associated with fence construction, maintenance and operation of the fence. Need to choose the wording carefully.

RD DG

FME004285

Comment Response Matrix Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Border Patrol San Diego Sector, CA # Page Location Line Section Comment I recently saw a document which stated that the Roosevelt Reservation is managed by BLM. This document appears to say it is not. I know we don’t need permits from BLM for work on the RR, but the terminology should be corrected Is this appropriate post waiver – it may be, but please make sure, also, should it say CBP instead of BP? If it remains USBP, which I think is incorrect, please explain that this is related to construction. RD If USBP is found to be incorrect, please correct through out document. 40 41 4-7 4-7 14 3442 The government will likely purchase???? As a land owner I would read that there is a possibility the government could take my land and not pay for it. This portion of text appears to have been written without the waiver in mind. After the legal description of visual classifications, and before project explanation, it is appropriate to repeat the standard waiver verbiage – this comment holds true for various portions of the entire document. Whenever there is in-depth description of legal requirements, a blurb should remind the reader that the law does not apply to the project due to the waiver, but that we are still protecting the resource – see GSRC docs for example Please remove view-shed maps, as they provide information that should be protected for operational reasons. 43 5-4, 5-5 RD RD RD Changed to “acquire an interest in.” Paragraph has been removed. Inconsistent with previous guidance from CBP. RD Reviewer e²M’s Response It is our understanding that OMW is not managed by the BLM. Sentence deleted.

38

4-2

3-5

RD

39

4-6

2830

42

5-3

20

General comment

Please see (b) ’s 5/5/08 (6) email, the FOUO designation was removed on the figures as they do not include any FOUO data.

44 45

5-6 5-7 5-8

Are we sure that the construction contract calls for using the BLM design criteria? Need to confirm with Baker. Incomplete sentence or bullet missing.

DG RD TRPC

FME004286

Comment Response Matrix Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Border Patrol San Diego Sector, CA # Page Location Line Section General Comment Comment There seems to be a lack of reference to coordination with other agencies. Reviewer e²M’s Response Coordination is described in Chapter 1, not sure if we want to do it here. Text revised per (b) email 5/8/08. (6) s

46

8-1

RD

47

10-5

7-9

NO – we do not push cross border violators to new areas. If they cross, it is of their own doing. This fallacy MUST NOT be incorporated in any portion of the document. Please verify that it is completely corrected. This is worded to sound as though someone performed a criminal act. While smugglers may force people to cross the border at times, the USBP does NOT. This wording MUST be corrected. The following statement that this project could result in similar effects is ridiculous. The A-1 area is currently a remote area, and the project will remove some of the remoteness for patrol purposes, making it more possible for agents to arrest cross-border violators. This discussion mentions injuries from falls from fence, but does not mention deaths from walking through desert without fence. This appears imbalanced. It fails to take into consideration the force multiplying effect of fence, allowing the shifting of some agents to more remote areas. Where is discussion of the proper mix of personnel, technology, and infrastructure? Please update timeline mentioned here Shouldn’t this be listed under present actions? Where is the table? Please make this paragraph consistent in style with the others in the section, to the extent possible. Also, how can there be a cumulative effect in relation to a law that does not apply? Positive effects to surrounding area are not mentioned. Does this relate to cumulative actions?

RD

Please see response to comment #47.

48

10-5

1214

RD

49 50 51

11-2 11-2 11-3

9-11 43 on 24

RD RD RD

TRPC TRPC Table follows on the next page. Text revised.

52

11-7

6-11

RD This does correspond to a cumulative impact.

53

11-7

20

RD

FME004287

Comment Response Matrix Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Border Patrol San Diego Sector, CA # Page Location Line Section 2325 40 Genereal comment *** Comment It should be explained that the TI should provide more agent ability to respond to areas not protected by the TI. Reviewer e²M’s Response Comment made corresponds to the Vegetation Section of Chapter 13. TRPC All occurrences have been revised.

54 55 56 57

11-8 11-9

RD RD RD RD

Delete list of violators, and replace with ‘cross border violators’ Search for ‘border cross violators’ through out document and correct This document needs another round of technical editing

Reviewer: Please provide your name, title, phone number, and date of comments 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd