FME004268

Comment Response Matrix Interim Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Border Patrol El Centro Sector, CA # Page Location Line Section Comment Edit out references to legal requirements. We can cite laws and regs as standards and guidelines for analysis. Insert new sentence in description of the resource: “Although the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP no longer has any specific legal obligations under these laws, the Secretary committed the Department to responsible environmental stewardship to conserve valuable natural and cultural resources. Accordingly, CBP will not obtain permits or develop plans for regulatory approval but will apply the appropriate standards and guidelines from these laws and regulations to the project as a basis for evaluating potential environmental impacts and developing appropriate mitigations.” If advised not to delete, at least change the "coordinating agency" section to something like "advisory agencies" because of waiver. Reviewer e²M’s Response Text revised per comment (TRPC).

1

General

SME

2

Cover Sheet

JD

Cover Sheet 3 POC, change (b) (6) office to Loren Flossman, SBI program SME

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. Changed to
Loren Flossman, Program Manager, SBI Tactical Infrastructure, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20229, Tel: (b) (6) Fax: (703) 752-7754.

4

Table of Should be "Land Use, Recreation and Aesthetics." Aren't Contents and Section Aesthetics and Visual Resources the same thing? 4.0

TRPC JD

FME004269

Comment Response Matrix Interim Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Border Patrol El Centro Sector, CA # Page Location Line Section Comment I suggest shortening this to approximately three pages with the following sections: 1) Background 2) Goals and Objectives of the Project 3) Environmental Impacts and 4) Mitigation and BMPs (see E2A ESP as example). Insert text on waivers: On April 1, 2008, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), pursuant to his authority under Section 102(c) of IIRIRA, exercised his authority to waive certain laws that were an impediment to the expeditious construction of tactical infrastructure along the southwestern border. Although the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP no longer has any specific legal obligations under these laws, the Secretary committed DHS to responsible environmental stewardship to conserve valuable natural and cultural resources. CBP strongly supports this objective and remains committed to being a good steward of the environment. Recommend change as follows (changes in italics): “ . . . to waive certain environmental and other laws in order to ensure the expeditious construction of tactical infrastructure along the U.S./Mexico Border. The tactical infrastructure described in this Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) is covered by the Secretary’s April 1, 2008, waiver (73 Federal Register [FR] 65, pp. 18293-24). Although the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP no longer has any specific legal obligations under the laws that are included in the waiver, the Secretary committed DHS to continue to protect valuable natural and cultural resources. CBP strongly supports the Secretary’s commitment to responsible environmental stewardship. To that end, CBP has prepared the following ESP, which analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with construction of tactical infrastructure in the USBP’s El Centro Sector. The ESP also discusses CBP’s plans as to how it can mitigate potential environmental impacts. The ESP CBP will guide CBP’s efforts going forward. Remove mission language and incorporate website language into ES and Chapter 1 introduction Reviewer e²M’s Response Introduction changed to Background. Other sections retained per other comments. ES shortened to 4 pages. Superseded by similar comment from (b) below. (6)

5

Exec Sum

JD

6

ES-1 and 11

intro/backg round

SME

TRPC

7

ES-1

5-11

CS

8

ES-1

intro/backg round

SME

TRPC

FME004270

Comment Response Matrix Interim Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Border Patrol El Centro Sector, CA # Page ES-1 Location Line Section 3 Comment What is the official waiver date? 4/1, or the date the final waiver was posted to the FR - 4/8? My recommendation is to go with the 4/8 waiver date and add the waiver that appeared in the FR as an Appendix. Recommend adding at the beginning of the sentence: “As it moves forward with the project described herein, . . .” This is not the most recent verbiage. It should read something like – The planned action will help to deter illegal entries within the USBP El Centro Sector by improving enforcement efficiency, thus preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons, illegal aliens, drugs, and other cross border violators and contraband from entering the United States, while providing… Change Need for the Project to “Goals and Objectives of the Project.” Make sure the text reflects “goals and objectives” not “need.” recommend change as follows: “The Project is being carried out pursuant to Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as amended (IRRIRA), 8 U.S.C. § 1103 note. In Section 102(b) of IRRIRA, Congress called for the installation of fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors on not less than 700 miles of the southwestern border. This total includes certain priority miles of fencing that are to be completed by December of 2008. Section 102(b) further specifies that these priority miles are to be constructed in areas where it would be practical and effective in deterring smugglers and aliens attempting to gain illegal entry into the United States. The USBP El Centro Sector . . .” We [should] mention that we sent out the draft EA and held public meetings and took those comments and now are using them in this ESP. Reviewer e²M’s Response TRPC, waiver added to Appendix A, subsequent appendices renumbered. TRPC TRPC RD

9

JD

10

ES-1

33 Check all documents for this point

CS

11

ES-2

12-17

12

ES-2 and 1-3

TRPC SME TRPC

13

ES-2

2

CS

TRPC DG

14

ES-2

19

FME004271

Comment Response Matrix Interim Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Border Patrol El Centro Sector, CA # Page Location Line Section Comment Recommend adding more re: ESP outreach to the public. Something along the lines of: “Further, the public will have an opportunity to provide comments concerning this ESP . . .” Reviewer e²M’s Response For PF225 ESPs, while the public could provide comments they will not specifically be requested. TRPC

15

ES-2

25

CS

16

ES-2

33-34

17

ES-2

35

18

ES-4 Table ES-1 Table ES-1 1.1

19

ES-3

Recommend change as follows: “ . . .that are not currently fenced. Locations are based on the USBP El Centro Sector’s assessment of operational needs as to where such infrastructure . . .” Recommend change as follows: “Congress appropriated funds for this project in CBP’s fiscal year (FY) 2007 and 2008 Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Appropriations. (P.L. 109-295; P.L. 110-161)” Threatened and Endangered Species: Spell out Flat Tailed-Horned Lizard I like this table. But not sure what “consideration of fence design and color” here means in the first item. I don’t think we made changes to the design and color for this impact. We are not adjusting the color of the fence Revise table title to include BMPs and mitigation I suggest remaining consistent across the board on the ESPs and prefer the wording found within the E2A ESP, which is the language that is being used on the borderfenceplanning.com website for Section 1.1. I like the outline you are proposing in this section, but suggest perhaps adding a section to Section 1 that discusses the outline of the ESP separate from Section 1.1. Insert paragraph on resources evaluated but dismissed at the end of the discussion on ESPs (in Chapter 1). Same as #12 Insert ‘where practicable’ after streambeds Same as #10

CS TRPC CS Not applicable for San Diego. Text changed to “None required.”

CS

DG

20

ES-3

SME

TRPC

21

1-1

JD

22 23 24 25 1-1 1-1 1-2 3-12 33 27-30

1

SME CS RD CS

TRPC TRPC TRPC Text added to Section 1.1

FME004272

Comment Response Matrix Interim Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Border Patrol El Centro Sector, CA # 26 27 28 29 30 Page 1-2 1-2 1-3 1-3 1-3 21-24 1.4 31 1-3 Table 1-1 32 1-4 1-4 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 2-9 1-3 8-10 9 18 Move lines 13-17 to Section 1.2. I suggest deleting the Land Ownership column, as this seems something more pertinent to Section 4. Also, row line thickness between B5A and B5B should be decreased. As not all of these apply to VF, I would suggest deleting this and simply sticking with lines 4-8, which mentions the Design Appendix. Is it normal to list the expected cost here? Not sure we should say what the construction cost estimate is? May want to verify with Cory Wilder, but I believe that 30' will be the max given to contractor for access roads in El Centro Sector. I suggest deleting this paragraph. Discussion of USBP operational requirements unnecessary. There is also mention of "under this alternative" on line 30. Finally, the last part of this paragraph is restated, almost verbatim, in the next. JD Location Line Section 37 38,39 12 1.4 Border should be singular See comment #1 Change reducing to ‘stopping’ Either delete lines 18-24 or move to Section 1.3. See comment #1 – third repetition of this concept also seems a bit repetitive – actually lines 18-31 seem repetitive Comment Reviewer RD RD RD JD RD e²M’s Response Not applicable for San Diego. TRPC TRPC Similar text in Section 1.3 so deleted here. Similar text in Section 1.3 so deleted here. Similar text in Section 1.3 and revised per comment #29 above so deleted here.

JD “Primary pedestrian” fence added to clarify. Cost information has been removed. Cost information has been removed. Email sent to Cory; being researched. “Under this alternative” deleted. Global search on “alternative” conducted and all instances deleted. Text on debris removal also deleted.

33 34 35 36

JD RD DG JD

37

1-5

28-35

JD

FME004273

Comment Response Matrix Interim Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Border Patrol El Centro Sector, CA # Page 1-5 Location Line Section 30-34 Comment Delete from “Overall …. A contractor performed activity and” Then insert ‘Fence maintenance” prior to ‘will include….” 1-6, lines 2,3 and 7,8 then become repetitive Delete "by a contractor." This will most likely not be true for the life of the project. Reword. Sounds like only future projects are discussed in Chapter 11. Delete. This is Rio Grande language. Seems a bit far west for references to the Rio Grande. Delete. This is a repeat of lines 10-11. Delete, discusses alternatives analysis. Again – NO FOUO MATERIAL WILL BE USED – Check all documents. This is a VERY important point, and it is not the first time I have said it. In general, language that refers to affected environment or impacts to resources should be in future sections. BMP-type discussion should be moved to Section 1.7 (i.e., last paragraph in section.) I suggest adding the maps as Figures for 1.4 and renumber Sections 1.6 and 1.7 accordingly. Should the comment response document be mentioned? I believe this will be discussed on 4/22. Typo - consultations Measures to be implemented (insert ‘for construction’) The (insert ‘construction’) measures Reviewer RD e²M’s Response TRPC

38

39

1-6

7-8

JD

40 41 42 43 44 45

1-6 1-6 1-6 1-6 1-6 1-7

9-12 13-19 15-19 20-21 29-31 Check all documents for this point 1.4

JD JD/CS RD JD JD RD

This activity is currently in the contractor’s SOW. However, phrase was deleted. TRPC TRPC Not applicable for San Diego. TRPC TRPC

TRPC JD JD JD RD RD RD TRPC TRPC Not applicable for San Diego. Not applicable for San Diego. Not applicable for San Diego.

46 47 48 49 50 51 1-9 1-9 1-11 1-13 38 Geo 1 Air 1 1.5 1.6

FME004274

Comment Response Matrix Interim Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Border Patrol El Centro Sector, CA # Page Location Line Section 1.6 52 1.6 53 I think paragraph two should be moved to Section 4. Mention public involvement in the Executive Summary, to include what was done for the EAs, meetings, outreach and coordination with other agencies, comments were received and considered in the preparation of ESPs. Also state that the response to comments will be developed in a separate document and that it will be available on www.BorderFencePlanning.com. I believe that all BMPs should be listed here. This will help coordinate RFPs and beyond. I suggest adding a Section 2.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences that outlines the following sections and discusses resources not addressed and why (see E2A ESP as example). Then, I suggest either making the resources subsections under this section, or keeping them as is, but outlined in Section 2.0. 2+ Insert new sentence into the description of the resources subsection: Although the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP no longer has any specific legal obligations under these laws, the Secretary committed the Department to responsible environmental stewardship to conserve valuable natural and cultural resources. Accordingly, CBP will not obtain permits or develop plans for regulatory approval but will apply the appropriate standards and guidelines from these laws and regulations to the project as a basis for evaluating potential environmental impacts and developing appropriate mitigations. Use minor, major impacts, adverse and beneficial, etc. JD Comment Reviewer e²M’s Response Paragraph reorganized to keep agency coordination information together. TRPC

SME

54

1.7 General

JD

TRPC Text on resources not evaluated in detail was added to Section 1.1. As discussed on the conference call other reorganizations were not made to ensure ESP could be completed on schedule. Text inserted into Section 2, Air Quality. Should text be inserted into each resource section?  No, per (b) (6) .’s email

55

JD

56

SME

2+ 57 SME

Text was searched and the term “significance” was removed.

FME004275

Comment Response Matrix Interim Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Border Patrol El Centro Sector, CA # 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 5-3 24 Page 2-3 2-7 2-7 2-8 2-8 3-4 Location Line Section 17 29 32-34 1 12,13 30-32 4 Land Use 2.1 Comment State which “landmark environmental law.” To the best of my knowledge, all dragging and (from truck) sign cutting is performed on established roads, so unless someone has more current understanding, this should be revised. Awkward wording Won’t there be a need to lift dune fence segments for clearing sand? It looks to me as though this may be a factor at the east end, but not sure. The entire area is already patrolled. The exact location of the patrols could change due to new road. As the sector is already patrolled, explanation is needed to explain how this is a new effect. Patrols already take place. From the maps it looks like there will be some construction the Jacumba Wilderness. This section should probably address impacts to Wilderness, e.g., land use restrictions and aesthetics. Change will to ‘could’ Reviewer DJL RD e²M’s Response Not applicable for San Diego. Not applicable for San Diego. Not applicable for San Diego. Not applicable for San Diego. TRPC TRPC Not applicable for San Diego. Not applicable for San Diego.

RD RD

RD RD

CS RD

FME004276

Comment Response Matrix Interim Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Border Patrol El Centro Sector, CA # Page Location Line Section Comment Does the State of California have requirements for formal erosion and sediment control (ESC) plans? If there are such requirements, they should be discussed, and commitment made to adhere to them. Reviewer e²M’s Response Such commitments are not being made in ESPs. No change to text. We will have the construction contractor due SWPPP and in that I believe the erosion control and sediment control are addressed. We just need to explain what is included in this plan and other plans required under the RFP. The RFP is very comprehensive in placing environmental responsibilities on the construction contractor that is required to develop many plans and an overarching environmental protection plan (EPP) for the project. This plan must be submitted to the PM for approval before construction.

66

5-5

1-23

5.3

DJL

FME004277

Comment Response Matrix Interim Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Border Patrol El Centro Sector, CA # Page Location Line Section Comment I don’t see how patrol on the newly made road could result in additional soil disturbance. Also, I object to the use of the term scheduled in relation to patrols. We do not indicate scheduling of patrols, whether or not we ever do such a thing. Please remove any references to scheduled patrols from the document. We do patrol, but do not post a schedule of patrols. 19-21 appear to refer to already occurring patrol activities. I don’t understand the inclusion here. Is this a reference to potential activity around the ends of fence segments? Clarification is needed. 6.2.3 6-14 6-14 6-15 6-16 7-4 7-4 7-5 21 34 27 38 29,30 31 24-36 7.2.2 Refer to comment #47 above. Extraneous print Sounds like fence location is not already determined. This is probably no longer the case. Delete ‘to compensate for unavoidable impacts’ - repetative Insert ‘occurring’ after ‘typically’ Insert ‘illegal’ prior to ‘human foot’ then delete the words ‘traffic’ and ‘some’ replace ‘travel’ with ‘traffic’ Delete ‘as’ No mention of Flat Tailed Horned Lizard Reviewer RD e²M’s Response TRPC

67

5-6

18-21

68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

DJL RD RD RD RD RD RD PW

76

7-6

7.2.3

Is CBP addressing the effects of habitat fragmentation for mobile terrestrial animals in this ESP? Delete "from each alternative."

DJL

77

7-7

7

JD

Such commitments are not being made in ESPs. No change to text. Not applicable for San Diego. Not applicable for San Diego. TRPC Not applicable for San Diego. Not applicable for San Diego. Not applicable for San Diego. Not applicable for San Diego. Potential impacts from habitat fragmentation were considered in the ESP and BRP. Not applicable for San Diego.

FME004278

Comment Response Matrix Interim Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Border Patrol El Centro Sector, CA # Page Location Line Section 7-3 7-12 7-12 15 23 Comment I know that the ESP talks generally about coordination with resource agencies, but if this section would detail at least a few of CBP’s efforts to consult with USFWS it would be helpful Check for typos What is the lead agency? Isn’t it CBP? Need to revise this to say “CBP will develop a project-specific habitat restoration plan in coordination with resource agencies”. Do we need to revise this sentence under the waiver? “The FTHL Interagency Coordinating Committee will make the determination of FTHL population viability based on the size, configuration,…….” Should we say that we will closely coordinate with the committee but we can not wait committee determination or approval Doesn’t mention Flat Tailed Horned Lizard Reviewer e²M’s Response

78 79 80

CS RD A spell check was done on the entire document. Not applicable for San Diego. Not applicable for San Diego. DG

DG

81

7-13

8

82

7-5

24-36

83

7-6

3-13

84

7-12

4

Affected Environme nt Affected Environme nt Direct & Indirect Effects

CW Doesn’t mention Flat Tailed Horned Lizard CW halt CONSTRUCTION activities (construction should be inserted) The general term halt activities is perhaps too broad and we do not want it to impact operational activity. A minor point.

Not applicable for San Diego. Not applicable for San Diego. TRPC

CW Letters were sent to the SHPO, tribes, and land management agencies but no comments were received from SHPO or tribes. Section 8.2 states that a cultural resources report was provided to the California SHPO. TRPC

85

8

To the extent that CBP got input from SHPO and Tribes and they concurred in the no effects determination, it is certainly worth mentioning

CS

86

11

Change title of the cumulative effects section/chapter to: “Related Projects and Potential Effects”

SME

FME004279

Comment Response Matrix Interim Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Border Patrol El Centro Sector, CA # Page Location Line Section 11 87 88 89 90 11-2 11-3 11-9 38 5 31-37 Comment Delete CEQ references to cumulative effects. Keep analysis. For VF300 might be included in each resource section instead of a separate section. Correct timeframe Delete up to Clarification needed re owner of impacts. References to the AACRP, taken as written, could potentially be interpreted as hostile to the project. It is important to give a bit of history, such as to explain that the wetlands discussed are manmade and that the project is to save water that is currently being leaked into the desert where it was never found prior to the original ditch project. It is only right to adequately explain the project if we are going to go into such depth explaining its potential impact to wetlands, aquifer, etc. Include recreational ORV use of area. Insert the word “are” between “there” and “no”. (there are no) Replace ‘reduce the…..terrorist weapons into’ with ‘control the border of’ Insert ‘violent and’ prior to ‘drug related’ This section has been replaced (in other docs) with better language. The language here seems to legitimize the hiring of illegal aliens, and the USBP does not support any such legitimization. Please find (possibly in an old RGV doc) and replace. I do not understand this sentence. The wetlands affected by our project is clearly delineated. If this is another reference to cumulative impacts including other projects, that should be clearly explained. The cumulative impacts section seems to mix project and cumulative impact discussion without sufficient explanation as to which is under discussion. That easily leads to confusion. Remove list of preparers Reviewer e²M’s Response TRPC SME RD RD RD RD

91

11-10

General comment

92 93 94 95

11-10 11-11 11-12 11-12

22-27 24 1,2 3 11.5

RD PW RD RD RD Not applicable for San Diego. Not applicable for San Diego. Not applicable for San Diego. Not applicable for San Diego.

96

11-12

8-13

RD

97

11-13

7-9

Not applicable for San Diego.

98 99

Cumulative Impacts Other

RD

????

SME

TRPC

FME004280

Comment Response Matrix Interim Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) for the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical Infrastructure U.S. Border Patrol El Centro Sector, CA # 100 101 
(b) (6)

Page

Location Line Section Other

Comment

Reviewer SME JD

e²M’s Response TRPC TRPC

Remove irretrievable commitment of resources and other impact sections such as “short-term v. long-term productivity. Appendices Add Waiver as an appendix?

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

p

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful