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
Location
# Comment Reviewer e²M’s Response
Page Line Section
Edit out references to legal requirements. We can cite laws and Text revised per
regs as standards and guidelines for analysis. Insert new sentence comment (TRPC).
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
1 General SME
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" Decision to retain cover
section to something like "advisory agencies" because of waiver. sheet as it is used by
DHS communications
office.
Cooperating agencies
Cover
2 JD was changed to
Sheet
“coordinating agencies”
as they are agencies CBP
is coordinating with but
that does not convey any
legal obligation.
Cover TRPC. Changed to
Sheet Loren Flossman, Program
Manager, SBI Tactical
POC, change (b) (6) to Loren Flossman, SBI program Infrastructure, 1300
3 SME
office Pennsylvania Ave, NW,
Washington, DC 20229,
Tel: (b) (6) Fax:
(703) 752-7754.
Table of TRPC
Contents Should be "Land Use, Recreation and Aesthetics." Aren't
4 JD
and Section Aesthetics and Visual Resources the same thing?
4.0
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
Location
# Comment Reviewer e²M’s Response
Page Line Section
I suggest shortening this to approximately three pages with the Introduction changed to
following sections: 1) Background 2) Goals and Objectives of the Background. Other
5 Exec Sum Project 3) Environmental Impacts and 4) Mitigation and BMPs (see JD sections retained per
E2A ESP as example). other comments.
ES shortened to 4 pages.
Insert text on waivers: Superseded by similar
On April 1, 2008, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland comment from (b)
Security (DHS), pursuant to his authority under Section 102(c) of below. (6)
IIRIRA, exercised his authority to waive certain laws that were an
ES-1 impediment to the expeditious construction of tactical infrastructure
intro/backg
6 and 1- along the southwestern border. Although the Secretary’s waiver SME
round
1 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 TRPC
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
7 ES-1 5-11 included in the waiver, the Secretary committed DHS to continue to CS
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.
intro/backg Remove mission language and incorporate website language into TRPC
8 ES-1 SME
round ES and Chapter 1 introduction
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
Location
# Comment Reviewer e²M’s Response
Page Line Section
What is the official waiver date? 4/1, or the date the final waiver TRPC, waiver added to
was posted to the FR - 4/8? My recommendation is to go with the Appendix A, subsequent
9 ES-1 3 JD
4/8 waiver date and add the waiver that appeared in the FR as an appendices renumbered.
Appendix.
Recommend adding at the beginning of the sentence: “As it moves TRPC
10 ES-1 33 CS
forward with the project described herein, . . .”
This is not the most recent verbiage. It should read something like TRPC
Check all – The planned action will help to deter illegal entries within the
documents USBP El Centro Sector by improving enforcement efficiency, thus
11 ES-2 12-17 RD
for this preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons, illegal aliens, drugs, and
point other cross border violators and contraband from entering the
United States, while providing…
ES-2 Change Need for the Project to “Goals and Objectives of the TRPC
12 and Project.” Make sure the text reflects “goals and objectives” not SME
1-3 “need.”
recommend change as follows: “The Project is being carried out TRPC
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.
13 ES-2 2 CS
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 TRPC
14 ES-2 19 meetings and took those comments and now are using them in this DG
ESP.
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
Location
# Comment Reviewer e²M’s Response
Page Line Section
Recommend adding more re: ESP outreach to the public. For PF225 ESPs, while
Something along the lines of: “Further, the public will have an the public could provide
15 ES-2 25 opportunity to provide comments concerning this ESP . . .” CS comments they will not
specifically be
requested.
Recommend change as follows: “ . . .that are not currently fenced. TRPC
16 ES-2 33-34 Locations are based on the USBP El Centro Sector’s assessment of CS
operational needs as to where such infrastructure . . .”
Recommend change as follows: “Congress appropriated funds for TRPC
this project in CBP’s fiscal year (FY) 2007 and 2008 Border
17 ES-2 35 CS
Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Appropriations.
(P.L. 109-295; P.L. 110-161)”
Threatened and Endangered Species: Spell out Flat Tailed-Horned Not applicable for San
18 ES-4 CS
Lizard Diego.
I like this table. But not sure what “consideration of fence design Text changed to “None
Table and color” here means in the first item. I don’t think we made required.”
19 ES-3 DG
ES-1 changes to the design and color for this impact. We are not
adjusting the color of the fence
Table TRPC
20 ES-3 Revise table title to include BMPs and mitigation SME
ES-1
1.1 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
21 1-1 JD
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.
1 Insert paragraph on resources evaluated but dismissed at the end of TRPC
22 SME
the discussion on ESPs (in Chapter 1).
23 1-1 3-12 Same as #12 CS TRPC
24 1-1 33 Insert ‘where practicable’ after streambeds RD TRPC
Text added to Section
25 1-2 27-30 Same as #10 CS
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
Location
# Comment Reviewer e²M’s Response
Page Line Section
Border should be singular Not applicable for San
26 1-2 37 RD
Diego.
27 1-2 38,39 See comment #1 RD TRPC
28 1-3 12 Change reducing to ‘stopping’ RD TRPC
1.4 Similar text in Section
29 1-3 Either delete lines 18-24 or move to Section 1.3. JD
1.3 so deleted here.
See comment #1 – third repetition of this concept also seems a bit RD Similar text in Section
30 1-3 21-24
repetitive – actually lines 18-31 seem repetitive 1.3 so deleted here.
1.4 Similar text in Section
1.3 and revised per
31 1-3 Move lines 13-17 to Section 1.2. JD
comment #29 above so
deleted here.
Table 1-1 I suggest deleting the Land Ownership column, as this seems
32 1-4 something more pertinent to Section 4. Also, row line thickness JD
between B5A and B5B should be decreased.
1-4 2-9 As not all of these apply to VF, I would suggest deleting this and “Primary pedestrian”
33 simply sticking with lines 4-8, which mentions the Design JD fence added to clarify.
1-5 1-3 Appendix.
Is it normal to list the expected cost here? RD Cost information has
34 1-5 8-10
been removed.
Not sure we should say what the construction cost estimate is? Cost information has
35 1-5 9 DG
been removed.
May want to verify with Cory Wilder, but I believe that 30' will be Email sent to Cory;
36 1-5 18 JD
the max given to contractor for access roads in El Centro Sector. being researched.
“Under this alternative”
deleted. Global search
I suggest deleting this paragraph. Discussion of USBP operational on “alternative”
requirements unnecessary. There is also mention of "under this conducted and all
37 1-5 28-35 JD
alternative" on line 30. Finally, the last part of this paragraph is instances deleted.
restated, almost verbatim, in the next.
Text on debris removal
also deleted.
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
Location
# Comment Reviewer e²M’s Response
Page Line Section
Delete from “Overall …. A contractor performed activity and” RD TRPC
38 1-5 30-34 Then insert ‘Fence maintenance” prior to ‘will include….” 1-6,
lines 2,3 and 7,8 then become repetitive
This activity is currently
Delete "by a contractor." This will most likely not be true for the in the contractor’s SOW.
39 1-6 7-8 JD
life of the project. However, phrase was
deleted.
Reword. Sounds like only future projects are discussed in Chapter TRPC
40 1-6 9-12 JD
11.
41 1-6 13-19 Delete. This is Rio Grande language. JD/CS TRPC
Seems a bit far west for references to the Rio Grande. RD Not applicable for San
42 1-6 15-19
Diego.
43 1-6 20-21 Delete. This is a repeat of lines 10-11. JD TRPC
44 1-6 29-31 Delete, discusses alternatives analysis. JD TRPC
Check all Again – NO FOUO MATERIAL WILL BE USED – Check all RD
documents documents. This is a VERY important point, and it is not the first
45 1-7
for this time I have said it.
point
1.4 In general, language that refers to affected environment or impacts TRPC
46 to resources should be in future sections. BMP-type discussion JD
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 TRPC
47 1.5 JD
1.6 and 1.7 accordingly.
1.6 Should the comment response document be mentioned? I believe TRPC
48 1-9 JD
this will be discussed on 4/22.
Typo - consultations RD Not applicable for San
49 1-9 38
Diego.
Measures to be implemented (insert ‘for construction’) RD Not applicable for San
50 1-11 Geo 1
Diego.
The (insert ‘construction’) measures RD Not applicable for San
51 1-13 Air 1
Diego.
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
Location
# Comment Reviewer e²M’s Response
Page Line Section
1.6 Paragraph reorganized to
keep agency
52 I think paragraph two should be moved to Section 4. JD
coordination information
together.
1.6 Mention public involvement in the Executive Summary, to include TRPC
what was done for the EAs, meetings, outreach and coordination
with other agencies, comments were received and considered in the
53 SME
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.
1.7 I believe that all BMPs should be listed here. This will help TRPC
54 JD
coordinate RFPs and beyond.
General Text on resources not
evaluated in detail was
I suggest adding a Section 2.0 Affected Environment and
added to Section 1.1.
Environmental Consequences that outlines the following sections
As discussed on the
and discusses resources not addressed and why (see E2A ESP as
55 JD conference call other
example). Then, I suggest either making the resources subsections
reorganizations were not
under this section, or keeping them as is, but outlined in Section
made to ensure ESP
2.0.
could be completed on
schedule.
2+ Insert new sentence into the description of the resources subsection: Text inserted into
Although the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP no longer has any Section 2, Air Quality.
specific legal obligations under these laws, the Secretary committed Should text be inserted
the Department to responsible environmental stewardship to into each resource
56 conserve valuable natural and cultural resources. Accordingly, SME section?  No, per
CBP will not obtain permits or develop plans for regulatory (b) (6) .’s email
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.
2+ Text was searched and
57 Use minor, major impacts, adverse and beneficial, etc. SME 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
Location
# Comment Reviewer e²M’s Response
Page Line Section
Not applicable for San
58 2-3 17 2.1 State which “landmark environmental law.” DJL
Diego.
To the best of my knowledge, all dragging and (from truck) sign RD Not applicable for San
59 2-7 29 cutting is performed on established roads, so unless someone has Diego.
more current understanding, this should be revised.
Awkward wording RD Not applicable for San
60 2-7 32-34
Diego.
Won’t there be a need to lift dune fence segments for clearing RD Not applicable for San
61 2-8 1 sand? It looks to me as though this may be a factor at the east end, Diego.
but not sure.
The entire area is already patrolled. The exact location of the RD TRPC
62 2-8 12,13
patrols could change due to new road.
As the sector is already patrolled, explanation is needed to explain RD TRPC
63 3-4 30-32
how this is a new effect. Patrols already take place.
4 From the maps it looks like there will be some construction the Not applicable for San
64 Land Use Jacumba Wilderness. This section should probably address impacts CS Diego.
to Wilderness, e.g., land use restrictions and aesthetics.
Change will to ‘could’ RD Not applicable for San
65 5-3 24
Diego.
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
Location
# Comment Reviewer e²M’s Response
Page Line Section
Does the State of California have requirements for formal erosion Such commitments are
and sediment control (ESC) plans? If there are such requirements, not being made in ESPs.
they should be discussed, and commitment made to adhere to them. 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
66 5-5 1-23 5.3 DJL 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.
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
Location
# Comment Reviewer e²M’s Response
Page Line Section
I don’t see how patrol on the newly made road could result in RD TRPC
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
67 5-6 18-21 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.
Such commitments are
68 6.2.3 Refer to comment #47 above. DJL not being made in ESPs.
No change to text.
Extraneous print RD Not applicable for San
69 6-14 21
Diego.
Sounds like fence location is not already determined. This is RD Not applicable for San
70 6-14 34
probably no longer the case. Diego.
71 6-15 27 Delete ‘to compensate for unavoidable impacts’ - repetative RD TRPC
Insert ‘occurring’ after ‘typically’ RD Not applicable for San
72 6-16 38
Diego.
Insert ‘illegal’ prior to ‘human foot’ then delete the words ‘traffic’ RD Not applicable for San
73 7-4 29,30
and ‘some’ replace ‘travel’ with ‘traffic’ Diego.
Delete ‘as’ RD Not applicable for San
74 7-4 31
Diego.
No mention of Flat Tailed Horned Lizard Not applicable for San
75 7-5 24-36 7.2.2 PW
Diego.
Potential impacts from
Is CBP addressing the effects of habitat fragmentation for mobile habitat fragmentation
76 7-6 7.2.3 DJL
terrestrial animals in this ESP? were considered in the
ESP and BRP.
Not applicable for San
77 7-7 7 Delete "from each alternative." JD
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
Location
# Comment Reviewer e²M’s Response
Page Line Section
I know that the ESP talks generally about coordination with
78 7-3 resource agencies, but if this section would detail at least a few of CS
CBP’s efforts to consult with USFWS it would be helpful
Check for typos RD A spell check was done
79 7-12 15
on the entire document.
What is the lead agency? Isn’t it CBP? Need to revise this to say Not applicable for San
80 7-12 23 “CBP will develop a project-specific habitat restoration plan in DG Diego.
coordination with resource agencies”.
Do we need to revise this sentence under the waiver? “The FTHL Not applicable for San
Interagency Coordinating Committee will make the determination Diego.
of FTHL population viability based on the size,
81 7-13 8 DG
configuration,…….” Should we say that we will closely coordinate
with the committee but we can not wait committee determination or
approval
Affected Doesn’t mention Flat Tailed Horned Lizard Not applicable for San
82 7-5 24-36 Environme CW Diego.
nt
Affected Doesn’t mention Flat Tailed Horned Lizard Not applicable for San
83 7-6 3-13 Environme CW Diego.
nt
Direct & halt CONSTRUCTION activities (construction should be inserted) TRPC
84 7-12 4 Indirect The general term halt activities is perhaps too broad and we do not CW
Effects want it to impact operational activity. A minor point.
Letters were sent to the
SHPO, tribes, and land
management agencies
To the extent that CBP got input from SHPO and Tribes and they but no comments were
85 8 concurred in the no effects determination, it is certainly worth CS received from SHPO or
mentioning tribes. Section 8.2 states
that a cultural resources
report was provided to
the California SHPO.
11 Change title of the cumulative effects section/chapter to: TRPC
86 SME
“Related Projects and Potential Effects”
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
Location
# Comment Reviewer e²M’s Response
Page Line Section
11 Delete CEQ references to cumulative effects. Keep analysis. For TRPC
87 VF300 might be included in each resource section instead of a SME
separate section.
88 11-2 38 Correct timeframe RD
89 11-3 5 Delete up to RD
90 11-9 31-37 Clarification needed re owner of impacts. RD
References to the AACRP, taken as written, could potentially be RD
interpreted as hostile to the project. It is important to give a bit of
history, such as to explain that the wetlands discussed are man-
General made and that the project is to save water that is currently being
91 11-10
comment 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.
92 11-10 22-27 Include recreational ORV use of area. RD
Insert the word “are” between “there” and “no”. (there are no) Not applicable for San
93 11-11 24 11.5 PW
Diego.
Replace ‘reduce the…..terrorist weapons into’ with ‘control the RD Not applicable for San
94 11-12 1,2
border of’ Diego.
Insert ‘violent and’ prior to ‘drug related’ RD Not applicable for San
95 11-12 3
Diego.
This section has been replaced (in other docs) with better language. RD Not applicable for San
The language here seems to legitimize the hiring of illegal aliens, Diego.
96 11-12 8-13
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 RD Not applicable for San
project is clearly delineated. If this is another reference to Diego.
97 11-13 7-9
cumulative impacts including other projects, that should be clearly
explained.
The cumulative impacts section seems to mix project and RD ????
Cumulative
98 cumulative impact discussion without sufficient explanation as to
Impacts
which is under discussion. That easily leads to confusion.
99 Other Remove list of preparers 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
Location
# Comment Reviewer e²M’s Response
Page Line Section
Other Remove irretrievable commitment of resources and other impact TRPC
100 SME
sections such as “short-term v. long-term productivity.
101 Appendices Add Waiver as an appendix? JD TRPC
Reviewer: Please provide your name, title, phone number, and date of comments
 (b) (6)