FME002596

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 POC, change(b) (6) to Loren Flossman, SBI program TRPC.
3 SME
Sheet office
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
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.
FME002597
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
Insert text on waivers: Superseded by similar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
(b) below. (6)
(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.
(b) (5) TRPC

7 ES-1 5-11 CS

intro/backg Remove mission language and incorporate website language into TRPC
8 ES-1 SME
round ES and Chapter 1 introduction
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.
FME002598
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 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.”
(b) (5) TRPC

13 ES-2 2 CS

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.
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
opportunity to provide comments concerning this ESP . . .” comments they will not
15 ES-2 25 CS
specifically be
requested. No change to
ESP text.
FME002599
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 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 TRPC
18 ES-4 CS
Lizard
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 Text from web site has
prefer the wording found within the E2A ESP, which is the been used to update the
language that is being used on the borderfenceplanning.com ESP.
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
FME002600
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
Insert ‘where practicable’ after streambeds Test revised to say
“…Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to
protect natural and
cultural resources.
Potential effects,
including physical
24 1-1 33 RD disturbance and
construction of solid
barriers on wetlands,
riparian areas,
streambeds, and
floodplains, will be
avoided or mitigated
whenever possible.”
Text added to Section
25 1-2 27-30 Same as #10 CS
1.1
26 1-2 37 Border should be singular RD TRPC
27 1-2 38,39 See comment #11 RD TRPC
Change reducing to ‘stopping’ RD Text revised per
28 1-3 12
comment #11.
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 #11 – third repetition of this concept also seems a bit RD Section 1.4 has been
30 1-3 21-24
repetitive – actually lines 18-31 seem repetitive revised.
1.4 Similar text in Section
1.3 and revised per
31 1-3 Move lines 13-17 to Section 1.2. JD
comment #13 above so
deleted here.
Table 1-1 Per 4/25/08 email from
I suggest deleting the Land Ownership column, as this seems
Dave Guzewich, land
32 1-4 something more pertinent to Section 4. Also, row line thickness JD
ownership column will
between B5A and B5B should be decreased.
remain.
FME002601
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

1-4 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 estimate per mile
34 1-5 8-10
has been removed.
Not sure we should say what the construction cost estimate is? Cost estimate per mile
35 1-5 9 DG
has been removed.
Per confirmation with
May want to verify with (b) (6) , but I believe that 30' will be
36 1-5 18 JD Baker, text changed to
the max given to contractor for access roads in El Centro Sector.
“maximum of 30 feet.”
“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.
Delete from “Overall …. A contractor performed activity and” RD Section 1.4 has been
38 1-5 30-34 Then insert ‘Fence maintenance” prior to ‘will include….” 1-6, revised.
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 Reference to Rio Grande
42 1-6 15-19
has been removed.
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
FME002602
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
Again – NO FOUO MATERIAL WILL BE USED – Check all RD The FOUO designation
Check all documents. This is a VERY important point, and it is not the first was added to figures per
documents time I have said it. SBI direction. No
45 1-7
for this FOUO information will
point be included on figures
released to the public.
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.
49 1-9 38 Typo - consultations RD TRPC
50 1-11 Geo 1 Measures to be implemented (insert ‘for construction’) RD TRPC
51 1-13 Air 1 The (insert ‘construction’) measures RD TRPC
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.
FME002603
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
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?
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.
2+ Text was searched and
57 Use minor, major impacts, adverse and beneficial, etc. SME the term “significance”
was removed.
Text changed to the
58 2-3 17 2.1 State which “landmark environmental law.” DJL
CAA.
To the best of my knowledge, all dragging and (from truck) sign RD Reference to dragging
59 2-7 29 cutting is performed on established roads, so unless someone has and sign cutting has been
more current understanding, this should be revised. removed.
60 2-7 32-34 Awkward wording RD Sentence reworded.
Won’t there be a need to lift dune fence segments for clearing RD Information on PV4
61 2-8 1 sand? It looks to me as though this may be a factor at the east end, maintenance and
but not sure. clearing has been added.
FME002604
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
The entire area is already patrolled. The exact location of the RD Text revised to state that
patrols could change due to new road. fence sections B-1, B-2,
62 2-8 12,13
B-4, B5-A, and B5-B
currently are patrolled.
As the sector is already patrolled, explanation is needed to explain RD Text revised to state that
63 3-4 30-32 how this is a new effect. Patrols already take place. impacts would be from
existing patrols.
4 Section B-1 does not
Land Use From the maps it looks like there will be some construction the intersect with the
64 Jacumba Wilderness. This section should probably address impacts CS Jacumba Wilderness. It
to Wilderness, e.g., land use restrictions and aesthetics. is approximately .3 miles
away.
65 5-3 24 Change will to ‘could’ RD TRPC
FME002605
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
Such commitments are
not being made in ESPs.
No change to text.

(b) (6) 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
Does the State of California have requirements for formal erosion plan and other plans
66 5-5 1-23 5.3 and sediment control (ESC) plans? If there are such requirements, DJL required under the RFP.
they should be discussed, and commitment made to adhere to them. 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.
FME002606
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
additional soil disturbance. Also, I object to the use of the term
scheduled in relation to patrols. We do not indicate scheduling of Text referring to
patrols, whether or not we ever do such a thing. Please remove any “scheduled patrols” has
67 5-6 18-21 references to scheduled patrols from the document. We do patrol, been deleted. Text
but do not post a schedule of patrols. 19-21 appear to refer to clarified to correct text
already occurring patrol activities. I don’t understand the inclusion related to soil impacts.
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 Cannot find what this
69 6-14 21
comment refers to.
Sounds like fence location is not already determined. This is RD Impacts for WL 9 have
70 6-14 34
probably no longer the case. been revised.
71 6-15 27 Delete ‘to compensate for unavoidable impacts’ - repetative RD TRPC
Insert ‘occurring’ after ‘typically’ RD Cannot find this use of
72 6-16 38
“occurring.”
Insert ‘illegal’ prior to ‘human foot’ then delete the words ‘traffic’ RD
73 7-4 29,30 TRPC
and ‘some’ replace ‘travel’ with ‘traffic’
74 7-4 31 Delete ‘as’ RD TRPC
75 7-5 24-36 7.2.2 No mention of Flat Tailed Horned Lizard PW FTHL has been added.
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? was considered in the
ESP and BRP.
77 7-7 7 Delete "from each alternative." JD TRPC
I know that the ESP talks generally about coordination with TRPC
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
79 7-12 15 Check for typos RD Text double checked
FME002607
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 lead agency? Isn’t it CBP? Need to revise this to say TRPC
80 7-12 23 “CBP will develop a project-specific habitat restoration plan in DG
coordination with resource agencies”.
Do we need to revise this sentence under the waiver? “The FTHL Text deleted.
Interagency Coordinating Committee will
81 7-13 8 make the determination of FTHL population viability based on the DG
size, 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 TRPC
82 7-5 24-36 Environme CW
nt
Affected Doesn’t mention Flat Tailed Horned Lizard This paragraph pertains
83 7-6 3-13 Environme CW to mammals and birds.
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.
8 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 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”
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.
FME002608
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
Correct timeframe RD Changed to “over the
88 11-2 38
next year,”
89 11-3 5 Delete up to RD TRPC
Clarification needed re owner of impacts. RD Impacts have been
correctly attributed to
90 11-9 31-37 the Project and
reasonably foreseeable
future projects.
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 Text revised concerning
91 11-10
comment leaked into the desert where it was never found prior to the original AACRP.
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 TRPC
93 11-11 24 11.5 Insert the word “are” between “there” and “no”. (there are no) PW TRPC
Replace ‘reduce the…..terrorist weapons into’ with ‘control the RD
94 11-12 1,2 TRPC
border of’
95 11-12 3 Insert ‘violent and’ prior to ‘drug related’ RD TRPC
This section has been replaced (in other docs) with better language. RD
Language is same as in
The language here seems to legitimize the hiring of illegal aliens,
96 11-12 8-13 the last submission of
and the USBP does not support any such legitimization. Please
the RGV EIS.
find (possibly in an old RGV doc) and replace.
I do not understand this sentence. The wetlands affected by our RD This section was deleted.
project is clearly delineated. If this is another reference to
97 11-13 7-9
cumulative impacts including other projects, that should be clearly
explained.
FME002609
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
The cumulative impacts section seems to mix project and RD Cumulative impacts
cumulative impact discussion without sufficient explanation as to have been revised to
Cumulative which is under discussion. That easily leads to confusion. differentiated between
98
Impacts the Project and
reasonable foreseeable
actions.
99 Other Remove list of preparers SME TRPC
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
)