CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 12/22/10 - FME000461-FME000564 - OCT 2008 San Diego Response To Comments (Final)

FME000461
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE
OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
U.S. BORDER PATROL SAN DIEGO SECTOR,
CALIFORNIA
U.S. Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Border Patrol
OCTOBER 2008
FME000462
FME000463
San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE
OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
U.S. BORDER PATROL SAN DIEGO SECTOR, CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ............................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Draft EA Public Involvement Process......................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Methodology for Analyzing Comments....................................................................... 1-2
FIGURE
1-1. Notice of Availability and Public Open House Announcement ............................................. 1-3
TABLE
1-1. Public Review Comments Response Matrix ........................................................................ 1-4
Response to Public Comments October 2008

i
FME000464
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ii
FME000465
1. Response to Public Comments

1.1 Introduction
On April 1, 2008, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
pursuant to his authority under Section 102(c) of Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, as amended, exercised his authority to
waive certain environmental and other laws in order to ensure the expeditious
construction of tactical infrastructure along the U.S./Mexico international border.
Although the Secretary’s waiver means that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
no longer has any specific legal obligations under the laws that are included in the
waiver, the Secretary committed DHS to continue responsible environmental
stewardship of valuable natural and cultural resources. CBP strongly supports the
Secretary’s commitment to responsible environmental stewardship.
CBP is continuing to work in a collaborative manner with local government, state and
federal land managers, and the interested public to identify environmentally sensitive
resources and develop appropriate best management practices (BMPs) to avoid or
minimize adverse impacts resulting from the construction of tactical infrastructure.
CBP prepared an Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP) that analyzes the potential
environmental impacts associated with construction of tactical infrastructure in the U.S.
Border Patrol (USBP) San Diego Sector. The infrastructure will consist of approximately
4.4 miles of primary pedestrian fence, and access and patrol roads. The ESP also
describes measures CBP has identified—in consultation with federal, state and local
agencies—to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to the environment. The
ESP will guide CBP’s efforts going forward. The tactical infrastructure described in the
ESP for the USBP San Diego Sector is covered by the Secretary’s April 1, 2008 waiver.
This document has been prepared to provide responses to public comments received on
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Table 1-1 lists the commenters on the
Draft EIS and presents the comments and responses, which have been incorporated
into the ESP, as applicable.
1.2 Draft EIS Public Involvement Process

On January 4th, 10th, and 14th, 2008, CBP published a Notice of Availability (NOA) and
Public Open House announcements in the San Diego Union Tribune, San Diego Daily
Transcript, La Prensa, Hispanos Unidos, and El Latino announcing the availability for
public review and comment of a Draft EIS for Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
of Tactical Infrastructure, U.S. Border Patrol San Diego Sector, California. The public
open house was held at the San Diego Convention Center on 17 January 2008 from
4:30 to 8:00 p.m. Additionally, the release of the Draft EIS initiated a formal 30-day
public comment period that ended 11 February 2008.
CBP hosted a public open house in San Diego, California, to provide an overview of the
Draft EIS and accept public comment. The open house was attended by approximately
30 people. Newspaper notices, the www.BorderFenceNEPA.com Web site, and the
public open house were used to request public input and to disseminate information
about draft alternatives and their effects (see Figure 1-1).

1-1
FME000466
CBP received 19 submissions by fax, by email, through the project specific Web site,
and by regular mail from the public, federal and state agencies, and three
nongovernmental organizations (i.e., the Audubon Society, California Native Plant
Society, and the Sierra Club). Three comments were received at the public open house.
Two of these comments were written, and one was submitted orally. A list of
commenters on the Draft EIS is provided in Section 1-3.
From the submissions received on the Draft EIS, approximately 359 individual
comments were identified and CBP responses are included in Table 1-1.
1.3 Methodology for Analyzing Comments

CBP went through a structured process of analyzing each comment on the Draft EIS and
developing appropriate responses. Comments covered a wide spectrum of specific and
non-specific issues, opinions, ideas, and concerns. Respondents invested considerable
time and effort to submit comments on the Draft EIS. Agency and public comments on
the Draft EIS were considered and incorporated into the analysis of potential
environmental impacts in the ESP, as applicable. Due to the issuance of the Secretary’s
waiver, some comments related to elements of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process are not applicable to the ESP analysis and have not been directly
addressed in the ESP.
Comments and responses are presented in the following order:
Federal Agency Correspondence

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 9
• U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC)
• Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
State and Local Agency Correspondence
• California Department of Fish and Game
• San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
• County of San Diego
Stakeholder Organizations
• San Diego Audubon Society
• California Native Plant Society
• Southwest Wetlands Interpretive Association
• The Nature Conservancy
• Defenders of Wildlife
Private Individuals with Substantive Comments
• (b) (6)
• (b) (6)
• (b) (6)
• (b) (6)
• (b) (6)
• (b) (6)
• (b) (6)

1-2
FME000467
Figure 1-1. Copy of Notice of Availability

and Public Open House Announcement

1-3
FME000468
Table 1-1. Summary of Public Comments Response Matrix

Response to Public Comments
# Reviewer Comment Response

(b) (6) EPA has objections to the filling of two well developed riparian corridors During the engineer's design-build process for
Manager in Copper and Buttewig canyons (p. 4-20). The riparian corridors in these the fence and associated infrastructure, viable
USEPA Region canyons are up to 60 feet wide and contain intermittent streams. The alternatives will be considered that may
IX presence of boulders up to 2 meters in diameter and rocks strewn across include rerouting of the fence and roads to
2-25-2008 canyon bottoms are evidence that there is heavy flow in these canyons avoid issues such as these. However, the
during precipitation events (p. 3-21). Secretary’s waiver means that CBP no long
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, dredged or fill material should has an obligation to seek permits, CBP has
not be discharged into the aquatic ecosystem unless it can be used the threshold and guidelines in the ESP
demonstrated that such a discharge will not have an unacceptable analysis and will implement appropriate BMPs
adverse impact either individually or in combination with known and/or to avoid or minimize impacts whenever
probable impacts of other activities affecting the ecosystem (40 CFR Pmt possible.
230). Based on the information in the DEIS, it appears that the fill of these
canyons, along with the project's high potential for significantly increasing
erosion in the watershed from the combination of road widening, new
vehicle trail construction, fence installation on steep slopes, and fence
1-4
1 installation across intermittent streams, would be expected to have

unacceptable adverse impacts under Section 404. This is especially true
considering the cumulative impacts from the other border fence projects
that are proposed in the Tijuana River Watershed.
Recommendation: EPA recommends that the U.S. Customs and Border

Protection (CBP) develop alternatives that avoid fill in these canyons. The
use of clear-span bridges to cross drainages should occur wherever
practicable with piers or abutments placed above ordinary high water
when clear-span is infeasible. The use of bottomless culverts or
oversized box culverts buried below stream grade to encourage natural
channel substrate for terrestrial and aquatic life and a more natural
sediment transport regime would also minimize impacts. The CBP should
minimize the use of hardscape bank materials such as riprap, and
incorporate more environmentally-friendly bank-stabilization materials,
October 2008
such as native riparian vegetation, into project design. CBP should avoid
locating in-stream sediment, flood debris and water quality detention
basins within waters of the United States.
FME000469

(b) (6) However, EPA recommends coordinating the NEPA and CWA Section While the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP
Manager 404 permitting processes to streamline the environmental review required has no obligation to seek permits, CBP has
2 USEPA Region for the project and ensure that the thresholds of the CWA Section used the threshold and guidelines in the ESP
IX 404(b)(1) Guidelines are satisfied through the environmental review analysis and will implement appropriate BMPs
2-25-2008 process, instead of being deferred to future CWA permitting. to avoid or minimize impacts whenever
possible.
(b) (6) Additionally, the DEIS does not identify the type of primary pedestrian See Appendix B of the ESP for fence designs
Manager fence design that will be used, which will largely influence impacts. The and types. Also, Appendix E, Biological
USEPA Region DEIS only states that the fence design must be engineered not to impede Resource Plan, contains specific mitigations
IX the natural flow of water and also must extend below ground (p. 2-16). and BMPs based on the actual fence design
3 2-25-2008 planned.
Depth below ground of fencing is not publicly
available information because such
information is considered law enforcement
sensitive.
(b) (6) Alternatives that first avoid and minimize and then compensate for Although the Secretary’s waiver means that
1-5
Manager impacts to waters of the U.S. should be evaluated. The FEIS should CBP no longer has any specific legal
USEPA Region include the necessary information and analysis to demonstrate obligations for alternative analysis under
IX compliance with Section 404 of the CWA. Include the wetland delineation NEPA, the Secretary committed DHS to
2-25-2008 in the Final EIS (FEIS) and identify the fence design that will be used. continue responsible environmental
4 Analyze an additional alternative in the FEIS that does not fill Copper and stewardship of our valuable natural and

Buttewig canyons. cultural resources. CBP has worked with
The FEIS should fully describe expected impacts to surface waters as a resource agencies to consider alternative
result of in filling and culverting intermittent streams and altering sediment designs and locations and has incorporated
transport, and identify avoidance, minimization, and mitigation that will design and route modifications into the
reduce impacts. Update the statement. regarding no net loss of wetlands current project that would minimize
based on the jurisdictional delineation. environment impacts.
October 2008
FME000470

(b) (6) The resulting erosion and increased sediment transport can reduce water See response to Comment No. 1
Manager quality, and the DEIS identifies total suspended solids (TSS)/turbidity as
USEPA Region an existing highly-occurring constituent of concern in the Tijuana River
IX watershed, likely caused by grading/construction and slope erosion (p. 3-
2-25-2008 22). These sediment effects may continue or even accelerate for many
years after the project has been completed. As such, EPA disagrees with
the conclusions of the DEIS that these impacts to waters of the US. are
5
minor (p. 4-12).
Recommendation: EPA recommends the FEIS include discussions of the
potential changes to hydrology and sediment transport capacity of the
intermittent streams that feed the Tijuana River that are likely to occur
from the proposed project, the potential changes to water velocity as a
result of any direct and indirect channel modifications, and bank instability
that could result from increased bank erosion due to fence-related
channel modifications.
(b) (6) The DEIS states that fence crossings would need to be inspected CBP recognizes the importance of intermittent
Manager following run-off events to remove debris and maintain the integrity of the stream crossings and as a result crossings
1-6
USEPA Region fence (p. 4-13). The importance of fence inspections and maintenance in were redesigned to include bridges that will
IX the riparian corridors to remove boulders, debris and sediment cannot be have lower impacts on streams.
2-25-2008 overstated, yet the DEIS states that maintenance activities associated CBP is establishing and funding contracts to
with the proposed action would be comparable to current maintenance perform fence maintenance to include
within the San Diego Sector (p. 4-5), which does not recognize this

removing any accumulated debris after a rain
substantial maintenance task increase. It states that maintenance would event, sand that builds up against the fence,
initially be performed by USBP but would eventually become a contractor and brush. Brush removal could include
6 performed activity (p. 2-18), but there is no indication that adequate mowing, removal of small trees, and
funding is being proposed for the significant workload and budget application of herbicide, if needed. The fence
required for sufficient maintenance of fence crossing intermittent stream. is designed to allow for the passage of water.
Recommendation: EPA recommends that the proposed action be
redesigned to: (1) eliminate primary pedestrian fence in riparian areas
and use other techniques to secure these areas, or (2) at a minimum,
construct vehicle fence in riparian areas instead of primary pedestrian
October 2008
fence. For fencing outside riparian areas, we recommend a fence design

be utilized that offers the maximum flow-through potential for surface
runoff. Of the designs presented in Appendix A, a bollard-type fence over
a mesh design would appear to offer a greater flow-through potential.
FME000471

(b) (6) Due to the steep topography and potential for excessive erosion from soil During the engineer's design-build process of
Manager disturbance, EPA considers these watershed impacts to be potentially the fence and associated infrastructure,
USEPA Region significant. The FEIS should evaluate the impacts of changing the BMPs are being developed as a requirement
IX magnitude and frequency of sediment delivery on the intermittent of the SWPPP since more than 5 acres of soil
7
2-25-2008 streams, Tijuana River and Estuary. EPA recommends that every effort are being disturbed. Implementation of these
be made to minimize disturbance of soil and vegetation from the project, site-specific BMPs as well as any BMPs or
including avoiding fencing on the steepest portions or areas subject to mitigation developed will be implemented
severe erosion, avoiding vegetation removal, and revegetation and prior to (and potentially following) construction
restoration of disturbed areas. of the fence and associated infrastructure.
(b) (6) Efforts should be directed at developing a fully effective plan for BMPs are being developed as a requirement
Manager controlling pollutants in storm water discharges from this project. of the SWPPP since more than 5 acres of soil
USEPA Region Roadside drainage should be managed, and treated where possible, prior are being disturbed. Implementation of these
IX to reaching waterways. Mitigation and monitoring plans, vital to the site-specific BMPs, as well as any BMPs or
2-25-2008 assessment of impacts, should be included in the FEIS as appendices. At mitigation, will be implemented prior to (and
8 a minimum the FEIS should include more detail regarding erosion and potentially following) construction of the fence
sediment control proposed for this project, including detailed post- and associated infrastructure.
construction Best Management Practices that will be implemented. The
1-7
FEIS should discuss the effectiveness of these BMPs and the probability
of the mitigation measures being implemented. These plans should be
consulted when re-assessing the magnitude of expected impacts to soils
and surface hydrology.

October 2008
FME000472

(b) (6) EPA is concerned that the DEIS may not evaluate all reasonable See response to Comment No. 4.
Manager alternatives. The DEIS states that it considered but dismissed alternatives
USEPA Region that evaluate additional agents in lieu of tactical infrastructure and various
IX forms of technology in lieu of tactical infrastructure (pg. 2-3) and
2-25-2008 determined additional agents or technology alone would not meet the
purpose and need of achieving effective border control. The DEIS did not
evaluate the use of these alternative methods in conjunction with fencing
and tactical infrastructure, such as their use in certain environmentally
sensitive areas to avoid impacts. In fact, the DEIS quotes a
Congressional Research Service Report stating that a "rigid enforcement
system that could integrate infrastructure, manpower, and new
technologies to further control the border region" was needed (pg. 2-3);
yet such an integrated alternative was not included for analysis.
Additionally, the "Tactical Infrastructure following Natural Topography
Alternative" was dismissed from further evaluation because the fence
would be more than 1000 feet from the border. This alternative would
9 meet the purpose and need of increasing border security within the
1-8
Sector (p. 1-4) and preventing individuals from entering urban or

suburban areas where it is difficult to apprehend suspects (p. 2-1) and
appears to be a reasonable alternative.
Recommendation: EPA recommends an additional alternative be
evaluated in the Final EIS (FEIS) for this project that integrates

infrastructure, manpower, and a new technologies, consistent with the
Congressional Research Service Report. Specifically, we recommend
that a modified proposed action alternative that avoids use of pedestrian
fencing in riparian corridors be evaluated as a reasonable alternative.
This would be consistent with CBP's screening criteria for alternatives
which states that the selected alternative would be designed to avoid and
minimize impacts on surface waters and floodplain resources to the
maximum extent practicable (p. 2-1). The Tactical Infrastructure following
Natural Topography Alternative should also be fully evaluated in the
October 2008
FEIS. Additionally, alternatives that avoid fill in Copper and Buttewig

canyons should be evaluated to address alternative analysis
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as stated above.
FME000473

(b) (6) The DEIS states that the proposed project could have major beneficial The fencing is expected to provide protection
Manager impacts to the Quino checkerspot butterfly (4-23), the Arroyo toad and the for these species and their habitats in the
10 USEPA Region Coastal California Gnatcatcher (p. 4-24) but the basis for these areas north of the tactical infrastructure from
IX conclusions is not clear, especially since the impact analysis does not foot traffic impacts by cross-border violators.
2-25-2008 identify the criteria used to assess significance of impacts to specific
resources.
(b) (6) The proposed action will also locate a construction staging area within the Section 4.3 of the ESP has been updated to
Manager Marron Valley Preserve, owned by the San Diego Water Department and state that there will be minor adverse impacts
USEPA Region designated as "cornerstone lands" under the City's Multiple Species on the MSCP as a result of the Project.
IX Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan because it is considered an
2-25-2008 "essential building block for creating a viable preserve system" (p. 3-13).
While it is commendable that the CBP may possibly compensate the City
for removal or disturbance of the lands in this land conservation bank, the
11
DEIS does not discuss the impacts that this could have on the success of
the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) or the species it is
designed to protect.
Recommendation: EPA recommends that the FEIS identify impacts to the
1-9
City of San Diego's MSCP and its species from the proposed action,
update the impact analysis based on survey data, clarify the basis for
significance determinations for adverse and beneficial impacts, and
address biodiversity impacts.

(b) (6) The DEIS does not sufficiently assess impacts to special status species. The particular species listed here are all
Manager The DEIS notes that the timing of surveys affected the observance of vernal pool associated species. No vernal
USEPA Region special status, and the impact assessment relied largely on data available pools were observed in the project area
IX on the NatureServe database network and not field studies. The DEIS during surveys and while these species are
12 2-25-2008 states that no records for the San Diego fairy shrimp, San Diego button not observable at the time of the survey their
celery, Otay Mesa mint, spreading navarretia, or California orcutt grass habitat would be.
were known in or near the project corridor but if surveys reveal their
presence, they will be considered in detail. It is not clear where it will be
considered in detail, or how the impact assessment could be complete
without this information.
October 2008
FME000474

(b) (6) The DEIS notes that the San Diego County has a greater number of Only large non-flying animals are expected to
Manager threatened and endangered species than anywhere in the continental have their natural corridors impacted. These
USEPA Region U.S. (p. 3-29); that the ecosystem in the project area is amphibious are typically animals with large ranges and
IX alternating between very wet and very dry, which creates a unique high mobility. There is still connectivity both
2-25-2008 ecological situation that supports a variety or fauna (p. 3-39), and that the west and east of the Project.
project area for Segment A-1 is species rich, with 29 wildlife species Impacts related to Biological Resources are
recorded (p. 3-37). This combination of attributes warrants a greater addressed in Chapter 8, Appendix D, and
attention to the effects of the proposed action on biodiversity. The Appendix E of the ESP.
Council on Environmental Quality affirms that it is critical that federal
agencies understand and take into account general principles of
biodiversity conservation in their decision making, yet the DEIS does not
directly address biodiversity impacts in the project or cumulative impacts
analyses.
EPA recommends that additional attention be given to biodiversity
13
impacts. CEQ's Incorporating Biodiversity Considerations into
Environmental Impact Analysis under the National Environmental Policy
Act offers guidance on potential approaches. Appropriate mitigation
1-10
measures should be identified in response to potential impacts on

biodiversity and should be developed within an ecosystem framework.
CEQ notes that some general principles in biodiversity conservation are
to minimize fragmentation, protect rare species, protect unique sensitive
environments, and protect genetic diversity. Preserving natural corridors

and migration routes minimizes biodiversity impacts. CBP should ensure
that corridors are available for transboundary migration. Include the map
of all existing fence segments in the cumulative impacts section and
clearly identify where these migration corridors lay. EPA strongly
recommends the use of wildfire-friendly vehicle barriers in conjunction
with virtual fencing components such as laser barriers, motion sensors,
etc. at critical intervals to ensure transboundary wildlife migration.
October 2008
FME000475

(b) (6) The DEIS does not include a sufficient cumulative impacts assessment. CBP has considered the past, present, and
Manager The DEIS states that projects that do not occur in close proximity (within reasonably foreseeable future projects that
USEPA Region several miles) to the proposed project would not contribute to cumulative could have cumulative impacts when
IX impacts and were generally not evaluated further in the assessment combined with the impacts of the Project
14
2-25-2008 (p. 6-1). The selection of geographic boundaries for a cumulative impact within the scope of the project corridor.
assessment should be, whenever possible, based on the natural
boundaries of resources of concern. It appears that the cumulative
impacts assessment has not used geographic boundaries large enough
to include all potentially significant effects on the resources of concern.
(b) (6) Additionally, the cumulative impacts from past actions are not specifically See response to Comment No. 14.
Manager considered and discussed in the cumulative impacts assessment, but
USEPA Region instead the reader is referred to Chapter 3, the description of existing
IX conditions. The cumulative impact assessment should describe
2-25-2008 "identifiable present effects" to various resources attributed to past
actions. The purpose of considering past actions is to determine the
15
current health of resources, which forms the baseline for assessing
potential cumulative impacts. The cumulative impact analysis should link
1-11
the project's effects to the health of these resources, which would reveal
the ability of these resources to withstand additional stressors. A
sufficient cumulative impact assessment is important for this project,
especially considering the piecemeal nature of the impact assessments
for this and other border fence projects.

(b) (6) The DEIS states that the proposed action would neither affect nor be Analysis has determined that this project will
Manager affected by the climate (p. 3-1), however scientists expect global warming neither affect nor be affected by the climate.
USEPA Region to lead to increases in climatic variability and extreme weather events. See Section 2.3 for greenhouse gasses
16 IX More extreme storms and drought, coupled with the fires that occur as discussion.
2-25-2008 part of the natural disturbance regime in these habitats, could exacerbate
erosion resulting from the project's extensive disturbance in the
watershed. These potential cumulative impacts should be identified in the
Final EIS.
October 2008
FME000476

(b) (6) The DEIS indicates that in addition to the earth movement described, an Text added to the ESP…"Clean soil would be
Manager additional 60,000cy of fill material will be needed from offsite and another obtained from commercially and economically
USEPA Region 60,000 cy would need to be removed from the project (p. 4-44), but the viable sources. All soil borrow sources would
IX DEIS does not indentify the impacts to resources from offsite borrow be analyzed to avoid adverse environmental
2-25-2008 areas or to disposal areas. impacts. Displaced soil will be properly
stockpiled to prevent erosion and
sedimentation and excess soils will be
disposed of properly if not utilized during
regrading and recontouring activities following
installation of the fence. Any necessary
17
disposal sites would be located in areas
determined to pose the least potential for
adverse erosion and sedimentation impacts
and environmental effects to habitat, water
quality, etc. Implemented BMPs consistent
with the SWPPP will be utilized to minimize or
avoid adverse environmental impacts. In
1-12
areas where soils have not been previously

disturbed by land uses prior to this Project;
minor adverse effects to natural soil structure
and soil organisms will be expected."
(b) (6) The DEIS also indicates that the project would require an additional Cut and fill estimates are based on an overall

Manager 75,000 cy of cut and fill disturbance for areas of road east of Segment A- estimate for all access roads without specific
USEPA Region 1 that will be utilized for this project. While upgrades to this road were areas designated. Because the project is a
IX covered in a previous EA, widening and drainage upgrades were not design/build contract, locations of specific
2-25-2008 included. It is not clear whether this portion of the project is included in activity are generally unknown, which is why a
18
the estimates of cut and fill disturbance for the total project or whether 60-foot corridor is analyzed for impacts.
impacts from this portion were assessed in this EIS. It is also not clear
whether the impacts were assessed for the significant road widening of
Otay Mountain Road and the BLM road leading to Puebla Tree that would
be required for the project (p. 4-19) or for the similar improvements that
October 2008
may be required for Marron Valley Road (p. 2-16)

FME000477

(b) (6) Additionally, in those areas of the road not adjacent to the fence, the As with the response to Comment No. 18,
Manager proposed project will require construction of trails suitable for light-tracked specific locations of trails will only be
USEPA Region vehicles for the purposes of fence installation and maintenance. Vehicle determined following final design. All areas
IX trails would require clearing of brush and boulders and minor grading, potentially impacted by the trails have been
19
2-25-2008 and rock outcrops might require leveling (p. 2-9). Maps show that these surveyed and include impacted habitat.
areas are some of the steepest areas, including those near Buttewig
canyon. The DEIS does not identify the number or location of vehicle
trails to be constructed, and it is not clear that impacts from these trails
were included in the impact analysis.
(b) (6) The DEIS does not identify whether the project will also create and Other tactical infrastructure, such as drag
Manager operate new drag roads, which involve vehicles dragging tires or brushes roads, has been implemented in other
USEPA Region behind to smooth the surface of an unpaved road so evidence of crossing Sectors. However, drag roads were not
20
IX is apparent, or describe any impacts to the watershed from the expansion considered in the San Diego Sector because
2-25-2008 and operation of these roads. they did not meet the USBP operational
needs and were therefore not reviewed in the
ESP.
(b) (6)
1-13
The DEIS does not indicate where debris removed from behind the fence Fence maintenance will include removing any
Manager during maintenance would be deposited. It doesn't appear that impacts accumulated debris on the fence after a rain
USEPA Region from maintenance have been included in the DEIS. Clarify the scope of event to avoid potential future flooding. Sand
21
IX the impact assessment in the DEIS and whether it included the actions that builds up against the fence and brush will
2-25-2008 specified above. If the DEIS did not include these actions, update the also be removed as needed. Brush removal

impact discussions in the FEIS accordingly. could include mowing, removal of small trees,
and application of herbicide if needed.
October 2008
FME000478

(b) (6) The DEIS states that adherence to a Construction, Mitigation, and At the time the Draft EIS was issued,
Manager Restoration (CM&R) Plan will mitigate impacts to soils (p. 5-5), waters of mitigation and BMPs were still being
USEPA Region the US (p. 5-7), vegetation (p. 5-9) and wildlife (p. 5-10). The DEIS also developed.
IX states that construction would not begin until CBP prepares a mitigation Mitigation and BMPs are summarized in the
2-25-2008 and monitoring plan consistent with identified mitigation measures Executive Summary and detailed in
(p. 6-11). No mitigation measures are identified, however, since the Appendix E of the ESP.
CM&R Plan is not included. A conceptual plan for mitigation is also not
described. Without this information, an assessment of whether this plan
would sufficiently mitigate losses to these resources is not possible. A
draft CM&R Plan should be included in the FEIS as an appendix so that
agencies and the public can assist in determining potential for successful
22
mitigation and to recommend additional mitigation that may be
appropriate. CBP will need to include specific mitigation measures for the
Record of Decision (ROD), per 40 CFR 1505.2(c).
EPA believes a comprehensive mitigation strategy should be developed
for cumulative impacts resulting from the many border fence and
infrastructure projects that are occurring along the border. We understand
1-14
that preliminary discussions with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
have occurred at a senior staff level regarding a comprehensive
programmatic mitigation agreement to address wildlife impacts. We
encourage such an approach and are available to assist in identifying
comprehensive mitigation for impacts to watersheds and waters of the

U.S.
October 2008
FME000479

(b) (6) The DEIS identifies Tecate Peak (Kuchamaa) as a sacred mountain The placement of the fence on the lower,
Manager serving as a spiritual center for Native American people of southern southeast flank of Kuchamaa will change the
USEPA Region California and northern Baja California (p. 3-56). BLM determined that the appearance of this portion of the mountain.
IX Tecate Peak District was eligible for National Register of Historic Places This area is not visible from the peak directly
2-25-2008 based on its uniqueness as a site of extreme religious significance to the but is visible from a number of locations along
Kumeyaay and other tribes throughout southern California. The boundary the southeastern side.
of BLM's Kuchamaa Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) is At this time impacts on Kuchamaa have not
approximately 500 feet west of fence segment A-2 (p. 3-14). The area of been defined and the development of
potential affect for analysis of impacts on resources of traditional, protective measures has not been completed.
religious, or cultural significance to Native American tribes includes the Consultation with associated tribal groups
viewshed. The DEIS concludes that the line of site from Tecate Peak was initiated and is ongoing; additional
23 appears to be negligible, but it is not clear how this was determined. consultation will be necessary to develop
Such a determination should be made in consultation with affected tribes. appropriate Project protocols.
EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
(November 6, 2000), was issued in order to establish regular and
meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials. The DEIS
indicates that letters to tribes were sent and no responses were received
1-15
to date (p. 3-50), however sending letters alone does not constitute
meaningful government-to-government consultation.
Recommendation: The FEIS should describe the process and outcome of
government-to-government consultation between the U.S. CBP and each
of the tribal governments within the project area that deem Kuchamaa a

sacred site, identify issues that were raised (if any), and how those issues
were addressed in the selected alternative.
(b) (6) EO 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (May 24, 1996), requires federal land The Project will not affect tribes legal access
Manager managing agencies to accommodate access to, and ceremonial use of, to travel north and south of the border. Due
USEPA Region Indian sacred sites by Indian Religious practitioners, and to avoid to issuance of the Secretary’s waiver CBP no
IX adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. The DEIS longer has an obligation under this EO, CBP
24 2-25-2008 does not discuss how the project could impact Baja California tribal has used the threshold and guidelines of this
access to their sacred mountain and spiritual center. EO in the ESP analysis and will implement
Recommendation: The FEIS should address EO 13007 and discuss how appropriate BMPs to avoid or minimize
October 2008
the project could impact access to Kuchamaa for tribes north and south of impacts whenever possible.
the border. Discuss potential cumulative impacts to traditional cultural
properties at this site.
FME000480

(b) (6) Finally, no discussions of cumulative impacts to this site [Tecate Peak] See Section 12.13 of the ESP for revised
Manager are included in this cumulative impacts assessment. cumulative impacts on cultural resources.
25
USEPA Region
IX
2-25-2008
(b) (6) Page 1-10, Line 24, the sentence indicates that the USIBWC will provide Analysis of any potential floodplain impacts is
access to construct within the Tijuana River Floodplain. This sentence not possible until completion of the final
USIBWC needs further clarification. In accordance with Article IV-B of the 1970 design build process. USACE has assured
1-22-2008 Boundary Treaty between United States and Mexico, “...each Country USIBWC that there will be no net effect
shall prohibit the construction of works in its territory which, in the resulting from any construction, if it were to
26 judgment of the Commission, may cause deflection or obstruction of the occur within the floodplain.
normal flow of the river or of its flood flows.” The USIBWC must ensure
that the proposed works within a river floodplain will not provoke
deflection or obstruction of the normal flow or flood flows of the river.
Therefore, the EIS must address the potential impacts and treaty
implications for any proposed construction within the Tijuana River
Floodplain.
1-16
(b) (6) Page 3-20, Line 2, Sentence indicates that the proposed segment A-1 Text added to the ESP….. "In accordance
lies parallel to the Tijuana River. Lines 10-12 on the same page state with Article IV-B of the 1970 Boundary Treaty
USIBWC that two tributaries of the Tijuana River are within the corridor. Similar between United States and Mexico, “...each
1-22-2008 comment as above, prior to any construction, the project proponent will Country shall prohibit the construction of

need to verify via hydraulic modeling that the fence construction will not works in its territory which, in the judgment of
impact flood conveyance as per the 1970 Boundary Treaty. the Commission, may cause deflection or
obstruction of the normal flow of the river or of
27 its flood flows.” The USIBWC must ensure
that the proposed works within a river
floodplain will not provoke deflection or
obstruction of the normal flow or flood flows of
the river. Prior to construction, hydraulic
modeling would be conducted to determine
impacts on floodplains and that the fence
October 2008
construction will not impact flood conveyance

as per the 1970 Boundary Treaty."
FME000481

(b) (6) , Overall the analysis of impacts throughout Chapter 4 lacks specific detail. CBP has been in close coordination with
BLM Palm The description of the impacts does not support the conclusions. The USFWS during the course of this project and
Springs-South analysis needs to incorporate specific detail regarding all activities of the has been developing BMPs to mitigate
28
Coast Field project and Best Management Practices provided by the U.S. Fish and negative impacts to wildlife or their habitat.
Office 2-1-2008 Wildlife Service. This information, along with additional specific
information on fence types has been included
in Appendix B of the ESP.
(b) (6) , Otay Mountain Wilderness (OMW) plays a critical role as one of the Section 4.3 has been revised to include
BLM Palm preserve systems under the San Diego subarea plan for the Multiple MSCP.
29
Springs-South Species Conservation Program (MSCP). The lack of consistency with the
Coast Field MSCP should be addressed.
Office 2-1-2008
(b) (6) , Provide maps of the project area which indicate the various critical habitat Associated critical habitats for potentially
BLM Palm and vegetative communities. Maps should indicate BLM administered affected species is included in the figures in
Springs-South lands. Appendix E of the ESP. The figures provided
30
Coast Field do not depict BLM land, however, Section 1.4
1-17
Office 2-1-2008 of the ESP details where the tactical

infrastructure would be in relation to BLM
property.
(b) (6) , The document lacks an adequate array of alternatives. Develop an See response to Comment No. 4.
BLM Palm alternative which would forgo the pedestrian fence. Formulate an

31
Springs-South alternative based on the upgrade of the Border Pack Trail to support all-
Coast Field terrain vehicles instead of full size vehicles.
Office 2-1-2008
(b) (6) Incorporate lighting to support night patrols. Lighting is currently not a component of the
BLM Palm tactical infrastructure planned for the USBP
32
Springs-South San Diego Sector.
Coast Field
Office 2-1-2008
(b) (6) , Move the paragraph on page 2-9, line 22 to the beginning of the Section 1.4 of the ESP includes a description
October 2008
BLM Palm Proposed Action section. State upfront in this section that the project of the Project.
33 Springs-South area for A1 totally encompasses BLM administered lands within and
Coast Field outside the Otay Mountain Wilderness (OMW). This could partly be
Office 2-1-2008 accomplished by moving the paragraph on page 2-9, line 22 to the
beginning of the Proposed Action section.
FME000482

(b) (6) , Nowhere in the document are the activities from the geo technical data No detailed geotechnical data gathering will
BLM Palm gathering mentioned. These activities should be incorporated into the be undertaken until the design build contract
34
Springs-South proposed action and carried through the environmental consequences is issued. No known activities associated with
Coast Field section. this data gathering would affect current
Office 2-1-2008 analysis.
(b) (6) , In addition, the drilling of the two wells should be addressed in Chapter 2 Drilling is addressed in Section 7.1 of the
BLM Palm under the proposed action. ESP.
35
Springs-South
Coast Field
Office 2-1-2008
(b) (6) , The impacts should be analyzed in Chapter 4. The well locations should Impacts from drilling are addressed in Section
BLM Palm be identified on the maps. 7 of the ESP. Locations for the wells are
36
Springs-South unknown at this time.
Coast Field
Office 2-1-2008
(b) (6) , State in this paragraph that widening of the Otay Truck Trail, Puebla Tree The ESP has been revised to state “To the
1-18
BLM Palm Road and the Monument 250 Road would encroach into the OMW as east of Section A-1, approximately 7.8 miles
37 Springs-South these roads form the boundary of the wilderness. The impacts from this of existing road will be utilized, which may
Coast Field activity should be detailed in the Environmental Consequences section. encroach on the OMW if improvements are
Office 2-1-2008 required (see Chapter 8 of the ESP for
associated impacts).”

(b) (6) Check figure. Should be 3-8 miles for total miles. Chapter 4 has been revised.
BLM Palm
38
Springs-South
Coast Field
Office 2-1-2008
(b) (6) Remove “north of the Proposed Action”. The OMW is part of the Visual Resources has been revised. See
BLM Palm proposed action. Chapter 5 of the ESP.
39
Springs-South
Coast Field
October 2008
Office 2-1-2008
FME000483

(b) (6) , What are the differences [quantity, location, etc within OMW] between no While the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP
BLM Palm action and PA for pedestrian use, INS use, garbage, etc. Without this, has no obligation under these laws, CBP has
Springs-South the consequences on wilderness values CANNOT be assessed. With used the threshold and guidelines in the ESP
40 Coast Field this information, the document needs to address the impacts to analysis and will implement appropriate BMPs
Office 2-1-2008 wilderness values (Naturalness, Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude to avoid or minimize impacts whenever
and Primitive Recreation, and Special Features) under each alternative. possible. However general impacts on
Refer to the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the BLM Wilderness wilderness are discussed in Chapter 4 and 8
Management Handbook “H-8560-1”. of the ESP.
(b) (6) Eliminate Road. The improvement to the Marron Valley Road starts at Land use impacts have been revised, see
BLM Palm SR 94 and ends at the 250 U.S.-Mexico border monument not the 250 Section 4.3 of the ESP.
41
Springs-South Road.
Coast Field
Office 2-1-2008
(b) (6) The widening of the western section of the Otay Truck Trail (specifically Acreages for Southern Interior Cypress
BLM Palm at the S-turns) would remove Tecate cypress. This impact to Southern Forest have been revised per comment, see
42
Springs-South Interior Cypress Forest should be reflected in the table under the Otay Section 8.2 of the ESP.
1-19
Coast Field Mtn. Truck Trail column. The additional amount of Interior Cypress
Office 2-1-2008 Forest impacted should be corrected throughout the chapter.
(b) (6) In question is the following statement “These impacts represent short- Adverse impacts on vegetation resources has
BLM Palm and long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts on vegetation been revised to say “moderate to major.”
Springs-South resources”. The loss of vegetation within each community type is Beneficial impacts on vegetation resources

Coast Field important. However, the significance of impacts to vegetation should be has not been revised.
Office 2-1-2008 the type of species impacted in each community. Although most of the
species impacted are not Federally listed, they may be endemic, at risk or
43 only occur within the U.S. on Otay Mtn. Such species would include the
Tecate cypress and Cedro Island Oak. Therefore, should the impacts not
be considered minor to major? In contrast, the weight given to beneficial
impacts from the project as stated on line 26 from the potential reduction
in fire warrants a moderate to major rating. This rating seems extreme as
a beneficial impact as a result of the proposed action. The reduction in
fires is speculative as compared to the reduction in vegetation which is a
October 2008
known impact.
FME000484

(b) (6) , The mitigation section needs to provide the BMPs developed by the U.S. Mitigation and BMPs are summarized in the
BLM Palm Fish and Wildlife Service for special status species. This section should Executive Summary and detailed in Appendix
44
Springs-South provide a detailed analysis of how each BMP would significantly reduce E of the ESP.
Coast Field impacts from the proposed action.
Office 2-1-2008
(b) (6) , The reduction in significant impacts for the proposed action is dependent Mitigation and BMPs are summarized in the
BLM Palm upon the implementation of mitigation measures, Best Management Executive Summary and detailed in Appendix
Springs-South Practices (BMPs), construction, operation, and maintenance plans. Due E of the ESP. The U.S. Army Corps of
45
Coast Field to the size and complexity of the project, a contracted 3rd party may best Engineers is coordinating and managing the
Office 2-1-2008 oversee project compliance. This would ensure that all BMPs, mitigation BMP, mitigation processes, and
measures and regulations are implemented and construction, operation, environmental monitors for the Project.
and maintenance plans are followed.
(b) (6) , FIRE WATER TANKS: In addition to the two wells, construct a 10,000 Comment noted. While it is realized that such
BLM gallon water tank at each well. Fit each well with an Aero motor type recommendations are positive measures,
46
wind mill. Plumb the tanks with metal wharfhead fire hydrants with they are considered beyond the scope of this
minimum 2 ½” National hose thread. ESP, however these comments have been
1-20
provided to the design build team.

47 (b) (6) , FIRE PREVENTION SIGNS: Affix signs in Spanish to the fence to See response to Comment No. 46.
BLM educate travelers with the necessary information for fire safety.
(b) (6) , CONSTRUCTION PHASE: Construction area would maintain See response to Comment No. 46.
BLM appropriate Dry Chemical and Pressurized Water or Water/Class A Foam

48 fire extinguishers to halt small fire ignitions. Any campfires must be
approved by BLM and permitted. Restrict campfires under periods of Fire
Restrictions. Each accidental ignition must be reported to CAL
FIRE/BLM.
49 (b) (6) , INSPECTIONS: CAL FIRE and BLM fire inspectors would conduct See response to Comment No. 46.
BLM intermittent onsite visits of the project area.
50 (b) (6) , ROAD MAINTENANCE: Border Patrol notify CAL FIRE and BLM of all See response to Comment No. 46.
BLM road maintenance activity and any road failure.
October 2008
(b) (6) GENERAL COMMENT: Cannot determine whether the cultural survey Maps were included in the Cultural Resources
, included the entire APE. Need GIS data showing all of the proposed Report provided to BLM.
51
BLM actions (including light use trails, staging areas, roads that will be
improved or upgraded). Also need GIS data from e2m that shows the
area they inventoried.
FME000485

(b) (6) Do not include the full cultural report in the EIS. It contains location The cultural resources findings have been
52 , information (in descriptions and photos) for cultural sites. This incorporated into the ESP by reference and
BLM information should not be provided to the general public. all confidential information has been limited in
distribution.
(b) (6) BLM has not received a copy of the cultural report and has not provided The cultural resources technical report has
53
, comments to the report as provided in the DEIS. been provided to BLM.
BLM
(b) (6) Line 27 contradicts info provided in Lines 28-29. Add “…and on...” after ESP text has been revised to state ”Although
54 , “south of…” most of Section A-1 is within the Otay
BLM Mountain Wilderness (OMW), portions of
Section A-1 will be south of the OMW.”
(b) (6) Cultural Resources Impacts reported here are not consistent with Impact discussion has been revised and is
55
, statements made on pages 4-26 and 4-27. Impacts to Native American consistent throughout the ESP.
BLM concerns not addressed.
(b) (6) Proposed Action includes new road construction and improvements to See Section 1.4 of the ESP, sentence added
1-21
, existing roads outside of the A1 and A2 areas. These are illustrated in to state “The tactical infrastructure and
56 BLM Figs 2-1 and 2-2. Include a table similar to Table 2-1 to show the miles staging areas will occur on BLM, City of San
and ownership of all roads (adjacent to fences, new, light vehicle tails, or Diego, or San Diego County land.”
“improved existing”) that will be part of the project. Include a table for
acres of staging areas and ownership.

(b) (6) Figs 2-3 through 2-8: provide topo maps as well as aerial photos. Show Figures 2-3 through 2-8 from the Draft EIS
57
, BLM ownership on the maps. are not included in the ESP. OMW is shown
BLM in Appendix F of the ESP for clarification.
(b) (6) Cannot determine whether the upgrades to Monument 250 road have Upgrades to Monument 250 were covered in
, been inventoried for cultural resources. The Environmental Assessment for
58 BLM Monument 250 Road Improvement Project,
Office of Border Patrol, San Diego Sector,
Brown Field Station, San Diego County,
California
October 2008
(b) (6) Upgrades and improvements to Otay truck trail, Marron Valley Road, etc A Cultural Resources Survey was developed
59 , will need Section 106 review and may need cultural inventory. and coordinated with the SHPO. Findings
BLM from the survey have been incorporated into
the analysis of the ESP as appropriate.
FME000486

(b) (6) Appears to be a word missing: “The _____ portions…” ESP revised to say “Portions….”
60
,
BLM
(b) (6) Insert any in front of prehistoric. ESP text revised per comment.
61
,
BLM
(b) (6) Per NR Bulletin 38, traditional cultural places are not restricted to ESP text has been revised to clarify.
62
, association with native American groups.
BLM
(b) (6) Same comment as above: traditional places may be associated with any ESP text has been clarified, see Chapter 9 of
63
, living community”. the ESP.
BLM
(b) (6) Cultural Report should not appear as an Appendix to the EIS since it Cultural resources report has been finalized
64
, contains confidential material. In light of that, need more detail from the and findings have been incorporated into the
BLM report in the EIS itself. ESP by reference.
1-22
(b) (6) 36 CFR 800.4: change to 36 CFR 800.4a ESP text revised per comment.
65
,
BLM
(b) (6) The letters appear in Appendix D and are mixed in with letters to Due to issuance of the Secretary’s waiver,
, agencies. SHPO letter is mixed in with Native American letters. correspondence letters related to the National

66
BLM Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process are
not being included in the appendices of the
ESP.
(b) (6) Include columns: within APE (yes/no) and NRHP Eligible Columns added per comment.
67
, (yes/no/unevaluated)
BLM
(b) (6) Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office ESP text revised per comment.
68
,
BLM
October 2008
(b) (6) Provide a more detailed description of areas that were inventoried since ESP text added to clarify.
69
, Appendix I will not be available to the public.
BLM
FME000487

(b) (6) Concerned with the inability to find the previously recorded sites. Which NAD83 was used.
70 , GPS datum was used? Chambers’ UTMs were given in NAD83. If they
BLM are read as NAD27 coordinates they may appear to be on the wrong side
of the border.
(b) (6) Were the two milling slicks identified during the current survey or reported They were reported by Chambers.
71
, by Chambers in 2002?
BLM
(b) (6) Description indicates that this is “believed to be a new resource.” Unclear ESP text has been clarified to reflect the
72 , as to whether SDI-16370 was identified during the current survey. location.
BLM Mapped location per DPR form would indicate that it is much further than
250 meters from SDI-18578.
(b) (6) Provide specific info for “sufficient buffer”. How far is the site from the The section of the road in question will not be
73
, road? Is this section of road going to be “upgraded”? graded or improved.
BLM
(b) (6) 9102 is reported as being west of itself. Corrected to say “CA-SDI-910.”
74
1-23
,
BLM
(b) (6) Cannot tell from description- were 9101 and 9102 examined during the These sites were not visited as they are
75
, current cultural inventory? Have site form updates been prepared that several hundred meters from the project.
BLM show the sites relative to proposed road use/upgrades?

(b) (6) Additional work may be needed at SDI-9968 to determine whether the Comment noted.
76
, site will be affected by the use/upgrade of the road.
BLM
(b) (6) Additional work may be needed at this site to determine whether site will Comment noted.
77
, be affected by use/upgrade of road.
BLM
(b) (6) Tecate Peak was placed on NRHP by the County? Is this correct? Does Mention of County removed.
78
, the County place nominations on the NRHP?
BLM
October 2008
(b) (6) BLM “sought nomination”: was nomination successful? Need to state that Text revised to state that it was placed on the
79
, BLM was successful in nominating Tecate Peak on the NRHP. When Register in 1992 for ceremonial reasons.
BLM was the district listed on NRHP? Under which criteria?
FME000488

(b) (6) Cite (b) (6) as source of this information. Citation added.
80
,
BLM
(b) (6) Where is erosion expected to occur? Have these areas been assessed These areas have been surveyed for potential
81
, for cultural resources? cultural resources and found to be negative.
BLM
(b) (6) Where will the wells be located? Are they discussed in Section 2.2.8: Locations of wells are unknown at this time,
, Proposed Alternative? Have they been assessed for cultural impacts? however as the project progresses and well
82
BLM locations are determined, the appropriate
personnel will examine these locations for
cultural resources.
(b) (6) Have the effects of the road improvements been analyzed for cultural These areas have been surveyed for potential
83
, impacts? They are not discussed in the cultural analysis section. Have cultural resources and found to be negative.
BLM the staging areas been reviewed for cultural impacts?
(b) (6) Unclear as to whether the actions noted in section 4.9.2 have been These areas have been surveyed for cultural
84
1-24
, included in the cultural resources analysis. resources.

BLM
(b) (6) State why monitoring is being proposed: for avoidance or due to a Monitoring is being proposed to ensure that
, potential for subsurface materials to be present, or both? inadvertent damage does not occur to these
85 BLM surface sites during construction activity. The

areas are designated as outside the project
and the presence of a monitor will ensure that
accidental damage does not occur.
(b) (6) Monitoring for avoidance may also be necessary at SDI-9101, SDI-9102, These sites are a significant distance, in
, and GV-1. excess of several hundred meters from the
86 BLM project footprint.GV-1 is closer to the project
but outside of the designated roadway and
not in an area where improvements are
needed.
October 2008
(b) (6) Typo: SDI-16388, change to 16368. Text revised per comment.
87
,
BLM
FME000489

(b) (6) The decision that monitoring is not necessary also requires a finding that Cultural resources impacts have been
88
, there is no potential for subsurface materials. revised, see Section 9.3 of the ESP.
BLM
(b) (6) Evaluation of eligibility, determination of effect, and development of A cultural survey was prepared and potential
, treatment plan should be completed prior to project implementation. sites that would be affected by the project
89
BLM Determination of eligibility and effect must be completed in order to were surveyed. Evaluation of sites is
assess the impact of the project and cumulative impacts. currently being done on a case by case basis
and would include these steps.
(b) (6) Typo: “paleontological resources”. But this brings up a good point- what This table is not included in the ESP.
90
, is the potential for effects to paleontological resources?
BLM
(b) (6) Table entries are not consistent with discussion on pages 6-1 through This is now Table 12-1 in the ESP and has
91
, 6-3. been revised accordingly.
BLM
(b) (6) Cumulative impact statement does not take into account past, current, CBP has considered the past, present, and
1-25
, and future actions. reasonably foreseeable future projects that

92
BLM could have cumulative impacts when
combined with the impacts of the Project
within the scope of the project corridor.
(b) (6) Not consistent with information provided elsewhere in Section 6. A loss CBP has considered the past, present, and

, of resources is likely to occur as a result of this project, has occurred as a reasonably foreseeable future projects that
BLM result of development, and likely will occur as a result of future could have cumulative impacts when
93
development. combined with the impacts of the Project
within the scope of the project corridor. No
future projects are expected to occur in the
APE for cultural resources.
(b) (6) Check for inconsistency between Cover Sheet, Executive Summary, Mileage throughout ESP has been verified.
94 Alternative Analysis, and Introduction when describing the length of the
BLM project in miles. It appears, all things considered, that the total miles will
October 2008
be six (?), but is depicted differently in each section.

FME000490

(b) (6) Referring to Section A-1 of the fence…”The proposed section would be ESP text revised to state “Although most of
south of the Otay Wilderness”, but in the Alternative Analysis-see next Section A-1 is within the Otay Mountain
95
BLM comment below. Again referring to Section A-1 of the fence…” the Wilderness (OMW), portions of Section A-1
proposed section would be adjacent to and on Otay Mountain will be south of the OMW.”
Wilderness. This contradicts the above statement.
(b) (6) "….approximately one half of the length of patrol and access road" and Text in ESP has been revised to state
"approximately 1,300 feet of the primary pedestrian fence would extend approximately 30.6 acres of the OMW will be
96
BLM into the OMW" (1) How many acres of wilderness will be impacted by the impacted based upon revised alignment.
project? (2) Do calculated acres of impact for the entire project include a
“zone of influence” outside of the project corridor?
(b) (6) Special Status Species…how can an impact be minor and adverse at the Negligible, minor, moderate, or major. These
same time? It’s either adverse or it is not. The description of an adverse relative terms are used to characterize the
BLM impact in the EIS is “…one having adverse, unfavorable, or undesirable magnitude or intensity of an impact.
outcomes on the man-made or natural environments” How is that minor, Negligible impacts are generally those that
97
especially when addressing Special Status Species? might be perceptible but are at the lower level
of detection. A minor impact is slight, but
1-26
detectable. A moderate impact is readily

apparent. A major impact is one that is
severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial.
(b) (6) Include The Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-577) in this While the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP
paragraph. has no obligation under these laws, CBP has

98 BLM used the applicable thresholds and guidelines
in the ESP analysis and will implement
appropriate BMPs to avoid or minimize
impacts whenever possible.
(b) (6) “A new access road would be constructed starting at the intersection of CBP will acquire an interest in this land, which
Alta and Donovan Prison Roads for a distance of approximately 0.5 is currently private for this road. This area
99 BLM miles.” Is this new access road on BLM or private land? If on BLM land, is has been surveyed for potential impacts
an analysis of impacts included in this EIS? regarding the project. Potential impacts from
access and patrol roads are addressed in the
October 2008
ESP
FME000491

(b) (6) Referring to the Monument 250 road: “Additional widening and drainage The additional widening and drainage
upgrades not evaluated in the Monument 250 Road Improvement Project upgrades not covered in the Environmental
BLM EA would be necessary.” When will these upgrades be evaluated? In Assessment for the Monument 250 Road
100
which document will they appear for analysis of potential impacts? Improvement Project, Office of Border Patrol,
San Diego Sector, Brown Field Station, San
Diego County, California are addressed in the
ESP.
(b) (6) The Monument 250 Road is an integral part of this project and would best The monument 250 road has been analyzed
be analyzed in this document, especially since Quino checkerspot in this document. What is typically referred to
BLM butterfly has been found on the road, and the road bisects potential as the Monument 250 road is the stretch of
arroyo toad habitat. Marron Valley road roughly from Mine
Canyon to Monument 250. The analysis for
101
this road is included as part of the analysis of
the Marron Valley Access road in the
document.
Impacts related to the Quino Checkerspot
1-27
Butterfly are evaluated in Chapter 8 and

Appendix E of the ESP.
(b) (6) Regarding changes to the Otay Truck Trail (not Road) and the Marron This detail is not yet available and may
Valley Road: detail and specificity is needed as to what the changes will ultimately be determined by the contractor
BLM be, and what impacts may occur due to the changes. The potential for who is building the fence. The Project has

impacts to “mature” Tecate Cypress and Thorne’s hairstreak butterfly are been evaluated for a maximum allowable
102 probable. impact corridor. Impacts to Tecate cypress
and Thornes hairstreak are possible and
included as potential impacts in the ESP. A
60-foot wide impact corridor is provided and
impacts are presumed throughout the corridor
for purposes of the ESP analysis.
October 2008
FME000492

(b) (6) There is no discussion regarding the perennial stream at the bottom of This area was visited recently after the recent
Wild Bill’s Canyon, just south of the Puebla Tree. Perennial waters on storms and nearly all the water had already
BLM Otay Mountain need special consideration. During previous surveys in made small pools and stopped flowing.
103 this creek, the two-stripped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii) (a Neither the vegetation nor the hydrology
BLM Sensitive Species), California tree frog (Pseudacris cadaverina), and indicates that this area has perennial water.
Climbing milkweed (Sarcostemma cyanchoides ssp. Hartwegii) were The species mentioned in the comment all
located. Milkweed species are important nectar sources for butterflies. could potentially be observed there at the
appropriate time of year.
(b) (6) There is no discussion of future fence and road maintenance and the on- Construction of other tactical infrastructure
going impacts that would occur. might be required in the future as mission and
BLM operational requirements are continually
104
reassessed. To the extent that other current
and future actions in the study area are
known, they are discussed in Chapter 12,
“Related Projects and Potential Effects.”
(b) (6) Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste: The use of hazardous materials Hazardous materials and wastes has been
1-28
and solid waste needs to be included in this analysis. Any use of evaluated in the ESP, please see Chapter 11
105
BLM pesticides on BLM lands is strictly regulated and requires an of the ESP.
environmental assessment and a pesticide use permit, regardless of the
type of herbicide, quantity, or duration of application.
(b) (6) “….OMW provides opportunities for low-impact recreation, including Reference to ATV vehicles has been

hiking, backpacking, equestrian use, camping, picnicking, nature study, removed.
BLM hunting, and motorized vehicle use including ATV use on two existing
106
routes (BLM 1994).” Motorized vehicle use is prohibited in Wilderness.
The two existing routes that you refer to above (Otay Truck Trail and
Minnewawa Truck Trail) are corridors, designated by Congress, that go
through Wilderness but, are not Wilderness.
October 2008
FME000493

(b) (6) When will delineations of wetlands and waters of the U.S. be conducted? Field surveys were conducted in Sections A-1
How will the outcome of these delineations affect the proposed project? and A-2A on January 14 through 16, 2008, to
BLM delineate jurisdictional wetlands and other
waters of the United States within the impact
corridors. Delineations were also conducted
along access roads and staging areas
107
associated with the fence alignments. Formal
delineations were conducted within a 150-foot
corridor associated with the fence alignments,
60 feet to either side of the center line of
access roads, and within staging areas.
Findings of the delineations have been
incorporated into the ESP.
(b) (6) Correction to information on Tecate cypress: Mature TC heights have The ESP text has been changed to reflect this
been recorded at 30-35 feet in height. It is not true that there is no known information.
BLM mature TC. There are about 80 acres of mature (i.e., 30+ years in age)
108 cypress remaining after the 2007 fire on Otay Mt. What is “mature” for TC
1-29
in relationship to Thorne’s hairstreak is debated and is being studied at

this time. There are numerous TC that were not burned in the 2003
wildfire and haven’t burned since 1996 that are in the 11-12 year old
range and could possibly serve as larval hosts for Thorne’s hairstreak.
(b) (6)

Add a column for BLM Sensitive Species in this table and indicate as BLM sensitive species are discussed in
such: Thorne’s hairstreak, western spadefoot, coast horned lizard, two- Biological Survey Report, see Appendix D of
BLM stripped garter snake, burrowing owl, Townsend’s big-eared bat. Also the ESP. No habitat was observed for the
add the following species that are BLM Sensitive and occur within the Southwestern Pond Turtle in the impact
109 project corridor: pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), fringed myotis (Myotis corridor.
thysanodes), small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), long-eared myotis
(Myotis evotis), Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), gray vireo (vireo
vicinior)->this species would occur in the A-2 section of project. There is
no discussion about the southwestern pond turtle-was this species
considered? It is a BLM Sensitive species.
October 2008
(b) (6) Include definition for Federal candidate species Descriptions of federally listed species is
110
addressed in the Biological Survey Report,
BLM Appendix D of the ESP.
FME000494

(b) (6) Note at bottom of Species Observed Table: “The biological survey for the Surveys have since been completed and
111
Section A-1 access road is underway but not completed. Complete findings have been incorporated into the ESP
BLM results of the survey will be included in the Final EIS, BA, and BO.” and appendices.
(b) (6) BLM Sensitive Species are those species not listed as State or Federal Comment noted.
112
threatened, endangered, or candidate species and are designated by the
BLM BLM State Director only.
(b) (6) “All areas along the fence portion of Section A-1 showed signs of impacts ESP text clarified to say “illegal grazing.”
113 from cattle and horse grazing.” Add illegal Mexican before cattle and
BLM horse grazing. Since there is a grazing allotment on Otay Mt. it’s best to
differentiate between the two.
(b) (6) When will the sediment and erosion control plans be developed? To what These plans will be required as part of the
114 extent would these plans minimize sediment runoff? What would the construction process: however, they are not
BLM residual impacts be? Will there be an opportunity to comment on the available for public comment.
plans?
(b) (6) Elaborate on “possible off-road vehicle use” (by Border Patrol or the This statement has been removed from the
115
1-30
Public?) and anticipated impacts. ESP.

BLM
(b) (6) Where would the wells be placed? What impacts are anticipated due to Impacts from drilling are addressed in Section
116
construction of the wells? Has analysis of “drawdown” been conducted? 7 of the ESP. Locations for the wells are
BLM unknown at this time.

(b) (6) I have seen topo maps with BUTTEWEG Canyon…not sure about the “Buttewig” is commonly accepted spelling and
117
Buttewig spelling. used throughout the ESP.
BLM
October 2008
FME000495

(b) (6) When will the “wetlands identification, mitigation and restoration plan” be Wetlands and waters of the U.S. were
developed? Will there be an opportunity to review this plan? delineated and surveyed mid-January 2008,
BLM including the completion of data forms for
Routine Wetland Delineation (based upon the
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) and
the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps
of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
118
Arid West Region, December 2006, and
delivered to the LA District of USACE in
February 2008. The unavoidable impacts to
wetlands and waters of the U.S. were
quantified and provided to the LA District of
USACE. Mitigation to offset unavoidable
wetland and waters of the U.S. impacts is
currently being developed.
(b) (6) “The most significant impact of the No Action Alternative is that cows from Although the Secretary's waiver means that
Mexico would continue to trample and graze on the southern slopes of CBP no longer has any specific legal
1-31
BLM the OMW.”….Although the proposed border fence would deter grazing obligations for alternatives analysis under
cattle and horses from Mexico, this problem can be alleviated by close NEPA, the Secretary committed DHS to
119 coordination with USDA/APHIS and replacement of the barbed wire continue responsible environmental
fencing which has been in disrepair for the last six years. Construction of stewardship of our valuable natural and
the patrol road, access roads, and fence would have a permanent, cultural resources. While barbed wire could

detrimental affect on Quino, its critical habitat and native plants in the be sufficient to deter cross-border grazing,
project area. barbed wire is not sufficient to deter illegal
aliens.
(b) (6) “Access roads would require moderate to substantial improvements, This text has been revised and is no longer
120
specifically the Otay Mountain Truck Trail and the BLM Road leading to included in the ESP.
BLM Puebla Tree.”…1. What are “moderate to substantial improvements”?
(b) (6) 2. Specifically where on the Otay Truck Trail will these improvements Please see Appendix F of the ESP for
121
occur? detailed figures.
BLM
October 2008
(b) (6) 3. Which resources would be impacted? Impacted resources from road expansion are
122
reviewed in the ESP.
BLM
FME000496

(b) (6) 4. What does “significant road widening” mean? 50 feet wider? Blasting Specifics for road widening at this time are
required? Would exceed the 100ft setback for Wilderness? unknown because of the design build
BLM contract. However, it is not expected that the
123
100-foot setback would be exceeded, but
some blasting may occur. The intent of road
widening is to allow for sufficient turn radius
for construction equipment.
(b) (6) “respectively” it’s incorrect….should read spiny redberry, Tecate cypress, Text revised per comment.
124
then San Diego sedge.
BLM
(b) (6) Where are the spiny redberry plants that would be lost due to The Biological Survey Report provides some
construction? How many are there? Have these plants been mapped? Do information on the locations of the Spiny red
BLM we know if Herme’s are using these plants? These plants are critical to berry plants in the species lists for each
125
the survival of this imperiled butterfly and have already been severely habitat area. Potential mitigation for the
impacted due to wildfire on Otay Mt. in 2003 and 2007. Woody shrubs project is being coordinated with USFWS.
take years to regenerate and mature. Mitigation should include
1-32
revegetation with potted redberry instead of seeding for the species.

(b) (6) Which mammals and reptiles are you referring to in this paragraph? See Table 8-4 in the ESP for a list of reptile
126
species.
BLM
(b) (6) “There would be no direct adverse impact on aquatic resources in the Over time it is expected that the fence will

proposed project corridor.” How do you know this? The sediment and reduce or eliminate illegal cross-border
127 BLM erosion control plans have not been developed yet, and there will be cut activity through this area. This will allow the
and fill in the Copper and Butteweg Canyon drainages. slopes to revegetate and the riparian habitat
to return to a more natural state (reduced
grazing impacts).
(b) (6) Which fish species are in the project corridor? No fish species are in the project corridor.
128
BLM
October 2008
FME000497

(b) (6) “The larval host plants are annuals that thrive in clay soils but can also The Quino specialist used for the project
occur in other soil types.”….cryptogamic soil crusts are frequently found reviewed the cryptogrammic crusts as part of
BLM in the same areas as Quino larval host plants. There is no discussion the habitat assessments. Mitigation and
129
about these invaluable soil crusts and their contribution to healthy soils. BMP's are being established for this project
Thought should be given to the use of cryptogrammic crusts as a through advice from USFWS biologists.
mitigation measure for rehabilitation in the project area. Those mitigation measures are presented in
(b) (6) The project would occur in critical habitat for Quino. It’s true that not all This comment was taken into consideration
critical habitat is created equal. Within a polygon of designated critical when impacts were evaluated. However
BLM habitat, there may be areas that are not pristine or do not contain the professional biologists determined that the
130
constituent elements for the species but, that is not the case on Otay Mt. impact corridor did not contain any pristine
The loss of 75 acres of critical habitat for this endangered species is a critical habitat. Habitat within the impact
major adverse impact, rather than a moderate one. corridor has been heavily impacted by illegal
cross-border grazing and recent wildfires.
(b) (6) From a “wilderness experience” perspective, both construction activity The visual impact analysis in the ESP follows
and the final project would result in major visual contrasts. From the standard guidelines for such analyses. As
1-33
BLM overlooks above Copper and Butteweg Canyons, one can see almost the stated in the ESP, this is a highly subjective
entire Border Pack Trail. For hikers, the incredible expanse of open space resource area because viewer response is
131
that can be experienced at this time, will be obliterated. There is a huge gauged by individuals in various locations,
contrast in the colors between a frequently traveled roadway and the with various backgrounds, and various
surrounding vegetation in the Border Mountains area, such that roadways feelings about the Project. See Chapter 5 of

look like scars and they stay that way until the road is allowed to re- the ESP for visual resources impacts.
vegetate.
(b) (6) Add Wilderness Act to the Table of Applicable Laws and Executive Although the Secretary’s waiver means that
Orders. The Wilderness Act is a law that would apply to the Proposed CBP no longer has any specific legal
BLM Action and alternatives. obligations under the waived laws, including
the Wilderness Act, the Secretary committed
132 DHS to continue responsible environmental
stewardship of our valuable natural and
cultural resources. CBP has worked with the
resource agencies to consider alternative
October 2008
designs and locations that would minimize

environmental impacts.
FME000498

(b) (6) Mexican Flannelbush: Three populations of flannelbush have been Comment Noted.
133 located. The populations are in Cedar Canyon, Little Cedar Canyon, and
BLM a canyon known historically as Woodwardia Canyon. See FR Notice for
designated critical habitat for this species.
(b) (6) I am disappointed that the “Environmental Assessment” as well as the CBP coordinated with the State of California
Cal “Environmental Impact Statement” for “Proposed Construction, Operation by sending an interested party letter on
134 EPA and Maintenance of Tactical Infrastructure, U.S. Border Patrol San Diego December 28, 2007 to (b) (6)
2-19-2008 Sector, California” was only recently brought to our attention. Despite the Chief, California State Clearinghouse
short timeline, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on these
reports collectively in light of the February 19, 2008 submission deadline.
(b) (6) A more vigorous evaluation of alternative methods to replace or perhaps Fencing is one component of a long-term
Cal reduce the amount of physical fence used to secure the border should program for gaining effective control of our
EPA have been done. Such alternative approaches included virtual fencing borders. Personnel, technology, and
2-19-2008 and an increase in border patrol staffing. These alternatives might infrastructure do not individually have the
provide the best, most non-evasive [sic] solutions to securing our border same effect they have as an integrated
while also protecting the environment. program.
1-34
Although the Secretary's waiver means that

135 CBP no longer has any specific legal
obligations for alternatives analysis under
NEPA, the Secretary committed DHS to
continue responsible environmental

cultural resources. CBP has worked with
October 2008
FME000499

(b) (6) The Border Fence project between San Diego and Tijuana has the The Border Infrastructure System is beyond
Cal potential to jeopardize the reliability of the IBWC "canyon collectors" that the scope of the ESP. However, this project
EPA currently intercept sewage flows in Smugglers Gulch and Goat Canyon has been included in the Related Projects and
2-19-2008 and protect City of Imperial beaches. Sewage flows are from poorly Potential Effects (see Chapter 12 of the ESP)
maintained collection systems in West Tijuana. Further, Homeland to give a more accurate picture of cumulative
136 Security funding to protect the reliability of the canyon collectors appears impacts. The fence will be designed so as
to be uncertain. not to impede existing flood-flow
characteristics and in combination with BMPs
developed as a part of the SWPPP and
mitigation measures developed, it is not
expected to contribute to cumulative effects in
the project area.
(b) (6) Secondary Treatment at the International Wastewater Treatment Plant See response to Comment No. 136.
Cal (ITP): There is still no resolution of how or when the Federal Government
EPA will implement a solution for the need to provide secondary treatment for
137
2-19-2008 the existing 25 MGD discharge from the ITP. A GAO investigation is
underway, and will issue a report by April 23 on the relative costs and
1-35
schedule for providing the needed secondary either in the US at the ITP
site or in Mexico via the proposed Bajagua project.
(b) (6) Cross-Border Sewage Dry Weather Flows in the Tijuana River: Two See response to Comment No. 136.
Cal wastewater reclamation plants (Japanese funded) in Tijuana with 19

EPA MGD of capacity are nearing completion. These plants are not
2-19-2008 connected to the South Bay Ocean Outfall, and unreclaimed effluent will
138
be discharged to the Tijuana River. The dry weather interceptor in the
Tijuana River is at capacity. Any additional dry weather flow in the
Tijuana River will cross into California, resulting in recreational beach
closures and environmental damage to the Tijuana River National
Estuarine Reserve.
(b) (6) Permitting of Discharges Originating in Mexico: There is no current Comment noted. This issue is beyond the
Cal method for permitting wastewater flows originating in Mexico that directly scope of the ESP.
EPA discharge to California waters. The IBWC has declined to be the
October 2008
139
2-19-2008 permittee as the IBWC has no control over either the quality or quantity of
these flows. The IBWC Commissioner acknowledges that this is a
serious issue along with the other issues that the Water Boards have
identified.
FME000500

(b) (6) Wet Weather Flow in the Tijuana River: The Tijuana River is polluted by Comment noted. This issue is beyond the
Cal storm water runoff that carries trash and debris, pathogens, sediment, scope of the ESP.
140
EPA and other urban and agricultural pollutants. No programs or projects to
2-19-2008 address Tijuana River wet weather impacts are being developed. No
mechanism exists for management of bi-national watersheds.
(b) (6) Salton Sea Inflows: Approximately 8% of the inflow to the Salton Sea and Salton Sea is not impacted by this project
Cal a significant percentage of the nutrients causing eutrification of the Salton
EPA Sea originate in Mexico. Any permanent solution for Salton Sea
141 2-19-2008 ecosystem restoration will be impacted by activities in Mexico. While
treated wastewater from the eastern portion of Mexico is now discharged
south and out of the New River watershed, treated wastewater from the
western part of the City discharges to the New River. These flows are
expected to increase.
(b) (6) Salton Sea Ecosystem Restoration Project: This project is the Salton Sea is not impacted by this project
Cal responsibility of the Resources Agency. Implementation of restoration
142
EPA projects will require a great deal of cooperation between various Federal,
1-36
2-19-2008 State, Tribal, Local and non-governmental organizations. The need for
technical support from Cal/EPA or Water Board staff is unknown.
(b) (6) The biological surveys performed in October 2007 will not detect plant The schedule has not allowed for delays to do
CA Dept. species that are found during other parts of the year. Surveys should be seasonally-timed surveys. Surveys were
of Fish and undertaken at the appropriate times of year to actually detect species and done understanding the limitations of the

143 Game not be done opportunistically. This survey period is inappropriate to timing and drought conditions. Potential
2-17-2008 detect spring plants or plants that die to the ground during summer, or are habitat was assessed for species that would
seasonally used by animals. The Department is particularly concerned not be detectable at the times of the surveys.
that narrow endemic species are adequately evaluated for lands (as
referenced within MSCP Plan) outside of federal management.
(b) (6) Updated biological surveys should be prepared for this project with Surveys have been completed and findings
CA Dept. results and impact analysis incorporated into subsequent environmental have been incorporated into the ESP.
of Fish and documents. The DEIS should consider mitigation measures that cover Appendix D contains the Biological Survey
144
Game the range of impacts of the project, including impacts to narrow endemic Report and Appendix E contains the
October 2008
2-17-2008 plant species. We believe mitigation measures should be considered Biological Resources Plan. The Biological
within the DEIS even for impacts that by themselves would not be Resources Plan details mitigation and BMPs
considered "significant" (i.e. rare, threatened, or endangered plants). for biological resources.
FME000501

(b) (6) There are conflicting statements within the DEIS regarding potential Impacts on wetlands have since been
CA Dept. impacts to wetlands. revised.
145
of Fish and
Game
2-17-2008
(b) (6) For example, the mitigation matrix mentions that no wetlands would be Current designs no longer require limited cut
CA Dept. permanently drained or filled; however there is an acknowledgement in and fill due to implementation of open span
146
of Fish and the DEIS mentioning that Buttewig Canyon and Copper Canyon are bridges, see Section 1.4 of the ESP.
Game slated for cut and fill related activities, subsequently affecting two riparian
2-17-2008 corridors.
(b) (6) A jurisdictional wetland delineation should be prepared at this point in the Field surveys were conducted in Sections A-1
CA Dept. environmental review process (not postponed as mentioned in the DEIS) and A-2A on January 14 through 16, 2008, to
of Fish and delineate jurisdictional wetlands and other
Game waters of the United States within the impact
2-17-2008 corridors. Delineations were also conducted
147
1-37


(b) (6) Furthermore, there is a lack of detailed discussion concerning effective Mitigation and BMP measures are discussed
CA Dept. measures that identify alternatives to this proposal or that adequately in Appendix E of the ESP. Due to issuance of
of Fish and identify mitigation measures. the Secretary’s Waiver, CBP no longer has
Game any specific legal obligations for alternative
2-17-2008 analysis under NEPA, the Secretary
committed DHS to continue responsible
148
environmental stewardship of our valuable
natural and cultural resources. CBP has
October 2008
worked with resource agencies to consider

alternative designs and locations and has
incorporated design and route modifications
into the current project that would minimize
environment impacts.
FME000502

(b) (6) Any subsequent restoration and revegetation proposal/plans should be Restoration plans for temporarily disturbed
CA Dept. prepared by persons with expertise in southern California ecosystems areas are being developed and these
of Fish and and native plant revegetation techniques. Each plan should include, at a elements will be taken into account in those
Game minimum: (a) the location of the mitigation site; (b) the plant species to be plans as needed.
2-17-2008 used, container sizes, and seeding rates; (c) a schematic depicting the
149
mitigation area; (d) planting schedule; (e) a description of the irrigation
methodology; (f) measures to control exotic vegetation on site; (g)
specific success criteria; (h) a detailed monitoring program; (i)
contingency measures should the success criteria not be met; and (j)
identification of the party responsible for meeting the success criteria and
providing for conservation of the mitigation site in perpetuity.
(b) (6) The DEIS should identify the wildlife species anticipated to be affected, See Chapter 8 of the ESP for related impacts
Dept. corresponding direct and indirect impacts, alternatives for minimizing on biological resources. Due to issuance of
of Fish and impacts and anticipated mitigation measures. the Secretary’s Waiver, CBP no longer has
1-38
150

(b) (6) Also, the DEIS is lacking a plain view figure that adequately details the Please see revised Appendix B of the ESP,
CA Dept. design profile of these two drainage crossing in order to substantiate the “Standard Design of Tactical Infrastructure”
151 of Fish and position that "Fence design (Appendix E), meant to allow small animals to and Appendix E for BMPs and mitigation
Game pass, would also allow water to flow unimpeded." Appendix E contains associated with biological resources. Specific
2-17-2008 no substantive evidence to support this position. drainage detail for the drainage crossings is
unavailable at this time.
October 2008
FME000503

(b) (6) The Department stresses the need for the DEIS to adequately disclose The primary species of conservation concern
CA Dept. the affects of such barriers to large mammals utilizing these corridors and (including transborder conservation
of Fish and the overall affect should the fence prohibit movement through these strategies) are endemic plants, invertebrates
Game areas. (e.g., Thorne’s hairstreak, Quino checkerspot
2-17-2008 butterfly), herpetofauna (e.g., arroyo
southwestern toad), birds (e.g., California
gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo), and mammals
(e.g., Bighorn sheep, mountain lion, and
American badger). Plant propagules capable
of long-distance dispersal (e.g. windblown
seeds) would not be impacted by the bollard
152 style fence. Invertebrates would be able to fly
between or over the bollards. Herps would be
able to pass through the fence – between the
bollards. Big-horn sheep and mountain lion
are not known to occur in the vicinity of the
Section A-1. American badger may occur in
1-39
the area although no signs of this species

were observed during multiple field surveys.
If badgers do occupy the area, they would be
able to move through the bollard fence. The
Tijuana River and Mexican highway just south

of A-1 would pose much more substantial
barriers to badger movement.
October 2008
FME000504

(b) (6) The document needs to consider and discuss mitigation measures and/or Mitigation and BMP measures are discussed
CA Dept. alternative designs to effectively address this issue. in Appendix E of the ESP. Due to issuance of
of Fish and the Secretary’s Waiver, CBP no longer has
153
(b) (6) This discussion topic should be carried over to the cumulative impact Chapter 12 of the ESP, Related Projects and
CA Dept. analysis section of the DEIS and a broader discussion provided regarding Potential Effects, details all known reasonably
154
of Fish and other corridor blockages that have occurred or are anticipated to occur in foreseeable future actions.
Game conjunction with prior and/or future border tactical infrastructure projects.
1-40
2-17-2008
(b) (6) The DEIS states that "Additional long-term adverse land use impacts The only impacts in the City of San Diego
CA Dept. could occur if the Proposed Action precludes use of some portion of the owned land portions of the project are the
of Fish and Marron Valley preserve as a conservation bank. This impact could be possibility of road improvements. This should

155 Game lessened by coordination with the City of San Diego during the lands not preclude use of the land as a
2-17-2008 acquisition process, and possibly compensating the city for the removal conservation bank. Any impacts from road
or disturbance of the land in the bank" (page 4-9). The DEIS should improvements would be subject to the same
disclose the current status of any land acquisitions discussion with the BMP's and/ or mitigation of impacts as the
City of San Diego. overall project.
(b) (6) The Department believes there is justification for CBP to comply with the Compatibility with the MCSP Plan is
CA Dept. conservation objectives set forth in the MSCP Plan. The MSCP is a addressed in Chapter 4 of the ESP.
of Fish and mechanism to comply with the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA),
156 Game and, even though the DEIS emphasizes compliance with the FESA, the
2-17-2008 anticipated loss of environmentally sensitive lands (for which the DEIS did
October 2008
not quantify acreage encroachment into cornerstone lands) without

replacement of equivalent habitat types further erodes the purpose and
intent of the MSCP and respective subarea plan.
FME000505

(b) (6) Accordingly, measures that adequately mitigate for habitat impacts from BMPs for the project are summarized in Table
CA Dept. this project should be pursued, including the acquisition of potential tracts ES-1 and mitigation is listed in Section 1.6 of
of Fish and of lands with a similar array of biological value, both in species and the ESP. Detailed BMPs and mitigation for
157 Game habitat type, and equivalent acreage that could be conserved as biological resources are given in Appendix E
2-17-2008 mitigation for project impacts. The Department appreciates all of the ESP.
conservation measures that would be implemented to offset the net loss
of vegetation resources for those portions of the project that lay outside of
federal lands management.
(b) (6) However, minimal support documentation is provided within the DEIS that Specific mitigation and BMPs related
CA Dept. details post-construction conditions and the extent of routine patrol biological resources are being formulated and
of Fish and activities that would likely contribute to this take. Consequently, it is coordinated with USFWS, see Appendix E of
Game unclear to the Department as to the specific evaluation criteria (whether the ESP.
2-17-2008 quantitative or qualitative) for supporting the current impact CBP will not provide additional details as to
158 analysis/statement in the DEIS. the USBP operational assessments of the
most effective locations for the tactical
infrastructure or current operational activities
1-41
because publication of such information could

jeopardize sensitive operational information
and compromise border enforcement tactics.
(b) (6) It would be beneficial to identify mitigation measures that have been Specific mitigation and BMPs related to
CA Dept. implemented in other tactical infrastructure projects that reduce the biological resources are being formulated and
159

of Fish and likelihood of these types of wildlife impacts. coordinated with USFWS, see Appendix E of
Game the ESP.
2-17-2008
(b) (6) The DEIS indicated that approximately 35 million gallons of water would During the engineer's design-build process for
CA Dept. be required for soil compaction purposes alone. Therefore, it is critical the fence and associated infrastructure, viable
of Fish and that all pre- and post-construction surface water runoff (and associated alternatives will be considered that may
Game sediment) is directed away from all sensitive biological resources. include rerouting of the fence and roads to
2-17-2008 avoid issues such as these. However, the
160
Secretary’s waiver means that CBP no long
October 2008
has an obligation to seek permits, CBP has

used the threshold and guidelines in the ESP
analysis and will implement appropriate BMPs
to avoid or minimize impacts whenever
possible.
FME000506

(b) (6) All pre- and post-construction best management practices (BMPs) should See response to Comment No. 160.
CA Dept. document that surface water runoff is not to be directed back into
of Fish and ephemeral or intermittent drainage channels without acceptable
161 Game bioengineering designs to reduce the likelihood of sediment deposition. A
2-17-2008 sufficient level of detail should be provided earlier on in environmental
review process to ensure mitigation measures are feasible. The
Department emphasizes that the formulation of mitigation measures
should not be deferred until some future time.
(b) (6) Minimal discussion (limited to Figures 2-3 through 2-6) has been provided Please see Appendix E of the ESP, Biological
CA Dept. within the DEIS identifying the scope of revegetation and restoration Resources Plan, for mitigations and BMPs.
162
of Fish and efforts that would be implemented to mitigate for impacts from temporary
Game construction staging areas.
2-17-2008
(b) (6) A discussion should be provided that outlines the design alternatives See response to Comment No. 4.
CA Dept. considered to demonstrate that areas selected are located in areas that
163
of Fish and are the least environmental intrusive.
1-42
Game
2-17-2008
(b) (6) All relevant and reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the See Appendix E of the ESP for specific
CA Dept. project should be identified. Any subsequent environmental document mitigation related to vegetation.
of Fish and should identify the specifics of revegetation measures for this project (see

164 Game comment #2 for minimum items to include with the
2-17-2008 revegetation/restoration proposal). Mitigation measures should include
the removal of temporary construction staging areas and restoration of all
disturbed areas by planting/reseeded with native plants endemic to the
area.
October 2008
FME000507

(b) (6) The DEIS mentions that "fence maintenance would initially be performed See Appendix E of the ESP for mitigation
CA Dept. by USBP Sector personnel, but would eventually become a contractor activities.
of Fish and performed activity." The anticipated long-term (post-construction phase)
Game mitigation measures associated with routine maintenance activities
2-17-2008 should be incorporated into the mitigation matrix (i.e., Table 5.5-1).
Specific information should include basic precautions that USBP
165
personnel and contractor support personnel should adhere to when
working in proximity to biologically sensitive areas. This type of
information is particularly important for USBP staff and/or contractors
unfamiliar with biological significance of the area. As supplemental
guidance, all project associated mitigation plans should include long-term
measures that would be implemented to minimize additional
direct/indirect impacts to biological resources.
(b) (6) Although limited avian nesting habitat was identified within the project Mitigation text related to migratory birds has
A Dept. site, in order to comply with sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the Fish and been added, see Section 8.3 of the ESP.
of Fish and Game Code and minimize impacts to breeding birds, including migratory
Game birds, we suggest the following language be included in the BMPs
1-43
2-17-2008 recommended for reduction of avoidance of impacts on migratory birds:

To avoid any direct and indirect impacts to raptors and/or any migratory
birds, grubbing and clearing of vegetation that may support active nests
and construction activities adjacent to nesting habitat, should occur
outside of the breeding (January 15 to August 31). If removal of habitat

and/or construction activities is necessary adjacent to nesting habitat
166 during the breeding season, the applicant shall retain a Department-
approved biologist to conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the
presence of absence of non-listed nesting migratory birds on or within
100-feet of the construction area, determine the presence or absence of
Federally- or State-listed birds (e.g., coastal California gnatcatcher, least
Bell's vireo) on or within 300-feet of the construction area and determine
the presence or absence of nesting raptors within 500-feet of the
construction area. The pre-construction survey must be conducted within
October 2008
10 calendar days prior to the start of construction, the results of which

must be submitted to the Department for review and approval prior to
initiating any construction activities. If nesting birds are detected by the
Department-approved biologist, the following buffers should be
established: 1) no work within 100-feet of a non-listed nesting migratory
FME000508

bird nest, 2) no work within 300 feet of a listed bird nest, and 3) no work
within 500 feet of a raptor nest. However, the Department may reduce
these buffer widths depending on site-specific conditions (e.g., the width
and type of screening vegetation between the nest and proposed activity)
or the existing ambient level of activity (e.g., existing level of human
activity within the buffer distance). If construction must take place within
the recommended buffer widths above, the project applicant should
contact the Department to determine the appropriate buffer. A bio-
monitor shall be present on-site during all initial grubbing and clearing of
vegetation to ensure that perimeter construction fencing is being
maintained and to minimize the likelihood that nests containing eggs or
chicks are abandoned or fail due to construction activity. A bio-monitor
shall also perform periodic inspections of the construction site during all
major grading to ensure that impacts to sensitive plants and wildlife are
minimized. These inspections should take place once or twice a week, as
defined by the Department, depending on the sensitivity of the resources.
The bio-monitor shall send weekly monitoring reports to the Department
1-44
and shall notify both the CBP/USBP and the Department immediately if
clearing is done outside of the permitted project footprint.
(b) (6) Figures 2-3 through 2-8 should be revised to show defined boundaries Figures 2-3 through 2-8 are not included in
CA Dept. between BLM managed lands and City of San Diego/Marron Valley the ESP.
167
of Fish and MSCP Cornerstone landings.

Game
2-17-2008
(b) (6) Section 4.9.2 mentions that a total of 26.8 acres of permanent impact to Please see Table 8-3 in the ESP with revised
CA Dept. vegetation would occur from both sections of fence construction; however impacted acres.
168 of Fish and acreage values in Table 4.9-1 total 27 acres. Also 31 acres of permanent
Game impacts are being reported for Section A-1 patrol road; however the value
2-17-2008 in Table 4.9-1 yielded 25.4 acres. Reported values should be consistent
throughout the document.
(b) (6) Section 4.9.2 mentions six habitat types being adversely impacted with a Table and reference call outs have been
October 2008
CA Dept. reference to Table 3.9-2. However, this table contains information of verified in the ESP.
169
of Fish and species observed during the biological surveys. We believe the reference
Game should be Table 3.9-1.
2-17-2008
FME000509

(b) (6) , Page 3-21, line 25: The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board All Waters of the United States within the
San Diego will take jurisdiction over the intermittent streams in the proposed project. project corridor were delineated and
Regional Water These are waters of the State. The applicant needs to enroll in the coordinated with the USACE Los Angeles
170
Quality Control general WDR for isolated waters from the State Water Resources Control District, San Diego office, and the California
Board Board. Any impacts to intermittent streams need to be mitigated. State Water Control Board. Impacts on
2-11-2008 Waters of the United States will be mitigated,
as appropriate.
(b) (6) , Page 3-21, line 41-43, and Page 3-22, line 1-11: The proposed project See Appendix E of the ESP for related BMPs
San Diego will increase the impervious surface in the watershed. Please make sure and mitigation. No increases in impervious
171 Regional Water that the additional storm water does not contain pollutants that affect the surfaces are expected as a part of this
Quality Control beneficial uses of the streams. Post-construction BMPs might be Project.
Board necessary.
2-11-2008
(b) (6) , Page 6-7, line 36-37, and Page 6-8, line 1-3: The increase of impervious See Appendix E of the ESP for related BMPs
San Diego surface might increase the risk of hydromodification. Please make sure and mitigation. No increases in impervious
172 Regional Water that downstream hydrology is not affected. surfaces are expected as a part of this
1-45
Quality Control Project.

Board
2-11-2008
(b) (6) Page 6-8, line 4-15: Please try to avoid or minimize any impacts to See Appendix E of the ESP for appropriate
San Diego riparian areas or wetlands. Impacts usually need to be mitigated at a 3:1 mitigation and BMPs.

173 Regional Water ratio, 1:1 creation, and 2:1 restoration/enhancement.
Quality Control
Board
2-11-2008
(b) (6) In a Draft EIS, all reasonable alternatives should be discussed at a See response to Comment No. 4.
County of San comparable level of detail, however, only two of nine alternatives were
Diego assessed in detail in the EIS for Tactical Infrastructure. Seven of the
174
alternatives identified in Section 2.2 Alternatives Analysis were dismissed
without providing adequate detail to the public. The technical information
October 2008
to support which alternatives were considered should be provided to the

public, either in the text of the EIS or in appendices.
FME000510

(b) (6) The area covered by this plan [Natural Community Conservation Plan - The project is within what the county calls the
County of San NCCP] includes a significant portion of the land on the northern side of Southern MSCP and the potential for the
Diego the proposed action. A range of species anticipated to be covered by the presence of the southern MSCP target
175 East County MSCP will be directly affected by the proposed action. The species is evaluated in the Biological Survey
draft list of covered species is located at: Report in Appendix D of the ESP.
http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/mscp/ec_biology.html. The EIS should No mitigation is planned for non-Federal listed
identify mitigation to address associated impacts to sensitive biological species.
resources to the extent feasible.
(b) (6) The Primary Pedestrian Fence would impact species mobility and reduce Small animals such as reptiles and
County of San habitat connectivity. It is anticipated that the Proposed Action will have amphibians will be able to pass through the
Diego significant impacts to reptiles, amphibians and a range of other species proposed fence. Large mammals would have
176
including large mammals that are dependent upon water and other to travel around the fence and would be
resources located directly to the north and south of areas affected by the impacted by its construction.
Proposed Action. The EIS should identify mitigation to address See also response to Comment No. 152.
associated impacts.
(b) (6) The EIS should provide details regarding the cuts and fills that will be Specific information regarding locations of cut
1-46
County of San required in drainages that will be crossed by the roads and the pedestrian and fill and exact dimensions of the project
Diego fence so that impacts can be adequately analyzed. Details should include cannot be provided as this level of detail is
177 the dimensions for each fill, amount of fill to be required for each canyon not yet known. However, BMPs have been
or wash, from where the proposed fill will be excavated, and how far it will developed as since more than 5 acres of soil
need to be transported. The cuts and fills should be evaluated for their are being disturbed. See Appendix E of the

impacts to aesthetics, hydrology, surface water quality, and biological ESP.
resources.
(b) (6) Photo-simulations of the final project should be included in the EIS so that The visual impact analysis in the ESP follows
County of San changes to visual resources can be assessed. The EIS should evaluate standard guidelines for such analyses. As
Diego the impacts to aesthetics from the large fills in the various canyons. stated in the ESP, this is a highly subjective
178 Mitigation for these impacts should include vegetating the slopes with resource area because viewer response is
San Diego County native plants. gauged by individuals in various locations,
with various backgrounds, and various
feelings about the Project. See Chapter 9 of
the ESP for visual resources impacts.
October 2008
FME000511

(b) (6) The EIS (pg. 2-16) states that existing roads will be used to access Road improvements are planned to allow for
County of San Section A-1 and A-2 and some of the Section A-1 and A-2 roads would passage of construction equipment and
Diego require improvements for the passage of commercial construction sufficient turning radius of these vehicles.
equipment. The EIS references the following County roads, which may be Post construction activities could include
179 impacted by the proposed project: Alta Road, Marron Valley Road, patrols and other USBP operations.
Tecate/Mission Road, and Otay Mountain Truck Trail. The EIS should
state how the above listed roads (or any other County roads) would be
used by the proposed project for construction and post-construction
activities. For example, the EIS should identify if the roads would be used
for construction activities only or for ongoing border patrol operations.
(b) (6) The EIS should identify portions of the access roads that are County CBP will continue to coordinate with local
County of San maintained or private roads that will be utilized by the proposed project officials concerning access to roads.
180
Diego for construction and post-construction activities. If the proposed project
will utilize private roads for construction and post-construction activities,
early coordination with the affected property owners is recommended.
(b) (6) The EIS should identify improvements that will be made or needed for Road improvements are planned to allow for
1-47
County of San Marron Valley Road and Otay Mountain Truck Trail to serve grading and passage of construction equipment and
Diego construction operations for the border fence. sufficient turning radius of these vehicles.
181
Post construction activities could include
patrols and other USBP operations. At this
time specific locations for these

improvements is unavailable.
(b) (6) The EIS includes general references (p. 4-16) to improvements to Marron See comment response No. 181.
County of San Valley Road (SR-94 to Boundary Monument 250), which would include a
Diego 2.7 mile long segment that is a County maintained public road. The EIS
182
should provide a detailed description of the planned road improvements
(i.e. paved road width, number of lanes) and preliminary improvement
plans to Marron Valley Road and all other roads within or accessed from
the County right-of-way (ROW).
(b) (6) Figure 2-8 (p. 2-15) shows a five-acre staging area located along Marron Staging areas are expected to be used for
October 2008
183 County of San Valley Road. The EIS should describe how the staging area will be construction equipment, storage of materials,
Diego utilized for construction and post-construction activities. and will be restored to original condition upon
completion of the Project.
FME000512

(b) (6) The EIS should provide an operational assessment (e.g., sight distance) No new access points are planned for the
184 County of San for any new driveways/access points created by the project along County Project with the exception of Alta Road, which
Diego maintained public roads. will be developed in cooperation with the
appropriate transportation authorities.
(b) (6) The EIS should describe if the new patrol roads would have fences or Other than the border fence, no other fences
185
County of San other means to prevent the public from accessing the roads from the are planned.
Diego public right-of-way.
(b) (6) The EIS (Table 1-1) should note that the County will require construction CBP will require all contractors to obtain
County of San and encroachment permits for any work performed within the County's appropriate state and local permits before
186
Diego right-of-way. A portion of Marron Valley Road and the other study area construction.
roads are maintained by the County. Table 1-1 is no longer included in the Final
ESP.
(b) (6) A cooperative agreement between the County and Federal agencies is This comment is beyond the scope of this
187 County of San recommended in order to ensure the repair and the continuing ESP.
Diego maintenance of public roads utilized by the proposed project during
construction and post-construction activities.
1-48
(b) (6) The EIS (p. 4-4) identifies that the proposed project will require large Anticipated off-site hauling will be on access
County of San amounts of cut-and-fill materials from both onsite and offsite. The EIS roads identified in the ESP. Types and
Diego should provide further detail on the location and routes taken by the numbers of equipment are unavailable at this
estimated 23,193 construction truck haul loads, including if any of these time.
188

trips will take access onto public roads. The EIS should provide the
following data regarding the truck hauling activities: daily volume of truck
and construction traffic, hours and dates/length of operation for
construction activity, construction/truck routes along or connecting to
public roads, types of heavy vehicles to be used for construction.
(b) (6) The EIS should estimate the daily volume of project-related traffic that will Estimates will be possible once the design-
189
County of San use public roads during the post-construction activities. build contract is in place.
Diego
(b) (6) The San Diego Audubon Society is very concerned with the fate of the CBP and USBP are working closely with
October 2008
San wildlife that depend on the area of this project. This area contains a few USFWS to select fence designs and locations
190
Diego Audubon species that are very much at risk and the vegetation that support them. that would minimize potential impacts to
Society Some of these are possibly on the threshold of extinction. wildlife and their habitat where possible.
2-17-2008
FME000513

(b) (6) At the hearing, we were told that the EIS does not propose a “Triple See Section 1.4 of the ESP for a detailed
San Fence” design, that the road will tend to follow natural land contours and description of the Project, triple fence is still
191 Diego Audubon not require massive cutting and filling, and that the fence will be an open not a consideration for this Project.
Society lattice with 4 inch openings that will allow movement of small native
2-17-2008 animals. If any of those features is changed, we urge that a new Draft
EIS be distributed.
(b) (6) ALTERNATIVES: The EIS only analyzes two alternatives, “No Project” See response to Comment No. 4.
San and the “Proposed Action”. In section 2.2.4, page 2-4, the EIS discards a
Diego Audubon “Technology in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure” alternative. This alternative
Society seems designed to fail as a technology-only approach is unlikely to work.
2-17-2008 But, we urge that an alternative be identified and fully analyzed that
would depend less on heavy construction, especially in sensitive or
192
difficult areas, and more on detection, communication, command, and
control technology, and strategic deployment. Such a hybrid
infrastructure/technology system is likely to result in less cost, less
environmental damage, more effectiveness, more safety for personnel,
and less maintenance cost than the proposed project. We urge that a
1-49
new DEIS be provided with such an alternative fully identified and

analyzed.
(b) (6) LIGHTING: The EIS states that “The proposed action does not include Lighting is currently not a component of the
San the construction, operation, and maintenance of lights for Sections A-1 tactical infrastructure planned for the USBP

Diego Audubon and A-2.” This is a project level EIS. It must cover the construction, San Diego Sector.
Society operation, and maintenance of all elements of the entire project. If
2-17-2008 lighting is going to be part of this infrastructure, this EIS must be
upgraded to identify, analyze, and minimize the environmental impacts of
193
that lighting in conjunction with the rest of the project. The use or
non-use of high intensity border lightning may well be a major impact on
many species of wildlife that use this region. An emphasis on other
technology could minimize the need for lighting. Any decision regarding
the environmental impacts of this project must take into account the
impacts of the lighting. To not include them in this EIS would not comply
October 2008
with NEPA.
FME000514

(b) (6) PIECEMEALING: It is not clear why the infrastructure in this area is The decision to develop Sector specific
San broken into small segments for environmental analysis. We urge that any environmental analysis was based on
Diego Audubon environmental analysis and identification of mitigation acknowledge that operational and needs assessments of the
Society the entire Border Infrastructure will have a significant area of wetland and USBP San Diego Sector. Sector specific
2-17-2008 other impacts and can not be considered to be a de minimis impact analysis allowed for more project detail and
194 because it is broke into smaller projects. analysis versus a programmatic approach.
CBP has considered the past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects that
could have cumulative impacts when
within the scope of the project corridor, see
Chapter 12 of the ESP.
(b) (6) WETLANDS: Page 3.21, line 36 states that “Delineations for wetlands Wetland delineations have since been
San and Waters of the United States have not yet been conducted.” It is not completed and findings have been
Diego Audubon appropriate that this EIS does not state how much wetland will be taken incorporated into the ESP, see Section 7.2.
195 Society by the project, how much will be avoided by various alternatives, and
2-17-2008 what mitigation will be provided. We urge that the DEIS be re-circulated
1-50
when that essential information is included. As it stands this document

does not have information that is essential for a reviewer or a decision
maker.
(b) (6) FLOODPLAINS: Paragraph 4.8.2 concedes that no analysis of flood Hydraulic modeling is ongoing and will be

San hazards has been conducted and that prior to construction hydraulic utilized in the design-build to ensure impacts
Diego Audubon modeling will be conducted to determine impacts on floodplains. The to floodplains are minimized or avoided to the
Society areas of flood hazard need to be considered in the basic design of the maximum extent practicable. Additionally,
196
2-17-2008 project and identified in the EIS so that the public and decision makers BMPs and mitigation have been developed.
can assess the water quality and environmental impacts and the viability
of the project. Doing it at some time “prior to construction” defeats the
purpose of NEPA. Please republish this DEIS when that information can
be included.
October 2008
FME000515

(b) (6) VEGETATION: Section 4.9.2, page 4-16, states that improvements to The vegetation impacts in the ESP have been
San Marrone Valley Road will impact 65.6 acres. The project description does evaluated based on a potential impact
Diego Audubon not identify why there would be so much impact for improvement to an corridor 60-foot wide centered on Marron
Society existing road. The EIS needs to seek to reduce this excessive impact. Valley Road. This impact corridor is the
2-17-2008 This immediate area provides habitat and host plants for the Quino maximum potential impacts to allow for
197
Checkerspot Butterfly and impacts should be aggressively minimized. access road improvements, which at the time
of the surveys had not been designed. Actual
Impacts may be less. During construction,
BMP's for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly will
be implemented and followed during access
road improvements.
(b) (6) We do not find it in the document, but the diagrams shown at the San The ESP now shows Mine Canyon Road as
San Diego hearing showed the project expanding and using Mine Canyon part of Marron Valley Road. This has been
198
Diego Audubon Truck Trail. This would exacerbate the impacts on Quino checkerspot corrected in the document.
Society butterflies. We urge that Marrone Valley Road be used instead to avoid
2-17-2008 impacts.
(b) (6)
1-51
WILDLIFE: Section 4.10.2, page 4-20 states that the proposed action CBP has been in close coordination with
San “would have short to long-term negligible to major adverse impact on USFWS during the course of this project, and
Diego Audubon Herme’s copper, Thorne’s hairstreak, and Harbison dun skipper developing BMPs to mitigate negative
199 Society butterflies.” Either of the first two of these could be driven extinct in the impacts to wildlife or their habitat. This
2-17-2008 very near future. The project needs to be redesigned to eliminate the information, along with additional specific

possibility that it could have a significant adverse impact on these information on fence types is included in the
butterflies. That impact could cause the extinction of one of these ESP and appendices.
species.
(b) (6) Section 4.11.2, page 4-22 states that it would be best for the Quino See response to Comment No. 199.
San checkerspot butterflies if project construction would begin “immediately
Diego Audubon after the emergence of the adults in March.” This should be a specific
Society mitigation requirement for the start of the construction, not just an
200
2-17-2008 observation. The mitigation should also specify a stop date for
construction so that it would not deter any stage of reproduction for the
subsequent year. Before removal of vegetation, it should be searched
October 2008
and any remaining pupas should be found, removed, and reared in a

captive breeding site for subsequent release.
FME000516

(b) (6) Section 4.11.2, page 4-23 summarizes that for the Quino checkerspot See response to Comment No. 199.
San butterfly “…the proposed action would include short- and long-term
Diego Audubon impacts in the project area and range from negligible to major beneficial
Society and major adverse.” The Quino is a federal endangered species. The
2-17-2008 area around Otay Mountain and Morrone Valley has the highest
concentration of individuals in San Diego County. The viability of this
201
species has been severely threatened by the 2007 fires. This project
could make the difference between extinction and survival of this
endangered species. The project must be redesigned to eliminate the
possibility that it could cause a major adverse impact. A new DEIS must
be prepared that will identify what measures that would be employed to
prevent the possibility of any adverse impact to this severely at-risk
specie.
(b) (6) Section 4.11.2, page 4-24 states that suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo See response to Comment No. 199.
San is immediately south of the project and that the noise from the
Diego Audubon construction “would represent a short-term minor adverse impact on this
Society species in the project area.” The noise could prevent an entire year’s
1-52
202 2-17-2008 nesting and reproduction. This appears to be contrary to the Endangered
Species Act. We strongly urge that the EIS include a specific and
accountable mitigation measure that construction in this area will avoid
the LBV courting/ nesting season. If the construction can not be
completed by the beginning of the courting/nesting season it should be

held off until the subsequent year.
(b) (6) MITIGATION: Any suitable habitat for Quino checkerspot, Thorne’s See response to Comment No. 199..
San hairstreak, Herme’s copper, or Harbison dun skipper butterflies, or for
203 Diego Audubon California gnatcatcher, or least Bell’s vireo that is destroyed for this
Society project should be fully mitigated. The mitigation should be in-place,
2-17-2008 functional, and ready to be occupied before the clearing and construction
begin to assure that this project will not put these species in jeopardy.
(b) (6) The mitigation table, 5.1-1, does not identify specific mitigation or even See response to Comment No. 199.
San amounts of mitigation for the destroyed habitat. It is not possible for a
October 2008
Diego Audubon reviewer or a decision maker to assess the environmental impact of the
204
Society proposed action without knowing what mitigation will be provided, how it
2-17-2008 will compare with the habitat lost, and what the timing and conditions of
the mitigation will be. We urge that another Draft EIS for this project be
provided with this essential information provided.
FME000517

(b) (6) This EIS does not provide a project alternative that will reliably reduce the Although the Secretary’s waiver means that
San impact of this project to an acceptable level for at-risk, threatened, and CBP no longer had any specific legal
Diego Audubon endangered species. obligations for alternative analysis under
Society NEPA or ESA the Secretary committed DHS
2-17-2008 to continue responsible environmental
205
cultural resources. CBP has worked with
environmental impacts, including impacts to
federally listed species.
(b) (6) It does not address the impacts of lighting on wildlife. It does not identify Lighting is currently not a component of the
San the amount, type, timing, or conditions of the mitigation. It contains a lot tactical infrastructure planned for the USBP
206
Diego Audubon of very useful information, but it does not reduce the environmental San Diego Sector.
Society impacts of the project to a reasonable level.
2-17-2008
(b) (6)
1-53
As such, it does not satisfy the letter or the intent of the National Although the Secretary’s waiver means that
San Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, and must be improved before it is CBP no longer has any specific legal
Diego Audubon certified or the project proceeds. obligations under the laws that are included in
Society the waiver, the Secretary committed DHS to
207
2-17-2008 continue responsible environmental

stewardship of valuable natural and cultural
resources. The Biological Resources Plan
contained in Appendix E of the ESP, details
BMPs and mitigation for the Project.
(b) (6) I guess I'm concerned that I don't think that the NEPA document is really See response to Comment No. 207.
San a NEPA document. The specific areas of impact for different vegetation
Diego Audubon types and the wetlands isn't specified a mitigation area type and location
Society isn't specified, so as a reader I have no way of knowing whether the
208 1-17-2008 impact -- whether the mitigation is consistent with the impact of the
project. So I think that I understand that the project has gotten ahead of
October 2008
the habitat assessments and what delineation, but I think they need to
come out with another draft document with that information in it so that
the public and so decision-makers can actually make an intelligent
decision.
FME000518

(b) (6) I'm also concerned that those impact numbers in both area of vegetation See response to Comment No. 207.
San loss and area of wetlands impact aren't shown for each alternative and
209 Diego Audubon they haven't made a set of good alternatives that will allow them to sit
Society down with a spread sheet and see what the impacts of each alternative
1-17-2008 are and the benefits of those alternatives so they can make an intelligent
trade-off. And I think that is necessary to do an intelligent NEPA process.
(b) (6) I'm concerned that we have heard the Border Patrol and Congress say The decision to develop Sector specific
San there is going to be a fence the entire length of the border and we are environmental analysis was based on
Diego Audubon dealing with something like 3.6 miles here, and to me that is operational and needs assessments of the
Society piecemealing, that we are not really addressing the environmental impact. USBP San Diego Sector. Sector specific
1-17-2008 We were doing it three or 11 or seven miles at a time, and that is a analysis allowed for more project detail and
210 violation of the NEPA process as well. analysis versus a programmatic approach.
1-54

(b) (6) A lot of the alternatives are thrown out because they don't meet See response to Comment No. 4.
San operational needs, but that is not specified and no one explains why they
211 Diego Audubon don't meet the operational needs, so it's impossible for a reviewer to

Society assess the validity of those alternatives not meeting, and some of those
1-17-2008 alternatives for parts of the project would be very valuable to reduce the
environmental impact of the project.
(b) (6) I have some specific comments about Marron Valley Road, that the Final route alignment is still being evaluated.
San project proposes using Mine Canyon Truck Trail for access instead of
Diego Audubon Marron Valley Road, which will mean there will be a huge butterfly
212 Society impact, there will be a huge erosion impact because it will be very, very
1-17-2008 steep, there will be a huge safety impact for Border Patrol operations and
people building the bridge. So someone said that they are going to
reassess that and use Marron Valley Road, but I hope that they do that in
October 2008
fact.
FME000519

(b) (6) I think that the documents focused on impact on the Quino butterfly All species analysis is being conducted in
San because Quino butterfly is a listed species, but I'm very concerned that conjunction with the USFWS and has been
213 Diego Audubon there are other butterflies that are equally -- probably equally at risk and broadened to include state species of
Society that they need to include those in the documents. Even though they aren't concern.
1-17-2008 legally listed, their impacts are high, and this ought to be assessed
whether or not Fish & Wildlife Services listed them.
(b) (6) I'm very concerned with the Buttewig Canyon area, particularly Staging Impacts on the riparian corridor associated
San Area H that takes out basically one side of the riparian corridor. They with Staging Area F will be minimized to the
214 Diego Audubon need to find some other way to build the -- to get construction equipment maximum extent practicable.
Society to the border other than the Staging Area F that they have shown. It takes
1-17-2008 on -- like I said, takes up the whole riparian corridor and I'm afraid it won't
be a temporary impact.
(b) (6) They're planning on using the iron fence with four-inch slats as a drain BMPs are being developed as a requirement
San way instead of having a separate culvert system, and that is going to get of the SWPPP since more than 5 acres of soil
Diego Audubon wiped out with every major storm we get, because of the boulders and are being disturbed. Implementation of these
Society vegetation that comes down and gets clogged up with that fence and turn site-specific BMPs as well as any BMPs or
1-55
215 1-17-2008 it into a dam and it won't suffice as a dam, and if it does, it will cause a lot mitigation will be implemented prior to (and
of erosion around it. That will require an amazing amount of maintenance, potentially following) construction of the fence
and the way they have designed it now, maintenance will come down in and associated infrastructure.
the future to Staging Area F and the environmental impact of doing that
once during construction is way too high. The environmental impact

continuously when there is a wash-out is even worse.
October 2008
FME000520

(b) (6) I'm also very concerned -- I filed letters and actually am part of a lawsuit On January 4th, 10th, and 14th, 2008 CBP
San on part of the border fence near the ocean, and I think that I definitely published a Notice of Availability (NOA) and
Diego Audubon should be on an interested parties list, and I was not notified of this. I Public Open House announcement in the San
Society found out by accident. So I think that is in itself a violation of the NEPA Diego Union Tribune, San Diego Daily
1-17-2008 process. Transcript, La Prensa, Hispanos Unidos, and
El Latino announcing the availability of a Draft
EIS for Construction, Operation, and
Maintenance of Tactical Infrastructure, U.S.
216
Border Patrol San Diego Sector, California,
for public review and comment. The NOA
announced the availability of the Draft EIS;
the date, time, and place for the public open
house; and publicized a request for
comments on the Draft EIS.
It is not possible to identify and mail individual
correspondence to every potentially
interested party.
1-56
(b) (6) But I'm an interested person and I should have been notified and all other See response to Comment No. 216.
San people that I know that commented on the previous documents should
217
Diego Audubon have been notified and none of us were, so I think that is a violation of
Society NEPA and I think they need to start over again.
1-17-2008

(b) (6) Again I think they need to start over again because this document doesn't See response to Comment No. 4.
San have the essential information on habitat types and on the mitigation that
218
Diego Audubon the EIS has to have for anybody to be able to intelligently be able to
Society evaluate.
1-17-2008
October 2008
FME000521

(b) We find a serious flaw in the analysis due to the lack of analysis of CBP understands and is mindful of its role in
(6) impacts of preserve lands and species in a preserve portion of an ensuring that the goals, objectives, and
CA Native approved Habitat Conservation Plan. The Federal Government signed principles of the MSCP are carried forward.
Plant Society onto the Multiple Species Conservation Program as is partially described To that end, CPB has consistently tried to
2-6-2008 on page 3-35. BLM lands on Otay Mountain were committed to balance its obligation to secure the border
preservation status in a legally binding document. The program does not and meet the objectives of Congress as
prohibit actions needed for border security but it does require that impacts expressed in Section 102 of the Illegal
to all sensitive species be mitigated. We see no mention of impacts to Immigration Reform and Immigrant
sensitive plant species or mitigation of impacts for MSCP covered Responsibility Act of 1996, as amended, 8
219
species or BLM sensitive species. Since this area was identified as U.S.C. § 1103 note, with its commitment to
preserve area under an approved HCP, this document is deficient in responsible environmental planning and
identifying impacts and proposing mitigation for those impacts. stewardship. CBP continues to closely
coordinate with the USFWS regarding
endangered species and sensitive habitat in
San Diego county. CBP will mitigate for
unavoidable adverse impacts to species and
has worked with DOI to design infrastructure
1-57
that will produce the least amount of impacts

on wilderness and wilderness values.
(b) Where is there discussion of BLM sensitive species or the BLM The BLM sensitive species are discussed in
(6) Management Plan for Otay Mountain? An HCP is a take permit which the Biological Survey Report. There is no
220
CA Native guarantees preservation of species elsewhere. discussion of the BLM Management plan for

Plant Society Otay Mountain.
2-6-2008
(b) Otay Mountain is one of those places identified for preservation. As such, Non-listed species were evaluated in the
(6) Arctostaphylos otayensis, Brodiaea orcuttii (the likely Brodiaea disclosed ESP, however no mitigation is planned for
221
CA Native in Table 3.9-2), Ceanothus otayensis, Cupressus forbesii, Ferocactus these species.
Plant Society viridescens, and Quercus cedrocensis impacts need to be quantified and
2-6-2008 mitigated if they cannot be avoided.
October 2008
FME000522

(b) We are particularly concerned about impacts to Cupressus forbesii and See Chapters 8 and 9 of the ESP for related
(6) Quercus cedrocensis given the limited distribution of these species in the impacts.
CA Native United States with both largely limited to Otay Mountain. Had it not been
Plant Society for purported protection under an approved HCP, these species likely
2-6-2008 would have been listed by now. The grading that is being proposed for
222
road construction has a large potential for degrading the habitat for these
two species even when they are avoided as they frequently are found
down drainages below proposed grading. When erosion of graded
material and roads occurs with rain, it is critical that soils not be allowed
to fill in the drainages below. How is the Army Corps of Engineers
proposing to solve this issue?
(b) Table 3.9-2 identifies Ornithostaphylos oppositifolia, Dudleya The ESP has been revised. None of these
(6) blochmaniae ssp brevifolia and Rosa minutifolia as being in the proposed species are known to occur in the project
223
CA Native impact area on page 3-34 but to our knowledge none of these listed area.
Plant Society species occurs on Otay Mountain. Is this information correct? If so, how
2-6-2008 will these species be avoided or mitigated.
(b)
1-58
Where is discussion of the Monardella species previously identified as The Jenifer's monardella discussion has been
(6) Willowy monardella? The Carlsbad office of USFWS does not recognize added to the ESP.
CA Native the entity that occurs on Otay Mountain in Wild Bill’s Draw and Copper
Plant Society Canyon as being a distinct species from Monardella linoides ssp. viminea
2-6-2008 therefore your document is deficient in discussion of listed species. With

224 limited surveying, two plants were located on the United States side of
the border just up from the border. Will these plants be impacted? How
will drainage changes impact the species in Wild Bill’s Draw and in
Copper Canyon as changes in the volume of water in these drainages is
likely to impact the species very negatively given their growth directly in
the steep sided drainages where water flow is expected to increase with
road construction.
(b) Little mousetail identified in Table 3.1-1 is not a crustacean but a rare The ESP text has been revised per comment.
(6) vernal pool plant species.
225
CA Native
October 2008
Plant Society
2-6-2008
FME000523

(b) We disagree with your discussion of Encinitas baccharis, a listed species This is a perennial species and would have
(6) on page 3.47. This difficult to detect species has been identified up been detectable during the surveys and was
226 CA Native Copper Canyon and could very easily be in the proposed impact area. targeted by the surveyors. This species
Plant Society The species is difficult to detect but we presume your surveying was would not have been detectable in areas that
2-6-2008 adequate to have found the species if present. were burned prior to the surveys during the
2007 fires.
(b) Prior to heavy use of Otay Mountain by Border Patrol vehicles, there were Incidental impacts of introduced species may
(6) few weeds on Otay Mountain. Sadly that is no longer the case. We have not be caused by USBP activities but rather
CA Native seen the movement of weed species along the roadsides on Otay by increased illegal traffic after Operation
Plant Society Mountain. What long term commitment does Border Patrol propose for Gatekeeper, increased fire frequency opening
2-6-2008 weed control since they are introducing new roads into areas? the habitat area, poor documentation of past
conditions, or the lack of fence maintenance
227 and feral animals grazing. This project
recognizes there is a potential increase in the
number of exotics from any activity on the
mountain including the proposed action, but
control of exotic species is not the sole
1-59
responsibility of the Border Patrol nor is this

project the appropriate forum to address this
very serious issue.
(b) It is difficult to tell what impacts will occur with this project and what Best See Chapters 2 through 12 in the ESP for
(6)

Management Practices will be utilized. impacts of the Project. Associated BMPs and
228
CA Native mitigation are in Appendix E of the ESP.
Plant Society
2-6-2008
October 2008
FME000524

(b) The discussion on page 4-13 states no wetland delineation has been Field surveys were conducted in Sections A-1
(6) performed for the project and that if wetland impacts cannot be avoided, and A-2A on January 14 through 16, 2008, to
CA Native permits will be obtained and plans developed. We know areas at the delineate jurisdictional wetlands and other
Plant Society confluence of the drainages known as Copper Canyon support species waters of the United States within the impact
2-6-2008 such as Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum. corridors. Delineations were also conducted
229
(b) It seems clear that the current fencing on Otay Mountain is inadequate for Comment noted.
(6) even controlling cow movement across the border. Trips by botanists in
CA Native the area have led to inadvertent incursions into Mexico simply because it
Plant Society was not clear that one had crossed any barrier in Wild Bill’s Draw.
1-60
2-6-2008 Perhaps construction of a better primary fence would be helpful in this

area but we question the wisdom of introducing new roads across the
mountain. Since Operation Gatekeeper the traffic through Copper
Canyon, and likely other canyons has increased greatly. The trash level
has increased dramatically. We are concerned that in building a road in

230 this area, you will just be making it easier for additional traffic and more
critically, vehicular traffic to use this area when it has not been open to
vehicular traffic in the past. As you are aware, each and every day the
fence in the more coastal stretches has to be repaired. Are you sure this
is a wise idea? Drug trafficking is currently limited to what one can carry
on one’s back up steep terrain. Building roads seems like we are
providing new transportation corridors for drug smugglers in an area with
little public scrutiny. When staffing levels for agents are high in the Otay
Mountain area that may be okay but when large numbers of agents are
October 2008
shipped to Arizona leaving this area with little staffing, the addition of new
roads seems foolish.
FME000525

(b) Your discussion of impacts to Quino checkerspot are unique. Rarely are CBP and USBP are working closely with
(6) impacts of a single project referred to as negligible to major beneficial and USFWS regarding potential impacts to
CA Native major adverse. Other documents we have seen would settle on the worst threatened or endangered species. Impacts
Plant Society level which in this case is a major adverse impact to the species from the and mitigation measures to wildlife and
231 2-6-2008 project. What mitigation is proposed for direct impacts to Quino wildlife habitats are included in the BRP (see
checkerspot? Does this project jeopardize the species in San Diego Appendix E of the ESP). In this regard, CBP,
County? USBP, and USACE are working closely with
the USFWS on fence design and BMPs that
would minimize or mitigate impacts to
sensitive species.
(b) The document does not disclose or analyze impacts to all sensitive See response to Comment No. 231.
(6) species in the plan areas. The Federal government signed onto a Habitat
232 CA Native Conservation Plan that made Otay Mountain and Marron Valley (large
Plant Society parts of it) preserve lands. As such the impacts to all sensitive species,
2-6-2008 not just listed species needs to be discussed and impacts mitigated.
Where in the document is there a list of BLM sensitive species?
(b)
1-61
There will be much cut for the roads and fencing and the cut material and A SWPPP will help to ensure appropriate
(6) erosion from the cut must be kept out of adjacent drainage area. management of cut and fill material and
233
CA Native avoidance of erosion.
Plant Society
2-6-2008

(b) I am concerned about the cut being done from the west side as Quercus Impacts on vegetation resources are detailed
(6) cedrocensis, and Tecate cypress grow downslope as well as Carex in Chapter 8 of the ESP. See also Appendix
234
CA Native spissa which supports a rare butterfly. E, the Biological Resources Plan, for detailed
Plant Society mitigation and BMPs related to these
2-6-2008 resources.
(b) How can you mitigate for impacts to Quine checkerspot if you pup your The route along Mine canyon road was
(6) staging areas in areas known to support larval stages and you propose a erroneously shown in the Draft EIS. It has
235
CA Native nasty to drive road through Mine Canyon in high density Quine area in been corrected to follow Marron Valley Road.
Plant Society the past. Please propose a different area for staging on the west side The staging areas were proposed and have
October 2008
2-6-2008 and use Marron Valley road on the east side of Otay mountain. been revised and are shown in the ESP.
FME000526

(b) What species of sensitive plants were surveyed for? The species that were surveyed for included
(6) all Federal and State listed threatened and
236 CA Native endangered species, all MSCP covered
Plant Society species, and all California BLM listed species
2-6-2008 (2004) which had potential for occurring in the
project area.
(b) I have seen a rare Monardella just up canyon from the border in Wild The text now addresses the proximity of
(6) Bill's Draw. My memory is not the best but I would have thought they Jennifer's monardella to the project area.
237
CA Native would be in the impact area. This is a listed species and doesn't get
Plant Society mentioned.
2-6-2008
(b) Right now between Buttewig and the access area down into Wild Bill's The primary concern of the project is
(6) Draw there is little ability to bring vehicles form Mexico into the U.S. Are pedestrian traffic not automobile. Resources
238
CA Native you not creating the conditions to allow drug traffickers to access the area in the ESP were evaluated with that in mind.
Plant Society by cutting fences and entering the roads you are building?
2-6-2008
1-62
(b) In the areas where the fence is well away from the border are you now Usage of the general area for staging and
(6) creating biological dead zones since the new staging area will be at the crossings is expected to decrease not
239
CA Native fences. increase with construction of the fence.
Plant Society
2-6-2008

(b) Page 3-38 Little Mousetail is a vernal pod plant, not a crustacean. Text revised per comment.
(6) Ornithostaphylos & Dudleya blochmaniox spp. Brevifolia are not known
240
CA Native from the plan area. Have you identified new populations of these listed
Plant Society species (see page 3-34).
2-6-2008
(b) (6) It is our intention to support the concept of securing and at the same time CBP will continue to closely coordinate with
working with the US Border Patrol to conserve public, private and state and Federal resource agencies
Southwest reservation lands and their natural resources along this section of the throughout the project effort.
241
Wetlands international border of the United States. These lands are of significant
October 2008
Interpretive ecological, educational, historic, cultural, recreational and economic value

Association to the United States and its people.
2-8-2008
FME000527

(b) (6) We have been involved in this issue since 1992 and it is our intention to Comment noted.
maintain the ecological integrity of this border region at all costs while
Southwest promoting security. We encourage you to recognize ecological and
242
Wetlands security concerns equally. Both protect the health and welfare of US
Interpretive citizens.
Association
2-8-2008
(b) (6) Some of our major concerns regarding the EIS include CBP has considered the past, present, and
1) adequate analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative effects on sensitive reasonably foreseeable future projects that
Southwest resources including listed species could have cumulative impacts when
Wetlands combined with the impacts of the Project
Interpretive within the scope of the project corridor.
Association CBP and USBP are working closely with
2-8-2008 USFWS regarding potential impacts to
243
threatened or endangered species. Impacts
and mitigation measures associated with
1-63
wildlife and wildlife habitats are included in

the BRP (see Appendix E of the ESP). In this
regard, CBP, USBP, and USACE are working
closely with the USFWS on fence design and
BMPs that would minimize or mitigate impacts
to sensitive species.

(b) (6) 2) consistency with local, regional and state planning efforts CBP has and will continue to closely
coordinate with state and local agencies
Southwest throughout the Project process.
244
Wetlands
Interpretive
Association
2-8-2008
October 2008
FME000528

(b) (6) 3) a better analysis of habitat fragmentation The primary species of conservation concern
(including transborder conservation
Southwest strategies) are endemic plants, invertebrates
Wetlands (e.g., Thorne’s hairstreak, Quino checkerspot
Interpretive butterfly), herpetofauna (e.g., arroyo
Association southwestern toad), birds (e.g., California
2-8-2008 gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo), and mammals
(e.g., Bighorn sheep, mountain lion, and
American badger). Plant propagules capable
of long-distance dispersal (e.g. windblown
seeds) would not be impacted by the bollard
245 style fence. Invertebrates would be able to fly
between or over the bollards. Herps would be
able to pass through the fence – between the
bollards. Big-horn sheep and mountain lion
are not known from the Section A-1 vicinity.
American badger may occur in the area
1-64
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 Mexican highway just south

of Section A-1 would pose much more
substantial barriers to badger movement.
(b) (6) 4) recognizing the difficulty in adequately mitigating the impacts of this Please see Appendix E of the ESP, Biological
project Resources Plan, for appropriate BMPs and
Southwest mitigation. In addition BMPs are summarized
246
Wetlands in Table ES-1 of the ESP.
Interpretive
Association
2-8-2008
October 2008
FME000529

(b) (6) It should also be recognized that the California Governor's Biodiversity Comment noted.
Council has been working with Mexico to establish cross border corridors
Southwest in this region connecting lands on both sides protecting and enhancing
247
Wetlands genetic flow and drift.
Interpretive
Association
2-8-2008
(b) (6) It must be recognized that the United States and Mexico have Comment noted.
collaborated to address shared conservation and security issues,
Southwest including migratory, imperiled, and invasive species, border operations,
248
Wetlands security, and trans-boundary pollution but in most instances adequate
Interpretive solutions have not been addressed. This is true in this sector of San
Association Diego County.
2-8-2008
(b) (6) This area along with many others along the border have suffered The Project is expected to reduce adverse
extensive damage from the effects of unauthorized immigration, human impacts on vegetation from trampling and limit
1-65
Southwest and drug smuggling, and border enforcement activities which make it the creation of informal footpaths by reducing
249
Wetlands imperative to find a way to implement practical solutions while protecting illegal cross-border traffic through the OMW.
Interpretive habitat and the species dependent upon it.
Association
2-8-2008

(b) (6) There is an increased need for coordination and planning between the CBP and USBP are working closely with
Department of Homeland Security and land management agencies at the USFWS to select fence designs and locations
Southwest local, state, regional and federal level. Cooperation will help avoid and that would minimize potential impacts to
250
Wetlands mitigate damage to sensitive habitat, States-Mexico border while wildlife and their habitat where possible. CBP
Interpretive improving border security. We have mentioned those agencies, will continue to coordinate with state and local
Association government bodies, research institutions and NGOs above. stakeholders.
2-8-2008
(b) (6) The Secretary of DHS should consult with tribal officials from the CBP continues to closely coordinate with the
Roosevelt Reservation to jointly develop a border strategy to protect Tribes along the border.
October 2008
Southwest these tribal lands along the United States-Mexico border in this sector.
251
Wetlands
Interpretive
Association
2-8-2008
FME000530

(b) (6) There should be required training for Customs and Border agents Training for USBP personnel does not fall
assigned to this sector to protect these lands. This will require under their operational guidelines: however,
Southwest cooperation with the Secretary of DHS along with appropriate construction personnel will receive
252
Wetlands organizations mentioned above to minimize the adverse impact on environmental stewardship training by
Interpretive natural and cultural resources from border enforcement activities. biological monitors.
Association
2-8-2008
(b) (6) When constructing the border barrier we encourage the Secretary of CBP has been coordinating with the
Homeland Security to consult with the appropriate federal, state, local, appropriate stakeholders to minimize potential
Southwest and tribal officials to provide for fencing, vehicle barriers, roads, lighting, adverse environmental impacts where
253
Wetlands cameras, sensors, additional patrol capability or other surveillance and practicable. See Appendix E of the ESP,
Interpretive barrier tools as necessary to minimize ecological impact. which details BMPs and mitigations for the
Association Project.
2-8-2008
(b) (6) In carrying out the requirements of the law, we encourage the Secretary Fencing is one component of a long-term
of Homeland Security to utilize low impact border enforcement techniques program for gaining effective control of our
1-66
Southwest including the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, remote cameras, sensors, borders. Personnel, technology, and
254 Wetlands and increased patrol capability. infrastructure do not individually have the
Interpretive same effect they have as an integrated
Association program. However, they cannot replace the
2-8-2008 proven effectiveness of border barriers in

slowing and deterring illegal border crossers.
(b) (6) We encourage the establishment of a Borderlands Conservation Fund to Comment noted. Various mitigation
provide financial assistance for projects consistent with the goal of strategies have been pursued in coordination
Southwest improved management of ecologically sensitive or listed species, with USFWS.
Wetlands improved wildlife habitat to aid in the management of these species, and
Interpretive mitigating the impacts of border enforcement, human and drug
255 Association smuggling, and unauthorized immigration on these lands and species.
2-8-2008 These funds and grants will be awarded to eligible organizations including
wildlife management agencies or qualified private organizations in the
United States and Mexico. This would be appropriate as NGOs on both
October 2008
sides of the border are presently working to accomplish these tasks in

this area. This will help sustain viable populations of species that occur in
the borderlands of this region.
FME000531

(b) (6) The bigger issue that must be addressed if we are going to deal with Comment noted This comment is beyond the
immigration and border infrastructure issues will be working with Mexico scope of this ESP.
Southwest to provide security and jobs in Mexico. Organizations like the World Bank
Wetlands and the Inter-American Development Bank must be encouraged to help
256 Interpretive Mexico build a sustainable economy and encourage green technologies.
Association The International Monetary Fund does not lend for specific projects but
2-8-2008 can help with economic stability. Since the border issue involves both
Mexico and Latin America NAFTA and CAFTA must be restructured to
enable the countries to address the real issues of distribution of wealth,
poverty, corruption, population pressures and resource protection.
(b) (6) The Conservancy is very interested in working with the Border Patrol and CBP will continue to minimize environmental
The other entities to achieve a satisfactory outcome for both conservation and impacts of tactical infrastructure whenever
Nature security. It is in this context that The Conservancy is writing to express possible.
257
Conservancy our concerns about the Proposed Action Alternative to construct, operate,
2-11-2008 and maintain additional roads and pedestrian fence in sections A-1 and
A-2 along the U.S. Mexico international border that has been identified as
a critical opportunity area for conservation (CBI 2004).
1-67
(b) (6) Section 2.2.8 Proposed Action describes the design criteria that have See Appendix B of the ESP for fence designs
The been established based upon the U.S. Border Patrol's operational needs. and types. Also, Appendix E, Biological
Nature The Conservancy is pleased to see that the design criteria take into Resource Plan, contains specific details about
258
Conservancy consideration the need for small animal migrations and natural surface fence design throughout and mitigations

2-11-2008 water flow. However, there are no examples of engineering designs for required based on actual fence design
the proposed fence in the EIS that one can reference to determine how planned.
the fence will accommodate wildlife needs and surface water flows.
(b) (6) Section 3.7 Surface Waters and Waters of the U.S. for the Proposed Please see Section 6.3 of the ESP.
The Action Alternative falls short in that it does not address how the
259
Nature construction of additional pedestrian fence in the project area will deal
Conservancy with additional stream channel sedimentation, stream bank erosion and
2-11-2008 possible release of pollutants into stream channels.
October 2008
FME000532

(b) (6) Section 3.9 Vegetation Resources states there will be long-term adverse Comment noted, see Appendix E of the ESP,
The impacts to vegetation communities, including two rare and highly Biological Resources Plan, for BMPs and
Nature threatened communities: Diegan coastal sage scrub and Southern coast mitigation strategies.
Conservancy riparian oak woodlands. Diegan coastal sage scrub has the highest
2-11-2008 species richness of all of the coastal scrub associations in Southern
260
California (Westman 1983) and occurs from Orange County California to
Ensenada, Baja California, with the area around Otay Mountain at the
heart of its distribution. Today, development and agricultural expansion
across Southern California have resulted in significant loss (>90%) of this
vegetation community. Any additional loss of these vegetation
communities and the species they support therefore especially significant.
(b) (6) Section 3.10 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources should recognize that the See response to Comment No. 245.
The impact of the Proposed Action cannot be measured by miles of fencing
261
Nature alone, but rather that installing a new fence in the proposed areas,
Conservancy particularly in canyons and other likely wildlife corridors, will have true
2-11-2008 "cumulative impact."
(b) (6)
1-68
The additional border fencing and new roads will further fragment habitat As noted before, it is not believed that this
The beyond current conditions. Loss and fragmentation of habitats is project will significantly increase species
Nature considered the single greatest threat to biodiversity at global and regional fragmentation for species of concern. In
Conservancy scales (Myers 1997, Noss and Csuti 1997, Brooks et al 2002). The border addition, see Appendix E of the ESP for
2-11-2008 region is a good example of the effects of habitat fragmentation (CBI BMPs and mitigation strategies.

262 2004). Road construction and conversion of land to urban uses have
fragmented and isolated natural habitats. The remaining habitat
fragments experience edge effects, altered physical conditions and fire
regimes, increased invasion by exotic species, changes in vegetation,
loss of top predators, and altered species population dynamics. Roads
can have an even broader impact by altering hydrologic patterns,
disrupting migration patterns, and causing direct mortality via road kill.
October 2008
FME000533

(b) (6) Enormous investments in habitat conservation through the Natural Comment noted.
The Community Conservation Planning/Multiple Species Conservation
Nature Program (NCCP/MSCP) have been made to prevent further
Conservancy fragmentation and maintain the ecological integrity of the remaining intact
2-11-2008 areas in the borderlands. These investment in conserved lands rely upon
the protection of the same habitat types in Northern Baja California, much
263
of which is still intact but highly threatened by future infrastructure
development. The Conservancy and out partners are working under the
Las Californias Binational Conservation Initiative to protect our
investments in San Diego County by maintaining cross-border linkages
and protecting lands in Mexico. Constructing a new pedestrian fence in
the areas identified would sever some of the last remaining corridors that
provide connectivity between north and south.
(b) (6) The canyons proposed for fencing in A-1 and the tributary in A-2 may Surveys have been completed since October
The serve as dispersal areas for the wildlife species identified in the EIS. The 2007 that more fully detail the presence or
Nature proposed fence could isolate populations and reduce genetic viability of nonpresence of specific species.
Conservancy the remaining species. While many of the species listed in the EIS were
1-69
264
2-11-2008 not recorded during the field visits that were conducted in October 2007
that does not mean they are not present. Negative surveys for species
could have been the result of drought conditions, normal lack of presence
at that time of the year, or the fact that some of the areas burned in the
recent fires.

(b) (6) U.S. Customs and Border Patrol should consider a programmatic The decision to develop Sector specific
The approach to mitigating for direct and cumulative impacts to federally listed environmental analysis was based on
Nature species. Otay Mountain is an important component of the Sweetwater operational and needs assessments of the
Conservancy Unit of the National Wildlife Refuge, which was born from NCCP/MSCP. USBP San Diego Sector. Sector specific
2-11-2008 analysis allowed for more project detail and
265 analysis versus a programmatic approach.
October 2008

FME000534

(b) (6) U.S. Customs and Border Patrol could help further the goals of the The Sweetwater Unit of the Refuge is
The Sweetwater Unit of the Refuge and further strengthen the NCCP/MSCP approximately 10-15 miles away from the
Nature by mitigating for impacts from the Proposed Action in or around the project area. CBP has been in close
266
Conservancy Sweetwater Unit of the Refuge. coordination with Federal and state agencies
2-11-2008 along with NGOs during the course of this
project. BMPs and mitigation are provided in
(b) (6) Along certain ecologically sensitive sections of the border, one possible On April 1, 2008, the Secretary of DHS,
The alternative to additional pedestrian fence would be to maintain or install pursuant to his authority under Section 102(c)
Nature vehicle barriers and use other technology, such as cameras and sensors, of IIRIRA of 1996, as amended, exercised his
Conservancy to track illegal foot traffic. This mix of infrastructure and technology, authority to waive certain environmental and
2-11-2008 combined with additional patrols, may be less environmentally damaging other laws in order to ensure the expeditious
and potentially even more cost-effective than installing a pedestrian construction of tactical infrastructure along the
fence. U.S./Mexico international border. Although
267 the Secretary's waiver means that CBP no
longer has any specific legal obligations for
alternatives analysis under NEPA, the
1-70
Secretary committed DHS to continue

responsible environmental stewardship of our
valuable natural and cultural resources. CBP
has worked with resource agencies to
consider alternative designs and locations

that would minimize environmental impacts.
October 2008
FME000535

(b) (6) In addition, the Conservancy proposed that DHS and the San Diego CBP is working closely with the U.S.
The Sector consider a pilot project to protect the remaining open space along Department of Interior regarding the
Nature the border from urban encroachment. It is our belief that preserving open appropriate techniques to evaluate ecosystem
Conservancy space and important natural areas along the border will also benefit U.S. impacts (beneficial and negative) on border
2-11-2008 Customs and Border Patrol. We understand that in urbanized areas, U.S. security actions. These approaches, once
Customs and Border Patrol has no other option but to construct developed, may be a useful component for
268 pedestrian fences to secure the border. However, protecting open space longer term evaluation of any potential efforts.
and preventing incompatible development can benefit the U.S. Customs
and Border Patrol by allowing a greater number of options for securing
the border. The Conservancy is interested in participating in a pilot project
with DHS and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to conserve a property
called Bell Valley that sits just west of the A-1 and A-2 segments. The
goal would be to conserve this property and prevent future urban
encroachment on that section of the border.
(b) (6) For this reason, the Conservancy believes that the additional fencing Fencing is one component of a long-term
The should not be built as currently proposed and believes instead that there program for gaining effective control of our
Nature ought to be opportunities in certain high priority wildlife corridors- borders. Personnel, technology, and
1-71
269 Conservancy especially in some of the canyons-to use virtual technology, vehicle infrastructure do not individually have the
2-11-2008 barriers, and rapidly deployable personnel to secure the border. same effect they have as an integrated
program. However, they cannot replace the
proven effectiveness of border barriers in

(b) (6) The DEA utterly fails to adequately consider the proposed project's CBP has considered the past, present, and
The Defenders indirect or cumulative effects, or the effects to wildlife and conservation reasonably foreseeable future projects that
of Wildlife lands, we request that the DHS withdraw the DEA and instead prepare a could have cumulative impacts when
270
regional, more comprehensive and detailed EIS that includes a lawful combined with the impacts of the Project
analysis of alternatives that do not simply foreordain border fencing, but within the scope of the project corridor.
instead examine all available approaches to ensuring border security in
the most environmentally and economically benign way possible.
October 2008
FME000536

(b) (6) As the DHS Secretary, Michael Chertoff, has publicly and repeatedly On April 1, 2008, the Secretary of DHS,
The Defenders promised to begin construction of border fencing and other infrastructure pursuant to his authority under Section 102(c)
of Wildlife in spring 2008, we question how the DEIS constitutes a meaningful, of IIRIRA of 1996, as amended, exercised his
good-faith assessment of the various options available to effectively authority to waive certain environmental and
secure the border. If the conclusion of the alternatives analysis is other laws in order to ensure the expeditious
foregone, as it appears to be, how can the public be assured of its legal construction of tactical infrastructure along the
right to comment on this major federal action in a consequential manner? U.S./Mexico international border. Although
The DEIS is unlawfully narrow because it fails to thoroughly consider any the Secretary's waiver means that CBP no
action alternatives that do not involve significant mileages of border walls, longer has any specific legal obligations for
271
when the purpose of the DEIS should be to assess effective, but alternatives analysis under NEPA, the
environmentally and economically benign, methods of achieving Secretary committed DHS to continue
operational control of the international border. Further, the DEIS provides responsible environmental stewardship of our
an unfortunately shallow analysis of indirect effects, and as such fails to valuable natural and cultural resources. CBP
adequately consider or work to minimize: the predictable redirection of has worked with resource agencies to
illegal activities resulting from construction of discontinuous wall consider alternative designs and locations
segments; the introduction and colonization of invasive vegetation due to that would minimize environmental impacts.
land disturbance; and the restrictions land managers will face as they
1-72
work to create, maintain, or restore wildlife habitat, conduct prescribed

burns, or control annual wildfires, due to limited access points proposed.
(b) (6) Under NEPA, the existence of this type of multi-agency, integrated See response to Comment No. 271.
The Defenders program is required to be analyzed in a regional or comprehensive EIS
of Wildlife produced cooperatively by all the involved federal agencies, yet the only

NEPA analysis conducted to date on this fence construction has been a
series of isolated and piecemealed EAs. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 40
CFR 1502.3 (requiring EISs for "proposals" and "other major Federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.")
IBLA precedent recognizes that preparation of these types of regional
272
and comprehensive EISs are required in "two and only two instances: (1)
when there is a comprehensive federal plan for the development of a
region, and (2) when various federal actions in a region have cumulative
or synergistic environmental impacts on a region." Southwest Resource
October 2008
Council, 96 IBLA 105, 116-117 (1987) (citing Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427
US 390 (1976)). As the pending border fence construction in California
meets both of these criteria, a regional or comprehensive EIS on such
construction must be prepared before the San Diego Segment fence
project may be undertaken.
FME000537

(b) (6) The DEIS approving the border fencing and road construction provides The decision to develop Sector specific
The Defenders little indication that the authorized construction is part of a well-defined environmental analysis was based on
of Wildlife federal proposal to construct border fences along the vast majority of the operational and needs assessments of the
U.S.-Mexico border within the state of California. As defined by the USBP San Diego Sector. Sector specific
Supreme Court in Kleppe, a "proposal" exists for purposes of NEPA when analysis allowed for more project detail and
there is "a regional plan of development...[which] defines fairly precisely analysis versus a programmatic approach.
the scope and limits of the proposed development of the region." 427 US CBP has considered the past, present, and
at 401-02. Similarly, NEPA's implementing regulations direct that when reasonably foreseeable future projects that
"proposals or parts of proposals which are related to each other closely could have cumulative impacts when
273 enough to be, in effect, a single course of action shall be evaluated in a combined with the impacts of the Project
single impact statement." 40 CFR 1502.4(a). In this instance, several within the scope of the project corridor, see
factors demonstrate that a border fence construction "proposal" for the Chapter 12 of the ESP.
state of California exists, including: (1) Congressional direction in the
Secure Fence Act; (2) DHS' initiation of an EIS process for a similar
border fence proposal in southern Texas; and (3) the simultaneous
planning and development of several individual and segmented fence
construction projects in different areas of the State. The existence of a
1-73
comprehensive fence construction plan with significant environmental

impacts within California thus requires the preparation of a regional EIS
before construction of individual fence segment may lawfully proceed.

October 2008
FME000538

(b) (6) In contrast, DHS' proposed fence project in the San Diego Sector is While the waiver eliminated the requirement
The Defenders clearly part of a well-defined larger federal proposal for fence construction to consider alternatives under NEPA, CBP
of Wildlife along most of the California and Arizona border. The existence of such a used the previous alternatives analysis and
proposal is most plainly illustrated by provisions of the Secure Fence Act, comments from Scoping and on the DEIS to
which authorizes DHS to construct border fencing along a 370 mile-long the extent practical to refine the project. Four
corridor running eastward from Calexico, California to just east of main factors contribute to fence location
Douglas, AZ. While the Act provides discretion to DHS on the manner of decisions: (1) the USBP operational
construction to utilize within areas where the topography is greater than a assessments; (2) input from stakeholders,
10 percent grade, and does not affect the duty and discretion of federal including landowners; (3) potential
land management agencies to conserve the lands under their environmental concerns; and (4) engineering
274 administration, it nonetheless established with considerable precision the assessments, which include the cost to
geographical areas in which border fences will likely be constructed. construct. Each of these steps is a standard
element of the planning process that enables
CBP to make informed decisions in deploying
the right mix of tactical infrastructure.
In addition, operational assessments by the
USBP San Diego Sector – based on illegal
1-74
cross-border activity and the Border Patrol’s

extensive field experience – identified multiple
locations where primary pedestrian fencing
would most effectively enhance border
security.

(b) (6) As discussed above, because the proposed border fence construction See response to Comment No. 271.
The Defenders along California's southern border constitutes a federal proposal with
of Wildlife significant environmental impacts, a regional EIS must be prepared
before further individual segments of fence may lawfully be approved and
constructed. However, even if the DHS determines that such a proposal
does not exist, the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably
275
foreseeable fence projects within the State also require the preparation of
a comprehensive or regional EIS in order to accurately and lawfully
assess the overall impacts of their construction. As the Supreme Court
October 2008
noted in Kleppe, cumulative environmental impacts "must be considered

together because only through comprehensive consideration of pending
proposals can the agencies evaluate different courses of action." 427
U.S. at 410.
FME000539

(b) (6) In this case, because the "individual" fence projects being constructed The decision to develop Sector specific
The Defenders and planned throughout the California border region will have significant environmental analysis was based on
of Wildlife and cumulative adverse environmental consequences and are similar in operational and needs assessments of the
terms of construction, timing, and geography, BLM, and other federal land USBP San Diego Sector. Sector specific
management agencies, DHS, and all other federal agencies involved in analysis allowed for more project detail and
276 permitting or otherwise approving such construction must prepare a analysis versus a programmatic approach.
comprehensive EIS. CBP has considered the past, present, and
(b) (6) In particular, the fence projects currently being constructed or planned will See response to Comment No. 245.
The Defenders have significant cumulative effects on the California border region’s
of Wildlife wildlife, and the landscape habitat connectivity needed to sustain viable
populations of those species. Moreover, these effects will be further
exacerbated by the reasonably foreseeable fence construction along the
1-75
277
large majority of California’s southern border, as authorized by the
Secure Fence Act. Because the DEIS for the San Diego Segment has
only considered potential cumulative impacts within the specific project
areas, there has been absolutely no NEPA analysis conducted on the
overall impacts of fence construction on wildlife within the California

borderlands region.
(b) (6) The California borderlands region contains many species of plants and See response to Comment No. 245.
The Defenders wildlife that have otherwise limited distributions within the United States,
of Wildlife and in some circumstances, provide a species’ only habitat in the country.
(e.g., California gnatcatcher and Quino Checkerspot butterfly). For the
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, the construction of significant fencing along
278
the San Diego segment (particularly within the Southwest San Diego
Recovery Unit) will result in fragmentation of habitat, genetic isolation,
and increases the species’ risk of extinction within the U.S. See. U.S.
October 2008
Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery Plan for the Quino
Checkerspot butterfly. (The Recovery Plan notes that the habitat in the
Otay Mountain area is a core recovery area.)
FME000540

(b) (6) The need to prepare a comprehensive EIS based on cumulative and CBP decided not to develop a programmatic
279
The Defenders regional effects on wildlife has been specifically embraced by the D.C. environmental document due to project time
of Wildlife Circuit. constrains set by Congress.
(b) (6) Similarly, DEIS contains a brief discussion of cumulative impacts within On April 1, 2008, the Secretary of DHS,
The Defenders the San Diego Segment area but does not address or acknowledge the pursuant to his authority under Section 102(c)
of Wildlife potential cumulative impacts of simultaneous fence construction being of IIRIRA of 1996, as amended, exercised his
undertaken or planned within different areas of the California border. In authority to waive certain environmental and
fact, the NEPA analysis here is even more deficient than Natural other laws in order to ensure the expeditious
Resources Defense Council, because in that case Department of the construction of tactical infrastructure along the
Interior had at least attempted to provide a regional and comprehensive U.S./Mexico international border. Although
280 analysis, but the Court found it insufficient. See id. at 299 (The EIS the Secretary's waiver means that CBP no
“merely announces that migratory species may be exposed to oil spills longer has any specific legal obligations for
and other impacts … These perfunctory analysis do not constitute alternatives analysis under NEPA, the
analysis useful to a decisionmaker in deciding whether, or how, to alter Secretary committed DHS to continue
the program to lessen cumulative environmental impacts.”). responsible environmental stewardship of our
1-76

(b) (6) The border fence construction program not only has significant direct and See response to Comment No. 245.
The Defenders cumulative effects, but pronounced and well-documented cumulative

of Wildlife indirect effects on the California border region. Under NEPA’s
implementing regulations, “indirect effects” are defined as those effects
“caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance,
but are still reasonably foreseeable.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b). In
281 interpreting NEPA’s indirect effects mandate, courts have “emphasized
that NEPA does not recognize any distinction between primary and
secondary effects.” Border Power Plant Working Group v. Dep’t of
Energy, 260 F. Supp. 2d 997, 1014-15 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Methow
Valley Citizens Council v. Reg’l Forester, 833 F.2d 810, 816 (9th Cir.
1987), rev’d on other grounds, Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens
October 2008
Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989)). As the Ninth Circuit stated in Methow
Valley:
FME000541

(b) (6) Reasonable forecasting and speculation is implicit in NEPA, and we must While the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP
The Defenders reject any attempt by agencies to shirk their responsibilities under NEPA has no obligation under these laws, CBP has
282 of Wildlife by labeling any and all discussion of future environmental effects as used the threshold and guidelines in the ESP
crystal ball inquiry. analysis and will implement appropriate BMPs
to avoid or minimize impacts whenever
possible.
(b) (6) 833 F.2d at 816-17 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Because The decision to develop Sector specific
The Defenders the regional indirect effects of individual and segmented border fence environmental analysis was based on
of Wildlife construction on wildlife and protected federal lands in California are operational and needs assessments of the
reasonably foreseeable and significant, these indirect effects provide USBP San Diego Sector. Sector specific
another compelling reason why a regional EIS on the California border analysis allowed for more project detail and
283 fence construction program must be initiated. analysis versus a programmatic approach.
1-77

(b) (6) DHS’s failure to take a “hard look” at these impacts renders its DEIS Comment noted.
284
The Defenders arbitrary and capricious.
of Wildlife

(b) (6) One factor for determining significance under NEPA is “the [u]nique All of these characteristics were considered
285 The Defenders characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or when evaluating impact levels associated with
of Wildlife cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic the Project.
rivers, or ecologically critical areas.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(3).
(b) (6) Indeed, this area is a known biological hotspot. The borderlands impacted Comment noted.
286 The Defenders by the proposed project provide federally designated critical habitat and
of Wildlife essential recovery habitat for the highly endangered Quino Checkerspot
butterfly.
(b) (6) In addition, this area also hosts recently federally designated critical The California Gnatcatcher is a species of
October 2008
The Defenders habitat for the threatened California gnatcatcher. Based on a review of concern identified throughout the ESP. See
287 of Wildlife the maps, it appears that the fence line cut through Unit 1 of critical Appendix E of the ESP, the Biological
habitat for the gnatcatcher. 72 Federal Register 72010, 72038 (December Resources Plan.
19, 2007). The DEIS fails to mention anything about critical habitat for the
gnatcatcher or analyze any impacts to critical habitat.
FME000542

(b) (6) Just as the Ninth Circuit in National Parks & Conservation Association Comment noted.
The Defenders noted that the “unique characteristics of Glacier Bay [National Park and
of Wildlife Preserve] are undisputed and of overwhelming importance,” 241 F.3d at
288
731, so too are the unique characteristics of this portion of southern San
Diego County, and thus a thorough analysis on the effects of border
fence and road construction on this irreplaceable treasure must be
conducted.
(b) (6) The DEIS’s cumulative effects analysis provides only the vaguest of CBP has considered the past, present, and
The Defenders generalities regarding existing actions that already impact the human and reasonably foreseeable future projects that
289 of Wildlife natural environment within the southern San Diego County area. No could have cumulative impacts when
attempt is made to provide detail on what these actions actually are, or combined with the impacts of the Project
the cumulative effect such activities have on specific natural resources within the scope of the project corridor.
such as imperiled plant and wildlife species.
(b) (6) For example, the DEIS provides no information on the expected See Section 12.12 of the ESP and Appendix
The Defenders cumulative effects of the border wall construction on the federally listed E, the Biological Resources Plan.
of Wildlife California gnatcatcher or Quino checkerspot butterfly. Despite the direct
290
1-78
threat posed to these species by the proposed wall construction, and its
already precarious status from the additive effects of other past and
present activities, the DEIS simply contains no attempt to address such
cumulative effects
(b) (6) Rather than presenting a purpose and need statement that reflects the On April 1, 2008, the Secretary of DHS,

The Defenders larger goal of improving border security, and then evaluating different pursuant to his authority under Section 102(c)
of Wildlife means to achieve that goal, DHS in this case has instead defined border of IIRIRA of 1996, as amended, exercised his
wall construction itself as the goal. See DEIS at ES-1 (The “purpose of authority to waive certain environmental and
the Proposed Action is to increase security capabilities within the USBP other laws in order to ensure the expeditious
San Diego Sector through the construction, operation, and maintenance construction of tactical infrastructure along the
of tactical infrastructure in the form of fences, roads, and supporting U.S./Mexico international border. Although
291 technological and tactical assets.”). By so radically narrowing the scope the Secretary's waiver means that CBP no
of the project’s purpose, DHS has impermissibly constricted the range of longer has any specific legal obligations for
alternatives considered. See Carmel-by-the-Sea, 123 F.3d at 1155. alternatives analysis under NEPA, the
Indeed, it would appear that DHS is meeting is already meeting is Secretary committed DHS to continue
October 2008
security requirements without building a wall. Border wide, the Border responsible environmental stewardship of our
Patrol reported a 20% reduction in apprehensions in fiscal 2007. The valuable natural and cultural resources. CBP
greatest reductions in crossings were in areas such as Del Rio, Texas, has worked with resource agencies to
where there was a 46% reduction in apprehensions. Del Rio has never consider alternative designs and locations
had a border wall. that would minimize environmental impacts.
FME000543

(b) (6) Indeed, the DEIS considers only two action alternatives, both of which are See response to Comment No. 280.
292 The Defenders border wall proposals: the proposed action and the no action alternative.
of Wildlife All other potential alternatives were dismissed with less-than-minimal
analysis. See DEIS at 2-2 through 2-6.
(b) (6) As stated recently by one court, “if NEPA mandates anything, it mandates See response to Comment No. 280.
The Defenders this: a federal agency cannot ram through a project before first weighing
of Wildlife the pros and cons of the alternatives. In this case, the officials of the
Army Corps of Engineers . . . never looked at an entire category of
reasonable alternatives and thereby ruined its environmental impact
293
statement.” Simmons v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 120
F.3d 664, 670 (7th Cir. 1997). In this case, DHS is obviously attempting to
ram through an ineffective, costly, and highly controversial border wall
project without considering the many alternatives that could meet the
important purpose of improving border security with much less damaging
(b) (6) 40 C.F.R. § 1500.2 (e), this course of action is clearly deficient, and the See response to Comment No. 280.
1-79
294 The Defenders DEIS must be withdrawn and replaced with a full EIS, including an
of Wildlife analysis of the full range of reasonable alternatives available to DHS to
achieve the overarching goal of improving border security.
(b) (6) Despite the importance of this area to wildlife and plants such as the See Appendix E of the ESP, Biological
The Defenders California gnatcatcher and Quino Checkerspot butterfly, the DEIS’s Resources Plan, for BMPs and mitigation

295 of Wildlife analysis of potential impacts to them by construction of the proposed strategies related to these species of concern.
tactical infrastructure is cursory and insufficient. The road and wall At the time the Draft EIS was issued,
segments proposed in the DEIS could very quickly doom ongoing efforts mitigation strategies were still being
to conserve these species. developed in coordination with USFWS.
October 2008
FME000544

(b) (6) Habitat connectivity is very critical in the margins of a species’ See response to Comment No. 245.
The Defenders distribution, where resource patches are typically smaller, more isolated
of Wildlife and of lesser quality (Brown et al. 1995, Wilson et al. 2002, Holt et al.
2005). Border walls and roads will further isolate resource patches and
prevent crucial dispersal events from occurring. A major component of
296
the 2003 Recovery Plan for the Quino Checkerspot butterfly is the
emphasis on maintaining and restoring habitat connectivity between the
three identified recovery units and within each recovery unit. See Quino
Checkerspot butterfly Recovery Plan at pp.73-75. The proposed project
would fragment habitat within one of the core recovery units (Southwest
Recovery Units).
(b) (6) Impermeable border walls will undoubtedly block and limit critical cross- The planned border fence is not
The Defenders border dispersal events between resource patches to the detriment of impermeable, see Appendix B of the ESP,
of Wildlife affected species and populations. Similar security infrastructure in other and response to Comment No. 296.
297
countries has proven to be detrimental to wildlife. For example, a security
fence built along the disputed India-Pakistan border has already been
shown to alter wildlife movements and has facilitated negative human-
1-80
wildlife interactions (Pahalwan 2006).

(b) (6) The contention that the proposed action and mitigation measures result in See Section 8.3 of the ESP for impacts on
The Defenders a less than significant impact on these imperiled species and their habitat special status species. In addition Appendix
of Wildlife is, quite simply, wrong. Construction of the proposed infrastructure will E of the ESP contains BMPs and mitigation

undeniably degrade and fragment critical habitat for the California strategies for special status species.
gnatcatcher, including more than 4 miles of new road. Destruction or
alteration of this habitat will introduce additional and possibly
298 overwhelming pressure upon already stressed wildlife populations. A
sampling of major impacts to wildlife from the construction of border walls
includes, but is not limited to: increased road mortality along access and
patrol roads, isolation of vegetation stands resulting in loss of habitat
cover and connectivity, altered wildlife behavior and range due to high-
intensity permanent lighting and construction and operational noise, and
the interruption of genetic exchange necessary to sustain wildlife
October 2008
populations over time.

FME000545

(b) (6) Moreover, the DEIS dismisses the value of any of the habitat areas The burned areas to the extent possible had
The Defenders burned in recent fires as habitat not worthy of evaluation, avoidance or their vegetation type identified, and the extent
of Wildlife mitigation. For example, the DEIS dismisses the value of coastal sage of that vegetation mapped. This is the same
habitat burned in recent fires for California gnatcatcher. DEIS at 4-24. level of effort as the non-burned areas. The
299 However, the USFWS in its recent critical habitat rule for the California burned habitat is being treated the same as
gnatcatcher, stated that “California gnatcatchers will likely recolonize unburned for purposes of identifying potential
these burned areas over time.” 72 Federal Register 72010, 72033 for listed species. However severely burned
(December 19, 2007). Therefore, there is no rational basis for DHS to areas are not being considered occupied
dismiss the value of these areas out of hand. All of these areas should be habitat and may be mitigated differently due
surveyed, fully analyzed, and mitigated. to that distinction.
(b) (6) Further, any declaration of the expected impact to wildlife, especially Surveys have since been completed and data
The Defenders threatened and endangered species that are intrinsically rare and often has been incorporated into the ESP.
of Wildlife secretive, is unsupportable with available information, given that the
biological surveys were not conducted during the proper season or
according to accepted protocol or, even worse, were not conducted at all.
300
Indeed, the DEIS acknowledges, “no protocol surveys were conducted.”
DEIS at Appendix H at 3. The fact that DHS would be able to draw any
1-81
meaningful conclusions when no protocol surveys were conducted clearly

illuminates the predetermined conclusion of the DEIS, in stark violation of
NEPA, to construct border walls at any and all cost to the integrity of
sensitive biological resources.
(b) (6)

Border fence construction not only has significant direct and cumulative CBP has considered the past, present, and
The Defenders effects, but pronounced and well-documented cumulative indirect effects. reasonably foreseeable future projects that
301
of Wildlife could have cumulative impacts when
October 2008
FME000546

(b) (6) Since the early 1990s, when the Border Patrol first began implementing Construction and operation of tactical
The Defenders its “prevention through deterrence” Southwest Strategy within the urban infrastructure will increase border security in
of Wildlife border areas of San Diego, CA, and El Paso, TX, its fence construction the UBSP San Diego Sector and may result in
and associated infrastructure development of roads, lighting systems, a change to illegal traffic patterns. However,
remote camps, and other enforcement efforts have had overwhelming changes to illegal traffic patterns result from a
302
indirect effects on more remote and less populated areas of the southern variety of factors in addition to USBP
border by shifting, rather than decreasing, overall levels of illegal operations; and therefore, are considered
immigration. Importantly, the Border Patrol and Immigration and unpredictable and beyond the scope of this
Naturalization Service (INS) wrongly assumed that migrants would be ESP.
deterred from crossing the often remote, inhospitable desert and
mountainous regions that predominate much of the southern border.
(b) (6) These indirect effects have not been considered or analyzed by DHS. In CBP has considered the past, present, and
The Defenders interpreting NEPA’s indirect mandate, courts have “emphasized that reasonably foreseeable future projects that
of Wildlife NEPA does not recognize any distinction between primary and secondary could have cumulative impacts when
303 effects.” Border Power Plant Working Group v. Dep’t of Energy, 260 F. combined with the impacts of the Project
Supp. 2d 997, (S.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Methow Valley Citizens Council v. within the scope of the project corridor.
Regional Forester, 833 F.2d 810, 816, rev’d on other grounds, Robertson
1-82
v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989)). Agencies must
thus assess foreseeable, indirect effects of their actions:
(b) (6) Id. at 816-17 (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis See response to comment No. 302.
The Defenders added). In this instance, DHS has had more than ten years of experience

of Wildlife with the “squeezing balloon” effect of border security efforts, in which
304 increased enforcement efforts within one area predictably lead to
increased illegal immigration and subsequent increased enforcement
efforts within adjoining areas. These indirect effects, which will certainly
occur if the wall segments are constructed in southern San Diego County,
are nonetheless not analyzed in the DEIS.
(b) (6) The harmful effects of invasive, non-native species are widely See Appendix E of the ESP for BMPs and
The Defenders recognized. It is also known that disturbance to previously intact soils mitigation strategies related to invasive
of Wildlife promotes the colonization and spread of harmful nonnative vegetation. It species.
is especially concerning that the DEIS proposes no method to control or
October 2008
305
monitor the predictable and foreseeable introduction of noxious plants
following construction of the proposed walls. The DEIS neither evaluated
the likelihood of non-native colonization, nor proposed measures to
control or mitigate for the environmental damage that such colonization
and subsequent spread would produce.
FME000547

(b) (6) Under NEPA, “conclusory remarks [and] statements that do not equip a The Draft EIS considered alternatives that
The Defenders decisionmaker to make an informed decision about alternative courses of would meet the Border Patrol’s Purpose and
of Wildlife action, or a court to review the Secretary’s reasoning” is insufficient. Need. The context of Goals and Objectives
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Hodel, 865 F.2d 288, 298 (D.C. (Section 1.3) has been expanded for the ESP.
Cir. 1988). This is exactly the type of Environmental Impacts analysis that On April 1, 2008, the Secretary of DHS,
DHS has presented in this DEIS. pursuant to his authority under Section 102(c)
of IIRIRA of 1996, as amended, exercised his
authority to waive certain environmental and
other laws in order to ensure the expeditious
306 construction of tactical infrastructure along the
U.S./Mexico international border. Although
the Secretary's waiver means that CBP no
longer has any specific legal obligations for
alternatives analysis under NEPA, the
Secretary committed DHS to continue
responsible environmental stewardship of our
1-83

(b) (6) More specifically, an EIS must analyze the nature and severity of the The ESP includes an analysis of impact
The Defenders environmental impacts. DHS has not done this, but instead has listed regardless of magnitude or significance.

of Wildlife activities that may affect or have the potential for adverse impacts, but Levels of impact disclosed in the ESP for
does not analyze the type or extent of the adverse impact, for itself or for individual resource topics range from none to
the reader. major, depending on the individual analysis
307
performed by resource specialists with
experience in performing these types of
studies.
See the Executive Summary which includes a
discussion on the nature of the characteristics
that might relate to various impacts.
October 2008
FME000548

(b) (6) For example, the DEIS does not identify the nature of the impacts to fish There are no aquatic resources in the project
The Defenders and wildlife or to threatened and endangered species. Without such, corridor. Special Status Species are
of Wildlife neither DHS nor the reader can compare alternatives. See 40 C.F.R. § discussed in Chapter 8 of the ESP.
1502.16. Furthermore, without any sense of the location, type, or nature
of the impacts, it cannot be possible to come to the conclusion that there
308 are no impacts to endangered species under the No Action alternative. In
the Fish and Wildlife section, on the other hand, the DEIS states that
there may be impacts under the No Action alternative, but does not
determine the significance of the impacts. Having omitted discussion of
the location, frequency, or timing of its activities, DHS is unable to even
begin to quantify or predict impacts on breeding, feeding, resting, or
shelter for wildlife species.
(b) (6) There is generally a lack of sufficient detail with regard to mitigation The development of BMPs is an ongoing
The Defenders measures, especially with regard to the impacts to threatened and process that has continually been refined
of Wildlife endangered species. See Section 5-1. Most mitigation is deferred to throughout the planning process. See
some undefined point in the future. Id. at 5-1. No mitigation is set forth Appendix E of the ESP for detailed BMPs and
309
specific to the threatened California gnatcatcher or impacts to the mitigation.
1-84
gnatcatcher critical habitat. Finally, the mitigation for the Quino

checkerspot butterfly is also vague and fails to identify any tactic beyond
a minimal attempt at avoidance of impacts. Any other mitigation is
deferred to a later, undetermined time.
(b) (6)

Defenders of Wildlife recognizes the undeniable complexity and Fencing is one component of a long-term
The Defenders challenge of achieving operational security of America’s southern border. program for gaining effective control of our
of Wildlife But as evidenced by the dramatic decrease in apprehensions in various borders. Personnel, technology, and
Texas sectors in 2007, it remains the case that illegal activity can be infrastructure do not individually have the
310
effectively curtailed through means less damaging than permanent walls same effect they have as an integrated
and roads that: restrict wildlife movements; eliminate the prospect of program. However, they cannot replace the
maintaining or restoring contiguous wildlife habitat; irreparably damage proven effectiveness of border barriers in
federal, state, and private conservation lands; and harm local economies slowing and deterring illegal border crossers.
and people
October 2008
FME000549

(b) (6) We strongly suggest revising the currently unlawful DEIS’s purpose so it The Draft EIS considered alternatives that
The Defenders defines the overarching goal as increasing border security, absent the would meet the Border Patrol’s Purpose and
of Wildlife predestinate conclusion that border walls are required and foregone. Need. The Purpose and Need statement
311 (given in Section 1.2 of the Draft EIS) briefly
specifies the underlying issue to which CBP is
responding with its Project. The context of
Goals and Objectives (Section 1.3) has been
expanded for the ESP.
(b) (6) DHS has only analyzed individual sections of the fence and has failed to The decision to develop Sector specific
Defenders of consider the total impact that hundreds of miles of proposed fencing from environmental analysis was based on
Wildlife California to Texas will have on our wildlife, wild places and border operational and needs assessments of the
communities. A regional Environmental Impact Statement is required. USBP San Diego Sector. Sector specific
analysis allowed for more project detail and
1-85

(b) (6) The Draft EA utterly fails to consider the proposed projects' indirect or CBP has considered the past, present, and

Defenders of cumulative effects on ecologically sensitive conservation lands or the reasonably foreseeable future projects that
Wildlife detrimental impact they will have on already endangered wildlife. could have cumulative impacts when
313
Appendix E of the ESP contains BMPs and
mitigation strategies for species of concern.
(b) (6) In addition, this document puts forth border fencing as though it's the only See response to Comment No. 280.
Defenders of option for protecting our borders and neglects to include a lawful analysis
Wildlife of viable alternatives. The Department of Homeland Security should
314
October 2008
examine all available approaches to ensure border security is achieved in

the most environmentally and economically benign way possible in order
to protect federally protected species and resources -- not to mention the
American taxpayer.
FME000550

(b) (6) NEPA – with respect to Section A-1 and proximity to/in Otay Mountain See response to Comment No. 280.
Wilderness: Alternative alignments considered but not evaluated include
alternatives along the US/Mexico border [2.2.5] and Alternative 2.2.7.
The summary discussion of why they were not evaluated is inadequate.
315 Under 2.2.7 [page 30 line 10, the natural topography alternative is too far
from the Border. Therefore, “For this reason, other alternatives for
Section A-1 were considered ….” The PA is geographically between
those two. Please describe those other alternatives considered before
specifying the PA alignment. Otherwise, the range of alternatives is
sparse and may be inadequate.
(b) (6) NEPA – with respect to Section A-1 and proximity to/in Otay Mountain See response to Comment No. 280.
316
Wilderness. Have a full range of alternatives between the US/Mexico
border and the PA alignment been defined?
(b) (6) What are the differences [quantity, location, etc within OMW] between No See response to Comment No. 280.
317
Action and PA for illegal entrant use, USBP use, garbage, etc. Without
this, the consequences on wilderness values CANNOT be assessed.
1-86
(b) (6) Add at beginning another sentence: “The determination of whether the “Land Use and Recreation” have been
318 PA and alternatives are “….necessary to meet minimum requirements for revised, see Chapter 4 of the ESP, Land Use.
the administration of the area for the purpose of this [Wilderness] Act….”
[WA sec 4[c]]. Change ‘8560’ to “H-8560-1”
(b) (6) The analysis per ‘minimum necessary’ and ‘Minimum Tool’ should be See response to Comment No. 280.

319
incorporated into the PA and all alternatives in the consequence section
of the EIS. Otherwise, a determination cannot be made.
October 2008
FME000551

(b) (6) We are concerned that the quote from the Wilderness Act [“the President See Section 4.3 of the ESP for revised
may, …, authorize … and other facilities needed in the public interest…”] impacts on land use.
is not applicable to this project. This section derives from testimony and
hearings on several of the 60+ bills that culminated in the Wilderness Act.
The focus dealt with Federal Power Commission authorities for projects
within their jurisdiction. See ‘Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
Report To Accompany H.R. 9070’ at page 22 [7/2/64]. The entire text of
the subsection [remainder provided as italicized text below] of the
320 Wilderness Act, rather than a partial quote, should be provided for a fuller
context, “(1) the President may, within a specific area and in accordance
with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting
for water resources, the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs,
water-conservation works, power projects, transmission lines, and other
facilities needed in the public interest, including the road construction and
the maintenance essential to development and use thereof, upon his
determination that such uses in the specific area will better serve the
interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its
1-87
denial; …”
(b) (6) Chapter 1: Both the `Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999' [Public Law While the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP
106-145] and the Wilderness Act [Public Law 88-433] are listed, BUT not has no obligation under these laws, CBP has
discussed, in Appendix B page B-4. There should be some discussion as used the threshold and guidelines in the ESP
321
to their relevance to the PA in Chapter 1. The discussion of the former on analysis and will implement appropriate BMPs

Page 3-12 Line 39 is too cursory. The citation and discussion of the to avoid or minimize impacts whenever
Wilderness Act on Page 4-9 Line 20-31 is inadequate and, as noted possible.
above, flawed.
(b) (6) As part of the Existing Environment for the Otay Mountain Wilderness, See response to Comment No. 321.
322 describe the wilderness values of naturalness, solitude, primitive
recreation per sec 2[c] of the Wilderness Act. This is necessary to
establish what wilderness values may be affected.
October 2008
FME000552

(b) (6) The consequences of the PA and Alternatives on the wilderness values While the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP
yet to be described on page 3-12 must be analyzed. Note that the has no obligation under these laws, CBP has
change in use of illegal entrants and USBS staff are presumably different used the threshold and guidelines in the ESP
323 under the alternatives analyzed, subject to the EIS revealing analysis and will implement appropriate BMPs
consequences by alternative of use, garbage, etc. to avoid or minimize impacts whenever
possible. However general impacts on
wilderness are discussed in Chapter 4 and 8
of the ESP.
(b) (6) This single and complete linear project cannot be analyzed in pieces. The decision to develop Sector specific
(b(b (b) The cumulative environmental impacts must be analyzed as a whole. environmental analysis was based on
) ) (6) Currently the project is illegally piecemealed into several NEPA operational and needs assessments of the
documents. In addition, cumulative effects to wildlife must be properly USBP San Diego Sector. Sector specific
assessed, and mitigated. analysis allowed for more project detail and
1-88

(b) (6) (b) Gloria, Horseshoe, Copper and Buttewig Canyons, among others, may all While the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP
(6)

be within the Corps Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction. However there has no obligation under these laws, CBP has
is no reference to this within the NEPA documents. The Corps used the threshold and guidelines in the ESP
325 jurisdictional areas needed to be made clear within the NEPA document. analysis and will implement appropriate BMPs
Due to the 404 jurisdiction the Corps has a regulatory role to play and has to avoid or minimize impacts whenever
been included as a “cooperating agency”, yet there is no 404b1 possible. However general impacts on
alternatives analysis within the document. wilderness are discussed in Chapter 4 and 8
of the ESP.
(b) (6) The Corps regulatory program should do everything it can to retain it’s Comment noted.
autonomy and integrity in implement the Clean Water Act. USACE-
regulatory should be responsible for creating their own EIS/404b1
October 2008
326 alternatives analysis consistent with their regulations and the CWA.
Regulatory should not be conscribed into a being a cooperating agency
due to internal political pressures. The Corps clearly has a conflict of
interest overall due to the fact that the Corps at large is managing the
project for DHS.
FME000553

(b) (6) In accordance with the Clean Water Act and Federal Guidelines in While the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP
40CFR230 we are providing the following comments: The Guidelines has no obligation under these laws, CBP has
state dredged or fill material should not be discharged into the aquatic used the threshold and guidelines in the ESP
ecosystem, unless it can be demonstrated that there is no less analysis and will implement appropriate BMPs
environmentally damaging practicable alternative that achieves an to avoid or minimize impacts whenever
applicant’s project purpose. In addition, no discharge can be permitted if possible.
it will cause or contribute to significant degradation of the waters of the
327
US. The applicant is proposing to fill Major Canyons which may contain
special aquatic sites. Given the extent of the impacts associated with the
proposed activities and the likely impacts to special aquatic sites, the
applicant bears the burden of proof for clearly demonstrating that the
preferred alternative is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA) that achieves the overall project purpose while not
causing or contributing to significant degradation of the aquatic
ecosystem.
(b) (6) Project Purpose and project alternatives: The first step in completing an See response to Comment No. 280.
alternatives analysis is the project purpose statement. Allowing DHS to
1-89
determine whether practicable alternatives exist for this project is

emphatically not an acceptable approach for conducting the alternatives
analysis review under the 404(b)(1) guidelines. The Corps is responsible
for controlling every aspect of the 404(b)(1) analysis. While the Corps
should consider the views of DHS regarding the project’s purpose and the

existence (or lack of) practicable alternatives, the Corps must determine
and evaluate these matters itself, with no control or direction from DHS,
328 and without undue deference to DHS’s wishes (Paragraph 7 of
Plantations Landing Guidance April 21, 1989). “The Corps should
consider the applicants views and information regarding the project
purpose and existence of practicable alternatives, this must be
undertaken without undue deference to the applicant’s wishes…the
project purpose can not be so narrowly defined as to preclude the
existence of practicable alternatives on the other hand, the Corps has
October 2008
some discretion in defining the “basic project purpose” for each Section
404 permit application in a manner which seems reasonable and
equitable for that particular case….but can not give to much deference to
the applicant’s narrowly defined project purpose. …the Corps determines
the minimum feasibility size, circumstances, etc., which characterized a
FME000554

viable project. “(Hartz Mountains Development Corporation Permit
Elevation Case Guidance dated August 17, 1989.) Furthermore the
project purpose (homeland security) is not a water dependant activity.
The definition of water dependent as stated in the Guidelines is limited to
“activities requiring access or proximity to or sitting within a special
aquatic site to fulfill the basic project purposes. There are many ways to
meet the overall and basic project purpose that do not involve the
discharge of fill material to special aquatic sites or to any waters of the
U.S. Clearly the level of environmental impacts to our aquatic
environment and wildlife from filling in 100 to 900 foot-wide canyons is
significant. Thus in these canyons, creeks, wildlife corridor areas, the
alterative of having no boarder fence but instead increased man units,
cameras or other technology must be seriously considered. As to date in
the current NEPA document the agency has failed to take a hard look at
these non-structural alternatives. For example in the current NEPA
document DHS fails to seriously consider and analysis alternatives and
instead disregards and inadequate excuses significantly high level
1-90
impacts proposed to Gloria Canyon because filling it in and building a

road across it would “Cut the drive time by ten minutes”. We find this to
simply be unacceptable and a vagrant disregard for environmental laws
designed to protect our natural resources; it clearly is not the LEDPA.
We recommend taking a hard look at alternatives to the proposed

physical barrier (such as increase patrol units; cameras and other forms
of technology) in waters of the US. LEPDA: Identification of the LEDPA
is achieved by performing an alternatives analysis that estimates the
direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts to jurisdictional waters
resulting from each alternative considered. Project alternatives that are
not practicable and do not meet the project purpose are eliminated. The
LEDPA is the remaining alternative with the fewest impacts to aquatic
resources, so long as it does not have other significant adverse
environmental consequences. In fact just one example of this project
being out of compliance with the CWA 404b1 guidelines within the Corps
October 2008
jurisdiction is Copper Canyon. The proposed location of the boarder

fence within Copper Canyon would bisect two types of special aquatic
sites (riffle pool complexes and wetlands); if the fence was moved 100
meters downstream of the proposed location it would avoid these special
aquatic sites. Also please note that nowhere in the document are any of
FME000555

these facts addressed, this was knowledge that was given to us by others
who have personally visited the site. Instead the reader is left completely
uninformed of what the proposed project’s environmental impacts would
be in these Canyons. Certainly at the very least it would be practicable to
move the fence over 100 meters downstream to avoid sensitive habitat
and special aquatic sites. The proposed location within Copper Canyon
is clearly not the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
and is thus not in compliance with the 404b1 guidelines. It therefore
cannot be permitted to move forward as is.
(b) (6) Secondary effects to be considered include: Impacts related to geology and water use
329
1) changes in the hydrology and sediment regime with respect to water quality are provided in Chapters 6 and 7 of
velocity, and channel dimensions; the ESP of the respectively.
(b) (6) 2) increases in erosion potential of the channel banks, particularly at the See response to Comment No. 329.
330
transition points between native bank material and armored areas;
(b) (6) 3) increases in impervious surfaces and the corresponding increases in See response to Comment No. 329.
331
1-91
the volume and velocity of polluted storm water;
(b) (6) 4) decreases in water quality from the impairment of floodplain and See response to Comment No. 329.
332
ecosystem services including water filtration, groundwater recharge, and
flood attenuation;

(b) (6) 5) decreases in biodiversity and ecosystem stability; See response to Comment No. 245.
333 Impacts on special status species are
(b) (6)
presented in Section 8.3 of the ESP, and
appropriate BMPs and mitigation strategies
are included in Appendix E of the ESP.
(b) (6) 6) decrease in wildlife migration and impacts to listed species; See response to Comment No. 248.
334 Impacts on special status species are
presented in Section 8.3 of the ESP, and
October 2008
appropriate BMPs and mitigation strategies

are included in Appendix E of the ESP.
(b) (6) 7) introduction of invasive plants in disturbed areas. See Appendix E of the ESP for BMPs and
335
mitigation strategies related to invasive
species.
FME000556

(b) (6) The negative impacts of channel modification have been illustrated often Concerning impacts to wildlife movement, see
in Southern California. We are particularly concerned about the potential response to Comment No. 334.
336 for significant impacts to wildlife movement, changes in water velocity, Impacts on geology and soils and water use
sediment transport, and erosion because they can lead to bank instability, and quality are in Chapters 6 and 7 of the
property loss, and increased downstream flooding. ESP respectively.
(b) (6) The CWA guidelines prohibit granting of a CWA Section 404 permit if While the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP
project activities will cause or contribute to the significant degradation of has no obligation under these laws, CBP has
the Nation’s waters including degradation to: 1) human health and used the threshold and guidelines in the ESP
welfare; 2) aquatic life and other wildlife; 3) aquatic ecosystem diversity, analysis and will implement appropriate BMPs
337 productivity, and stability: and 4) recreation, aesthetic, and economic to avoid or minimize impacts whenever
values. This standard applies to the LEDPA, meaning that if the LEDPA possible. However general impacts on
caused or contributes to the significant degradation, the Corps is wilderness are discussed in Chapter 4 and 8
prohibited from granting a permit under CWA Section 404. We believe of the ESP.
the proposed impacts to waters of the US and wildlife linkages represent
a significant degradation.
(b) (6) From the Hartz Mountain Elevation Case guidance “The Army Corps of CBP and USBP are working closely with
1-92
Engineers is serious about protecting waters of the United States, USFWS regarding potential impacts to
including wetlands, from unnecessary and avoidable loss…Corps should threatened or endangered species. Impacts
inform developers that special aquatic sites are not preferred sites for and mitigation measures to wildlife and
development and that non-water dependant activities will generally be wildlife habitats are included in the BRP (see
discouraged in accordance with the guidelines.” The Corps regulations Appendix E of the ESP). In this regard, CBP,

require all applicants (including DHS) to demonstrate that they have USBP, and USACE are working closely with
avoided impacts to waters of the U.S., what can’t be avoided must next the USFWS on fence design and BMPs that
be minimized and thirdly what impacts are remaining after the process would minimize or mitigate impacts to
338 must be mitigated for by replacing lost functions and values provided by sensitive species.
the aquatic resource through compensatory mitigation. This mitigation
sequence does not allow applicants to skip to the third step in the process
regardless of the quality of the compensatory mitigation being offered
without first demonstrating avoidance and minimization (33CFR320.4(r);
1990 DA-EPA Mitigation MOA). It is premature to discuss in-depth
compensatory mitigation plan for the proposed project because much
October 2008
work remains to be done toward formulating a LEDPA for the proposed

project. DHS has not demonstrated avoidance and minimization of
impacts to the aquatic ecosystem to the maximum extent practicable, and
the DHS has not proposed a compensatory mitigation plan for
unavoidable project impacts. In addition it has been brought to our
FME000557

attention that over one hundred acres of mitigation from other sections of
this project have not been fulfilled to date.
(b) (6) In earlier sections of these comments, we have established that there are On April 1, 2008, the Secretary of DHS,
other alternatives to impacting waters of the US that do meet the overall pursuant to his authority under Section 102(c)
and basic project purpose. However if the Corps identifies a LEDPA that of IIRIRA of 1996, as amended, exercised his
includes unavoidable impacts to waters, we recommend that the Crops authority to waive certain environmental and
require DHS to develop a compensatory mitigation plan consistent with other laws in order to ensure the expeditious
the requirements of the Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL 02-2) issued construction of tactical infrastructure along the
jointly by the Corps and EPA on December 24, 2002. While a functional U.S./Mexico international border. Although
339 assessment for the potential impacts has apparently not been done by the Secretary's waiver means that CBP no
the applicant, the above sections of these detailed comments entitled longer has any specific legal obligations for
Impact Assessment and Significant Degradation set forth our view on the alternatives analysis under NEPA, the
types of functions that would be need to be addressed by any Secretary committed DHS to continue
compensatory mitigation package. responsible environmental stewardship of our
1-93

(b) (6) The environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are not The ESP includes an analysis of impact
described. There is no information presented within the document to give regardless of magnitude or significance.
the public the ability to assess what impacts would result from DHS’ Levels of impact disclosed in the ESP for

preferred project design which includes filling highly functioning Canyons individual resource topics range from none to
and install culverts. In some cases the Canyons that proposed to be filled major, depending on the individual analysis
340
in are 900 feet wide yet this impact is not described. This impact must be performed by resource specialists with
identified and alternatives to such a massive environmental impact must experience in performing these types of
be seriously explored. The document also fails to identify: biological studies.
impacts associate with the project; the extent of special aquatic sites and
habitat types that would be impacted; Corps’ CWA jurisdiction; and there
is no hydrologic analysis to determine the size of the culverts.
October 2008
FME000558

(b) (6) Wildlife corridors and species that are known to utilize the specific See response to Comment No. 245.
corridors proposed for impact are not identified. Instead the agency
attempts to broadly identify species that can occur in all of Southern
California leaving no possibility for meaningful public comment or analysis
as to which species would be impacted by the project and how these
impacts could possibly be mitigated for via innovative BMPs. The
biological section is grossly inadequate. The document must properly
341 identify, for each canyon, the species and habitat that would be impacted
by the proposed project. These canyons are wildlife corridors and need
to retain this function to allow the movement of wildlife. The failure of
DHS and the cooperating agencies to properly identity the environmental
impact is illegal; the impacts must be properly assessed by appropriate
biological surveys conducted by qualified biologists,
documented/disclosed and then re-circulated for public comment. In
addition color photos of the sensitive areas proposed to be impacted by
the project should be included within the NEPA document.
(b) (6) The Endangered Species Act (ESA) states that all Federal agencies While the Secretary’s waiver means that CBP
1-94
shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Sectary, utilize has no obligation to seek permits, CBP has
their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this act by carrying out used the threshold and guidelines in the ESP
programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened analysis and will implement appropriate BMPs
species listed pursuant to section 4 of this act. Sec 7(a)(1) (ESA, 1973) to avoid or minimize impacts whenever
Section 2(b) Purposes: The purpose of the Act are to provide a means possible.

whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened
species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the
conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to
342 take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the
treaties and connections set forth in subsection a of this section. (c) policy
– 1) It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that all Federal
departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species
and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of
the purposes of this Act. 2) It is further declared to be the policy of
October 2008
Congress that Federal agencies shall cooperate with State and local
agencies to resolve water resource issues in concert with conservation of
endangered species. Federal agencies must fulfill their responsibilities
under the ESA. Thus, Federal agencies should use their resources in an
effort to further the biologically related beneficial uses designated to
FME000559

support, protect and enhance these canyons. Regulatory agencies
responsible for implementing provision under the Federal Clean Water
Act have an increased obligation in implementing their program to
recover these waters from impairments to the beneficial uses of these
water bodies that support federally listed species, and designated critical
habitat. The fact that a species becomes listed as endangered or
threatened officially recognizes that their population declined has already
reach the level of cumulative significant impacts. A future population
decline would therefore be considered significant, and if large enough,
could threaten the continued existence of this listed species. In the Arid
Southwest the recovery of many endangered and threatened species
hinges on the overall health of the riparian, wetland and estuarine
ecosystems in which their life cycle needs are meet; foraging, spawning,
nesting and or breeding. Therefore DHS and the Corps have an
obligation to avoid impacting federally listed species and their critical
habitat. This further supports a basis for following our previous
recommendation for a proper alternatives analysis that avoids filling
1-95
and/or any construction in sensitive wildlife areas.

The fact that a species becomes listed as endangered or threatened
officially recognizes that their population declined has already reach the
level of cumulative significant impacts. A future population decline would
therefore be considered significant, and if large enough, could threaten

the continued existence of this listed species. In the Arid Southwest the
recovery of many endangered and threatened species hinges on the
overall health of the riparian, wetland and estuarine ecosystems in which
their life cycle needs are meet; foraging, spawning, nesting and or
breeding.
Therefore DHS and the Corps have an obligation to avoid impacting
federally listed species and their critical habitat. This further supports a
basis for following our previous recommendation for a proper alternatives
analysis that avoids filling and/or any construction in sensitive wildlife
areas.
October 2008
FME000560

(b) (6) To whom it may concern; I was just today informed of a meeting for On January 4th, 10th, and 14th, 2008 CBP
public input that took place last week. I would think that the residents published a Notice of Availability (NOA) and
who live on a road that is heavily impacted would have been notified. Public Open House announcement in the San
Anyway since I was not notified of this public meeting I am now writing to Diego Union Tribune, San Diego Daily
give you my concerns over a project that will change our area immensely. Transcript, La Prensa, Hispanos Unidos, and
This is a rural area where elderly people reside and cannot live healthfully El Latino announcing the availability of a Draft
343 with the dust, noise, traffic , debris, trucks and many other things to EIS for Construction, Operation, and
numerous to mention in this forum. There are also the issues of children, Maintenance of Tactical Infrastructure, U.S.
animals, walkers who have grown up here, live here and use this road on Border Patrol San Diego Sector, California,
a daily basis. Please consider these and many other concerns (e.g. for public review and comment. The NOA
Quarry for road base material) before granting any permits either announced the availability of the Draft EIS;
temporary or permanent before continuing with this project. Thank You, the date, time, and place for the public open
Doug Kaul house; and publicized a request for
comments on the Draft EIS.
(b) (6) I hear that there is a plan to put a major road through Dulzura, this road No major re-construction of roads is
would follow Marron Valley road. anticipated and the final route has yet to be
344 finalized. However, portions of Marron Valley
1-96
Is this true?
I own land along Marron Valley Road and I do not want it to become a Road will be used for access to the Project.
major thoroughfare for the construction project.
(b) (6) This proposed fence would be difficult to cross and will resist the impact Construction and operation of tactical
of a vehicle. However, the extent of the fence does not fully span the infrastructure will increase border security in

border. There is a gap in the fence between the western portion the UBSP San Diego Sector and may result in
extension (4.4 miles) and the eastern portion extension (0.8 miles) of a change to illegal traffic patterns. However,
345
approximately ten miles. This gap includes some of the most sensitive changes to illegal traffic patterns result from a
portions of the border region, including the Marron Valley Preserve and variety of factors in addition to USBP
the Tijuana River. There was no analysis of the displacement of the operations; and therefore, are considered
border traffic into the gap, and putting severe pressure on the preserve unpredictable and beyond the scope of this
areas. ESP.
(b) (6) The DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT mentioned that CBP will not provide additional details as to
"during the 2006 calendar year, the Brown Field Station was responsible the USBP operational assessments of the
October 2008
for 46,213 apprehensions, or 34 percent of all apprehensions within the most effective locations for the tactical
346
USBP San Diego Sector." However, the document did not state how infrastructure or current operational activities
many of these apprehensions were of individuals who had crossed the because such publication could jeopardize
border in the region of the proposed fence extension, nor did it describe sensitive operational information and
the distribution of crossing traffic volume. compromise border enforcement tactics.
FME000561

(b) (6) Questions: See also response to Comment No. 346.
1. What is the distribution of border traffic along the border at this time? Construction and operation of tactical
2. The reports says 46,213 apprehensions occurred in 2006 by the Brown infrastructure will increase border security in
Field station. Approximately how many individuals are not the UBSP San Diego Sector and may result in
apprehended? A detailed map showing the crossing areas and a change to illegal traffic patterns. However,
approximate volume of traffic along the border (to defined question 1, changes to illegal alien traffic patterns result
above) is suggested, along with the approximate volume of individuals from a variety of factors in addition to USBP
who evade apprehension (question 2). operations; and therefore, are considered
3. Approximately how many individuals are crossing the existing fence, unpredictable and beyond the scope of this
either by climbing it, using ladders, or digging tunnels? Where? ESP.
4. Extensive tunnels under the border in Otay and Tecate were Fencing is one component of a long-term
discovered recently. Is there any proposed changes to reduce the program for gaining effective control of our
prevalence of these tunnels? borders. Personnel, technology, and
infrastructure do not individually have the
5. Since there is a large gap of approximately 10 miles between the two
same effect they have as an integrated
fence extensions, what portion of the current undocumented traffic will
program. However, they cannot replace the
simply move east (from the A-1 section) and move west (from the A-2
proven effectiveness of border barriers in
1-97
347 section) and enter in the Marron Valley Preserve and onto the Mt.
Kuchama area, considered sacred by local tribes?
6. What is the environmental impact of moving the cross-border traffic into
the Marron Valley preserve area, an area used as a Conservation Land
Bank and designated “Cornerstone Lands” under the City of San Diego

Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan
because it is considered an essential building block for creating a
viable habitat preserve system? Also, what is the impact of moving
traffic onto the Mt. Kuchaama sacred mountain area?
7. Very little consideration was given to detection technologies that could
be distributed along the border and detect crossers without the
extensive impact to the environment of border fence construction and
avoiding the negative impact of moving the traffic further east. Would
this be a viable alternative?
October 2008
8. In photos of construction of other portions of the fence (esp.

http://ecso.swf.usace.army.mil/photos/Image14.jpg), construction
included a massive amount of grading that appeared to be
unnecessary. Will the amount grading and road widening planned for
the proposed fence be similar in impact as that shown in those photos?
FME000562

What is the impact on Marron Valley Road? Will this road be used for
access to the area, both for construction and to apprehend border-
crossers who must now walk around the end of the fence into this
area?
9. Rumors have circulated that Marron Valley Road will be widened
significantly. Is this true? What is the exact impact to this area and the
residential community of Dulzura/Jamul?
Please confirm that you have received this submission by email or by
calling 619-820-5321.
--Raymond Lutz
Citizens Oversight Projects
(b) (6) Comments on Draft Biological Survey Report (Appendix H) Habitat assessments were done for the out of
Timing of Surveys – the initial plant surveys were conducted in October season species.
348 2007, before the wildfires. Due to the multi-year drought experienced by
the San Diego region up to that time, it would be highly unlikely to find
many of the rare species, particularly the annuals and vernal pool
1-98
species. Absence of the rare species during the surveys should not be
assumed to mean that those species do not exist in the survey corridor;
(b) (6) additional surveys during other times of year when the species of interest Surveys were done understanding the
are known to emerge and flower are necessary in order to establish limitations of the timing and drought
whether they are present or not. Since “most of the alignment and conditions. Potential habitat was assessed

349
associated access roads were burned in the Harris fire” in late October for species that would not be detectable at the
2007 (pg 38), additional surveys are also recommended in order to see times of the surveys.
what emerges post-fire. The plant species list in Table 5-20 is incomplete
without the addition of the fire-following species that are likely to emerge.
October 2008
FME000563

(b) (6) Plant List Table 5-20 – There appear to be some differences between the Tables have been fixed and plant names are
species list presented in Table 5-20 vs Table 3.9-2 but it is not clear why per the NRCS standard from the Department
that should be the case. For example, Ornithostaphylos oppositifolia (a of Agriculture.
sensitive species) and Rosa minutifolia (state endangered species) are
present in Table 5-20 but absent in Table 3.9-2 which makes it unclear
whether they actually were present or not. While Rosa minutifolia is
included in Table 5-20, it is not marked with an “x” as being present in the
survey corridor (was it present or not?). Several plants are listed in the
table only by the genus, when there are sensitive species (or
varieties/subspecies) within that genus (e.g., Brodiaea, Calochortus,
Deinandra, etc.). Could the Brodiaea observed have been the rare B.
orcuttii? (known from the Otay Mtn. area) could Calochortus sp. have
been C. weedii var. peninsularis? (recently documented from the Otay
Mtn. area); could Caulanthus sp. have been C. simulans?; could
Hemizonia sp. be the state-endangered and federally threatened
Deinandra conjugens? (note that Hemizonia has been broken up into
various segregate genera in our county); could Isocoma menziesii have
1-99
been the rare I. menziesii var. decumbens? (currently recognized in a

350
new floristic treatment); could the Navarretia sp. have been one of the 3
CNPS List 1B species? It is important to understand whether the plants
observed actually were the sensitive ones or not (again, this might not
have been possible to determine given the time of year the surveys were

done). There are many taxonomic changes that have occurred recently
and many plant names in this table need to be corrected or updated (e.g.,
Hemizonia = Deinandra or Centromadia; Cupressus = Callitropsis;
Gnaphalium = Pseudognaphalium; Lessingia filaginifolia = Corethrogyne
filaginifolia; Mirabilis californica = Mirabilis laevis var. crassifolia;
Pityrogramma = Pentagramma; Yucca whipplei = Hesperoyucca whipplei;
Viguiera laciniata = Bahiopsis laciniata, etc.). There are also spelling
errors in the Table (e.g., Adenostoma, Dudleya blochmaniae, Gutierrezia
californica; Hypochaeris, Lythrum californicum, Malacothamnus, Melica,
Osmadenia). Other general comments on Table 5-20 include the
October 2008
following: Stachys rigida should be Stachys ajugoides var. rigida; could

Scirpus sp. be Schoenoplectus or Bulboschoenus?
Data Sources – The CNDDB was consulted in the preparation of the draft
EIS, but the extensive collections of the San Diego Natural History
Museum were not. With plant collection data for San Diego County going
FME000564

back to the mid-1800s, the museum may have contributed to the decision
about which species may historically have been present in the area, and
which ones should have been looked for during the surveys.
Section 3.9 Vegetation Resources - In Table 3.10-1 Little Mousetail is
presented as a “crustacean” but it is a vernal pool plant species and the
correct name is Myosurus minimus (with no subspecies).
Comments on Otay Mountain Endemic Plant Species – We would like to
emphasize that Otay Mountain is home to a high diversity of plant
species, endemic plants (those which generally do not occur elsewhere)
and near-endemics. This point was touched on in Section 3.9 of the draft
EIS. Some of these plant species with very limited distributional ranges
include Lepechinia ganderi, Lotus crassifolius var. otayensis, Monardella
stoneana, Fremontodendron mexicanum, Arctostaphylos otayensis, and
Ceanothus otayensis.
(b) (6) This road is not suitable for the amount of traffic and the types of vehicles Although traffic will increase during the
2-14-2008 that would be used for building the border fence for the following reasons: construction activity period, CBP will ensure
1-100
1) to access Marron Valley Road vehicles must travel on a narrow, that such activity will be undertaken in a
winding section of old Highway 94. This road already has a high fatality responsible manner and normal flows will be
351
rate and passes through a congested secondary border patrol site. 2) resumed as expeditiously as possible.
Marron Valley Rd is a rural road that is primarily for local residents and
normal vehicles used by the Border Patrol. This road would need to
drastically changed to accommodate heavy traffic, thereby compromising

property rights and quality of life in this quiet rural town.
(b) (6) 3) Marron Valley Rd skirts the Otay Mountain Wilderness Preserve. Impacts to the area will be minimized to the
2-14-2008 Heavy traffic through this preserve will compromise the integrity of this maximum extent practicable and the area will
352
beautiful and rare ecosystem. This spoiling of an eternal resource would quickly return to current conditions in the post
be done just to support the construction traffic for the duration of the construction period.
project. Long term damage for short term convenience.
October 2008

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 12/22/10 - FME000461-FME000564 - OCT 2008 San Diego Response To Comments (Final)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 12/22/10 - FME000461-FME000564 - OCT 2008 San Diego Response To Comments (Final)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

FME000461

RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

Response to Public Comments October 2008

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Response to Public Comments October 2008

1. Response to Public Comments

1.2 Draft EIS Public Involvement Process

Response to Public Comments October 2008

1.3 Methodology for Analyzing Comments

Comments and responses are presented in the following order:

Federal Agency Correspondence

Response to Public Comments October 2008

Figure 1-1. Copy of Notice of Availability

Response to Public Comments October 2008

Table 1-1. Summary of Public Comments Response Matrix

# Reviewer Comment Response

1 installation across intermittent streams, would be expected to have

San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure

# Reviewer Comment Response

San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure

# Reviewer Comment Response

San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure

fence. For fencing outside riparian areas, we recommend a fence design

# Reviewer Comment Response

San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure

# Reviewer Comment Response

Sector (p. 1-4) and preventing individuals from entering urban or

San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure

FEIS. Additionally, alternatives that avoid fill in Copper and Buttewig

# Reviewer Comment Response

San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure

# Reviewer Comment Response

measures should be identified in response to potential impacts on

San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure

# Reviewer Comment Response

San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure

# Reviewer Comment Response

areas where soils have not been previously

San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure

may be required for Marron Valley Road (p. 2-16)

# Reviewer Comment Response

San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure

# Reviewer Comment Response

San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure

# Reviewer Comment Response

San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure

# Reviewer Comment Response

San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure

construction will not impact flood conveyance

# Reviewer Comment Response

Office 2-1-2008 of the ESP details where the tactical

San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure

# Reviewer Comment Response

San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure

# Reviewer Comment Response

San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure

# Reviewer Comment Response

provided to the design build team.

San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure

# Reviewer Comment Response

San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure