FME002639

APPENDIX C
Agency and Public Involvement
C-1: Agency Coordination
C-2: Comments on the Draft EA
   
FME002640

 
FME002641

APPENDIX C2
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EA
FME002642

 
FME002643

1 Introduction
2 On December 24, 2007, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) released the
3 Draft Environmental Assessment for Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
4 of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure, U.S. Border Patrol El Centro Sector,
5 California, for public review and comment. The release of the Draft
6 Environmental Assessment (EA) initiated a formal 30-day public comment period
7 that ended 24 January 2008.

8 A public open house was held in Imperial, California, to provide an overview of

9 the Draft EA and accept public comment. The open house was attended by 4
10 people. Newspaper notices, website updates, and the public open house were
11 used to request public input and to disseminate information about draft
12 alternatives and their effects.

13 During the 30-day public review and comment period, CBP received 9
14 submissions by fax, by email, through the project specific Website
15 (www.BorderFenceNEPA.com), and by regular mail from the public, Federal and
16 state agencies, and a nongovernmental organization (Defenders of Wildlife)
17 (Table C-1, Draft EA Commentors). There were no oral or written comments
18 received at the public open house.

19 Respondents invested considerable time and effort to submit comments on the

20 Draft EA. Comments covered a wide spectrum of thoughts, opinions, ideas, and
21 concerns. While each person’s viewpoint was diligently considered, comments
22 were determined to be substantive or nonsubstantive in nature. Substantive
23 comments on the Draft EA are included in this Appendix along with responses.
24 Some comments also resulted in revisions in the Final EA. The National
25 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations require that responses be provided
26 to substantive comments.

27 CBP went through a step-by-step process of analyzing each comment and

28 developing responses to all of the substantive comments. Substantive
29 comments are defined as those that do one or more of the following:

30 • Question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of information in the Draft EA

31 • Question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of environmental analysis
32 • Present reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the Draft EA,
33 and/or
34 • Cause changes or revisions to the proposal.

35 In other words, they raise, debate, or question a point of fact or policy.

36 Comments in favor of or against the Proposed Action or alternatives, or
37 comments that only agree or disagree with CBP policy, are not considered
38 substantive.

 
C-27
 FME002644

1 From the 9 submissions (e.g., letters, emails) received on the Draft EA,
2 approximately 73 individual substantive comments were extracted. Per NEPA
3 guidance, these comments were summarized and are presented, along with a
4 response, per resource area or issue. Nonsubstantive comments are comments
5 that offer only opinions or provide information not directly related to issues or
6 impact analyses. Nonsubstantive comments have been considered by the
7 planning team, but do not require a formal response.

8 Methodology for Analyzing Comments

9 The CBP interdisciplinary planning team and CBP contractors read all comments
10 and determined which comments were substantive and nonsubstantive.
11 Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations
12 implementing NEPA at Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1503.4,
13 responses were prepared for all substantive comments, and the content of the
14 FEA will also demonstrate responsiveness to public input. Content analysis was
15 performed in the four steps described below.

16 Develop a coding structure. Initially, a coding structure was developed to help

17 sort comments into logical groups by resource areas and issues, derived from an
18 analysis of the range of issues covered in the Draft EA, the scoping process, and
19 the letters themselves. The coding structure used was inclusive rather than
20 restrictive; an attempt was made to capture all comment content. The codes
21 were assigned to comments within letters, faxes, oral transcripts, comment
22 forms, and electronic mail.
23 Organization/numbering of comments. Comments were numbered
24 sequentially, beginning with the number 1, as they were received. The numbers
25 do not correspond to the relative importance of a comment or the commentor.
26 Reviews and code public comment submissions. As each submission was
27 reviewed, distinct comments were identified and given a code based on, among
28 other things, the issues addressed and whether the comment was substantive or
29 nonsubstantive. Submissions could, and often did, contain several comments.
30 Create a comment database. After verification, the comment was entered into
31 a database, along with the submission code and type, the name and address (if
32 available), and the text of the comment, if substantive.
33 Organize comments by resource area or issue. The database was used to
34 help further organize comments. The comments were then read and analyzed
35 by the EA preparers responsible for the applicable resource area or issue. All
36 comments were considered, whether thousands of people voiced the same
37 concern or a single person or organization raised a technical point.

38 The purpose of reading, coding, and analyzing the contents of the comment
39 letters was to assist CBP in determining if the substantive issues raised by the
40 public warranted further modification of the alternatives or further analysis of
41 issues and impacts. The issue statements were then sent to professionals in the

 
C-28
FME002645

1 respective fields (e.g., Natural Resources, Socioeconomics and Environmental

2 Justice) for analysis and response. The comment summaries and responses
3 were reviewed by the interdisciplinary planning team for accuracy and
4 completeness.

5 Although the content analysis process attempted to capture the full range of
6 public concerns, it is acknowledged that comments from people who chose to
7 respond do not necessarily represent the sentiments of the entire public.
8 Further, this is not a vote-counting process; emphasis in this process was on the
9 content of the comment rather than the number of times a comment was
10 received.

11 Comments and responses are categorized by resource area or issue. These

12 categories were developed through the scoping process and were selected in
13 order to track major subjects through the Draft EA and Final EA. After all public
14 comments were entered into the database by issue, substantive issue reports
15 were generated per resource area and issue. The team analyzed the comments
16 and then grouped comments with similar subject matter to prepare issue
17 statements that represented all comments in each subject matter group. Some
18 substantive comments were general in nature and therefore received a generic
19 response (Table C-2). Substantive comments that were specific in nature
20 received a specific response and are after Table C-2.

21

 
C-29
 FME002646

1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

 
C-30
FME002647

1 ATTACHMENT 1
2 NEWSPAPERS’ NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
3
 FME002648

1
FME002649

1  

 
C-31
 FME002650

1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

 
C-32
FME002651

1 ATTACHMENT 2
2 DRAFT EA COMMENTORS
3
 FME002652

1
 FME002653

List of Commentors
Commentor ID Commentor
1 (b) (6)
FME002654

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FME002655

1 ATTACHMENT 3
2 CATEGORIES OF COMMENTS AND GENERAL RESPONSES
3
 FME002656

1
 FME002657

ATTACHMENT 3. Categories of Comments and General Responses

 

 
Code Comment Category Comment Category Description General Response
G General
G-1 General Support for the Proposed Action Commentor makes a general Comment noted.
statement in support of the
Proposed Action, CBP, USBP,
etc.
G-2 General Opposition to the Proposed Action Commentor makes a general Comment noted.
statement opposed to the
Proposed Action, CBP, USBP,
etc.
G-3 Indifference to the Proposed Action Commentor makes general Comment noted.
statement about Proposed Action
but isn’t supportive or opposed to
it.
C-35

G-4 Corrections to the Draft EA Commentor provides corrections
to text or specific information in
the DEA (e.g., change spelling of
road name, incorrect grammar,
etc.).
G-5 Outside Scope of the EA Comment is not applicable to the
EA.
G-6 Addition of further specific information or Commentor identifies further
analysis in the FEA general subject matter they feel
should be addressed in the EA.
PA Proposed Action and Alternatives Analysis
PA-1 Proposed Action selection Commentor makes a general
statement regarding the
alternatives or selection of tactical
infrastructure that would be used.
Comment noted, text revised
per comment.
Comment is outside the scope
of the EA.
Comment noted, text added
per comment.
The type of tactical
infrastructure that would be
constructed in the El Centro
Sector is presented in
Appendix A of the EA.
 FME002658
 

PA-2 Nonviable alternative suggested Commentor suggests a nonviable
alternative or one that was
already dismissed in Section 2.3
of the DEA.
PA-3 Purpose and Need Commentor makes a statement
regarding the purpose and need
statement.
C-36
CEQ regulations state that an
EA must evaluate all
reasonable alternatives (40
CFR 1502.14). Reasonable
generally means an alternative
that meets the purpose and
need for the proposed action
and is technically and
economically feasible. If a
suggested alternative does not
meet these criteria, it is not
evaluated in detail in the Final
EA.
The purposed and need
statement was developed by
consulting with CBP, USBP,
and USACE personnel in order

to meet and maintain the

PA-4 Timeline Commentor makes a general
statement concerning the timeline
for construction of tactical
infrastructure.
PA-5 Mitigation Commentor makes a statement
regarding the need for mitigation.
Sector’s operational
requirements.
The EA process is being
carried out within the
timeframes called for in the
CEQ guidelines for EA
preparation.
If potential environmental
concerns arise that cannot be
mitigated to insignificance, a
Notice of Intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) would be
required.
 FME002659
 

 
E Earth and Water Resources
E-1 Water supply issues Commentor is concerned with the The proposed fencing would
supply of water that would be have no impact on the supply
used during construction. of water from the Alamo River
or the All American Canal for
agriculture or municipal
purposes. Agricultural and
municipal operations are being
taken into consideration and
access to water facilities would
be provided through the use of
special access gates within the
proposed fence sections.
E-2 Wetlands issues Commentor is concerned with the Pursuant to Section 404 of the
potential impacts on wetlands and CWA, adverse effects on
waters of the United States. jurisdictional wetlands would
be avoided or minimized to the
C-37

maximum extent practicable.

A wetlands mitigation and
restoration plan to compensate
for unavoidable impacts would
be developed by the Applicant
and submitted to the USACE-
Los Angeles District
Regulatory Branch for approval
prior to project implementation.
Appropriate mitigation would
be developed to compensate
for unavoidable impacts.
 FME002660
 

W Wildlife and Habitat
W-1 Impacts on Algodones Dunes sunflower Commentor makes a general
statement regarding the potential
impacts on Algodones Dunes
sunflower and its habitat.
W-2 Impacts on Peirson's milkvetch Commentor makes a general
statement regarding the potential
impacts on Peirson's milkvetch
C-38
CBP and USBP are working
closely with USFWS regarding
potential impacts to threatened
or endangered species.
USFWS is preparing a
Biological Opinion which will
become part of the
administrative record and basis
for decision. CBP, USBP, and
USACE are working closely
with USFWS on fence design
that would mitigate impacts to
sensitive species.
Same as W-1.

and its habitat.

W-3 Impacts on Flat-tailed horned lizard Commentor makes a general Same as W-1.
statement regarding the potential
impacts on the Flat-tailed horned
lizard and its habitat.
W-4 Impacts on Yuma clapper rail Commentor makes a general Same as W-1.
statement regarding the potential
impacts on the Yuma clapper rail
and its habitat.
W-5 Impacts on southwestern willow flycatcher Commentor makes a general Same as W-1.
statement regarding the potential
impacts on southwestern willow
flycatcher and its habitat.
W-6 Impacts on burrowing owl Commentor makes a general Same as W-1.
statement regarding the potential
impacts on burrowing owl and its
habitat.
 FME002661
W-7 Impacts on Peninsular bighorn sheep Commentor makes a general
statement regarding the potential
impacts on Peninsular bighorn
sheep and its habitat.
W-8 Impacts on wildlife and/or habitat/California Commentor makes a general
borderlands region statement regarding impacts on
wildlife, habitat or the California
borderlands region.
S Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice, and Safety
S-1 Concerned with cost Commentor concerned with the
cost of building the tactical
infrastructure.
C-39
CI Cumulative Impacts
CI-1 General cumulative impacts Commentor makes a general
statement regarding cumulative
impacts of the Proposed Action.
Same as W-1.
Same as W-1.
CBP will deploy the optimal
combination of agents,
technology, and tactical
infrastructure to meets its
operational needs, which
includes consideration of
environmental impacts and
cost. Primary pedestrian fence
is cost effective in terms of
potential alternatives, and
Congress has appropriated
funds for the construction of
the proposed tactical
infrastructure.
CBP has considered the past,
present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects that could
have cumulative impacts when
combined with the impacts of
the Proposed Action within the
scope of the proposed project
corridor.
 FME002662
AQ Air Quality
AQ-1 Emissions Commentor makes a comment
regarding the impact of dust
emissions from construction,
operation and maintenance
activities.
R Other Resource Areas
R-1 Noise Commentor makes a general
comment about noise impacts.
R-2 Hazardous Materials and Waste Commentor makes a general
comment about impacts on
hazardous materials and waste.
C-40
R-3 Utilities and Infrastructure Commentor makes a general
comment about impacts on
utilities and infrastructure.
Air quality impacts are
expected to be short term as a
result of construction activities.
Noise impacts are expected to
be short term as a result of
construction activities.
CBP is preparing Phase I
Environmental Site
Assessments to identify
hazardous materials within the
proposed project corridor.
These studies will become part
of the public record and fulfill
due diligence requirements
under CERCLA.
CBP would avoid existing
utilities and related
infrastructure to the extent
possible. Drainage and
irrigation structures would
either be improved or avoided.
If existing pipelines or other
utilities need to be moved,
CBP would coordinate with the
owner of such utilities and
related infrastructure.
 FME002663
 

 
R-4 Land Use (Roosevelt Reservation) Commentor makes a general With the exception of access
comment about impacts on land roads and some staging areas,
use. all construction, operation, and
maintenance activities would
be within the 60-foot corridor in
the Roose velt Reservation.
The access roads and staging
areas are identified in the EA.
 
C-41
FME002664

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

C-42
FME002665

ATTACHMENT 4
SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EA
FME002666
FME002667

ATTACHMENT 4
Substantive Comments on the Draft EA

Comment letters and responses are presented in numerical order according to

comment number.
Federal Agency Correspondence

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (#1)

• U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission (#6)
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (#8)
• Department of the Interior (#9)
• Bureau of Land Management (#10)

State and Local Agency Correspondence

• Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (#7)

Stakeholder Organizations

• Defenders of Wildlife (#2)

   

C-45
FME002668

 
 FME002669

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

1-1
1-2
1-3

1-4
(b) (6)
FME002670

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
FME002671

1-5
FME002672

1-6

(b) (6)
FME002673

1-7

1-8

1-9
FME002674

1-10

1-11

1-12
 FME002675

January 24, 2008

El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA

c/o E2M
2751 Prosperity Ave., Suite 200
Fairfax, VA 22031

RE: COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION,

OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, U.S. BORDER PATROL EL
CENTRO SECTOR, CALIFORNIA

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: ECcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com

To Whom It May Concern:

The following comments on the draft Environmental Assessment (“DEA”) for the Department
of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) proposed Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Tactical
Infrastructure, El Centro Sector, California, is submitted on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife
(“Defenders”). Because the DEA utterly fails to adequately consider the proposed project’s indirect or
cumulative effects, or the effects to wildlife and conservation lands, we request that DHS withdraw the
DEA and instead prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) that includes a lawful analysis of
alternatives that do not simply foreordain border fencing, but instead examine all available approaches
to ensuring border security in the most environmentally and economically benign way possible.

Defenders of Wildlife is a national, not-for-profit conservation organization with more than

522,000 members, including approximately 200,000 members and supporters who reside in California.
Defenders is dedicated to the protection of all native wild animals and plants in their natural
communities. With offices throughout the United States as well as in Canada and Mexico, we work to
protect and restore North America’s native wildlife, safeguard habitat, resolve conflicts, work across
international borders and educate and mobilize the public. Defenders has a long history of proactive
work on both wildlife management and border policy along the U.S.-Mexico border, and thus are
uniquely positioned to substantively engage on the challenging issue of safeguarding irreplaceable natural
and cultural resources while also securing our southern boundary.

INTRODUCTION

As the DHS Secretary, Michael Chertoff, has publicly and repeatedly promised to begin
construction of border fencing and other infrastructure in spring 2008, we question how the DEA
constitutes a meaningful, good-faith assessment of the various options available to effectively secure the
border. If the conclusion of the alternatives analysis is foregone, as it appears to be, how can the public
be assured of its legal right to comment on this major federal action in a consequential manner? The
DEA is unlawfully narrow because it fails to thoroughly consider any action alternatives that do not
involve significant mileages of border walls, when the purpose of the DEA should be to assess effective, 2-1
 FME002676

but environmentally and economically benign, methods of achieving operational control of the
international border. Further, the DEA provides an unfortunately shallow analysis of indirect effects,
and as such fails to adequately consider or work to minimize: the predictable redirection of illegal
activities resulting from construction of discontinuous wall segments; the introduction and colonization
of invasive vegetation due to landdisturbances; and the restrictions land managers will face as they work 2-1
to create, maintain, or restore wildlife habitat, conduct prescribed burns, or control annual wildfires, due
to the limited access points proposed.

I. A REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED

CALIFORNIA BORDER FENCE

The proposed project is not an isolated project, but part of a larger, regional plan by the federal
government to wall off the vast majority of California’s and Arizona’s common border with Mexico.
Numerous federal agencies are involved in the planning, permitting, and construction of this proposal,
including BLM; other federal land management agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service and National
Park Service; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as both a land manager of the National Wildlife Refuge
System and administrator of the Endangered Species Act; Army Corps of Engineers, which is serving as
both a construction consultant and is responsible for administering aspects of the Clean Water Act
relating to the dredge and fill of watersof theU.S.; the Environmental Protection Agency, which has
oversight authority under the Clean Water Act and other responsibilities in the borderlands area,
including implementation of the U.S.-MexicoBorder 2012 Program and the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board; and DHS and its component agencies, which have primary responsibility for
border security and construction of border security infrastructure projects. Under NEPA, the existence
of this type of multi-agency, integrated program is required to be analyzed in a regional or
comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement 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 Environmental Assessments. See 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. § 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 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 Council, 96 IBLA 105,
116-117 (1987) (citing Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (1976)). As the pending border fence
construction in California meets both of these criteria, a regional or comprehensive EIS on such 2-2
construction must be prepared before the El Centro Segment fence project may be undertaken.

A. THERE IS A COMPREHENSIVE FEDERAL PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE

CALIFORNIA BORDER FENCE

The DEA approving a the border fencing and road construction provides little indication that
the authorized construction is part of a well-defined federal proposal to construct border fences along
the vast majority of the U.S.-Mexico border withinthe state of Arizona. Asdefined by the Supreme
Court in Kleppe, a “proposal” exists for purposes of NEPA when there is “a regional plan of
development . . . [which] define[s] fairly precisely the scope and limits of the proposed development of
the region.” 427 U.S. at 401-02. Similarly, NEPA’s implementi ng regulations direct that when
“[p]roposals or parts of proposals which are related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single
course of action shall be evaluated in a single impact statement.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.4(a). In this instance,
several factors demonstrate that a border fence construction “proposal” for the state of California exists,
2-2
 FME002677

including: (1) Congressional direction in the Secure Fence Act; (2) the draft EIS for a similar border
fence proposal in San Diego; (3) DHS’ initiation of an EIS process for a similar border fence proposal in 2-2
southern Texas; and (4) the simultaneous planning and development of several individual and
segmented fence construction projects in different areas of the State. The existence of a comprehensive
fence construction plan with significant environmental impacts within California thus requires the
preparation of a regional EIS before construction ofindividual fence segments may lawfully proceed.

In Kleppe, conservation organizations alleged that the actions of the Departments of the Interior,
Agriculture, and Army, as well as the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Forest
Service, Army Corps of Engineers, and BLM inpermitting and authorizing development of coal
reserves in the “Northern Great Plains Region” constituted a federal program demanding the
preparation of a regional, comprehensive EIS. In rejecting plaintiffs’ arguments, the Supreme Court
found that there was “no evidence in the record of an action or proposal for an action of regional scope
. . .[and] no evidence that the individual coal development projects undertaken or proposed by private
industry and public utilities in that part of the country are integrated into a plan or otherwise related.”
Kleppe, 427 U.S. at 400. The Court thus concluded that “[a]bsent an overall plan for regional
development, it is impossible to predict the level of coal-related activity that will occur in the region
identified by respondents, and thus impossible to analyze the environmental consequences and the
resource commitments involved in, and the alternatives to, such activity.” Id. at 402; see also Southwest
Resource Council, 96 IBLA at 117 (“Clearly, there is no comprehensive Federal plan for the development
of the uranium resources located on the Arizona strip.”).

In contrast, DHS’ proposed fence project in the El Centro Sector is clearly part of a well-defined
larger federal proposal for fence construction along most of the California and Arizona border. The
existence of such a proposal is most plainly illustratedby provisions of the Secure Fence Act, which
authorizes DHS to construct border fencing along a 370 mile-long corridor running eastward from
Calexico, California to just east of Douglas, Arizona. P.L. 109-367, Section 3(2)(1)(A)(ii); see Exh. 1a
and 1b. While the Act provides discretion to DHS on the manner of construction to utilize within areas
where the topography is greater than a 10 percent grade, and does not affect the duty and discretion of
federal land management agencies to conserve the lands under their administration (as illustrated by
BLM’s refusal to allow pedestrian fence construction within the river corridor and 100-year flood plain
of the San Pedro River), it nonethelessestablishes with considerable precision the geographical areas in
which border fences will likely be constructed. See City of Tenakee Springs v. Clough, 915 F.2d 1308, 1312
(9th Cir. 1990) (“Where there are large scale plans for regional development, NEPA requires both a
programmatic and site-specific EIS.”).

Moreover, DHS recently announced its intention to prepare an EIS on a similar proposal in
southern Texas, within the USBP’s Rio Grande Vall ey Sector. Notably, in the Federal Register notice
announcing the initiation of this NEPA process, DHS explained that it “is proposing to install and
operate tactical infrastructure consisting of pedestrianfences, supporting patrol roads, lights, and other
infrastructure along approximately 70 miles of the U.S/Mexico international border.” 72 Fed. Reg.
54,726 (Sept. 24, 2007). Exh. 8b. DHS further noted that the proposal “includes the installation of
tactical infrastructure in 21 segments” in the vicinity of several Texas communities, and that
“[i]ndividual segments might range from approximately 1 mile to more than 13 miles.” Id. (emphasis
added). DHS’s recognition of a larger fencing proposal and need for an EIS in the Texas region
highlights the urgency of conducting asimilar analysis in California for the El Centro Segment, which
may involve DHS acting as lead agency, but which must also include all other federal agencies that
administer federal land or otherwise have permitting authority or involvement in the construction of the
 FME002678

Arizona border fence. See 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5(a) (“A lead agency shall supervise the preparation of an
environmental impact statement if more than one Federal agency either: (1) Proposes or is involved in
the same action; or (2) Is involved in a group of actions directly related to each other because of their
functional interdependence or geographical proximity.”).

B. INDIVIDUAL FENCE PROJECTS WITHIN CALIFORNIA WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT

SYNERGISTIC AND CUMULATIVE DIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE
AND LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY

As discussed above, because the proposed border fence construction along California’s southern
border constitutes a federal proposal with 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 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 noted in Kleppe, cumulative environmental impacts “must be
considered together [because] [o]nly through comprehensive consideration of pending proposals can the
agenc[ies] evaluate different courses of action.” 427 U.S. at 410.

The purpose of NEPA’s cumulative effects requirement “is to prevent agencies from dividing
one project into multiple individual actions each of which individually has an insignificant environmental
impact, but which collectively have a substantial impact.” Natural Res. Def. Council v. Hodel, 865 F.2d 288,
297 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The need to prepare a regional and
cumulative EIS is further heightened when the actions being considered by different agencies, like those
involved in the California border fence project, “have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their
environmental consequences together, such as common timing or geography.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25. In
this case, because the “individual” fence projects being constructed and planned throughout the
California border region will have significant and cumulative adverse environmental consequences and
are similar in terms of construction, timing, and geography, BLM, other federal land management
agencies, DHS, and all other federal agencies involved in permitting or otherwise approving such
construction must prepare a comprehensive EIS.

In particular, the fence projects currently being constructed or planned will have significant
cumulative effects on the California border region’s 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 large majority of California’s
southern border, as authorized by the Secure Fence Act. Because DHS’ Environmental Assessment for
the El Centro 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.

Such analysis is especially imperative given the unique situating of the borderlands region at the
convergence of several major ecosystems. The California borderlands region contains many species of
2-3
plants and wildlife that have otherwise limited distributions within the United States, and in some
circumstances, provide a species’ only habitat in the country. (e.g., Algodones Dunes sunflower and
Peirson’s milkvetch). For the flat-tailed horned lizard, which has core habitat within Mexico, the
construction of significant fencing along the El Centro segment (within two BLM wildlife management
areas) will result in fragmentation of habitat, genetic isolation, and increases the species’ risk of
 FME002679

extinction within the U.S. See Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Interagency Coordinating Committee. 2003.
Flat-tailed horned lizard rangewide management strategy, 2003 revision.

The need to prepare a comprehensive EIS based on cumulative and regional effects on wildlife
has been specifically embraced by the D.C. Circuit. For example, in Natural Resources Defense Council v.
Hodel, 865 F.2d 288 (D.C. Cir. 1988), conservation or ganizations alleged that the Department of the
Interior failed to adequately consider the cumulative effects of simultaneousoffshore oil and gas leasing
and development in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans on migratory species including endangered
cetaceans, marine mammals, salmon, and marine and coastal birds. The D.C. Circuit agreed with
plaintiffs, finding that the EIS “for the most part considers only the impact within each area” of leasing.
Id. at 298 (emphasis in original). The Court thus held that the analysis did “not address the issue ...
which NEPA requires the Secretary to consider: the cumulative impacts of [oil and gas leasing]
development in different areas,” and that “allowing the Secretary’s ‘analysis’ to pass muster here would
eviscerate NEPA.” Id. at 298-99 (quotations and emphasis in original).

Similarly, DEA contains a brief discussion of cumulative impacts within the El Centro Segment
area but does not address or acknowledge the potential cumulative impacts of simultaneous fence 2-4
construction being undertaken or planned within different areas of the California border. In fact, the
NEPA analysis here is even more deficient than Natural Resources Defense Council, because in that case
Department of the Interior had at least attempted to provide a regional and comprehensive analysis, but
the Court found it insufficient. See id. at 299 (The EIS “merely announces that migratory species may
be exposed to oil spills and other impacts … These perfunctory analysis do not constitute analysis useful
to a decisionmaker in deciding whether, or how, to alter the program to lessen cumulative
environmental impacts.”).

C. INDIVIDUAL FENCE PROJECTS WITHIN CALIFORNIA WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT

SYNERGISTIC AND CUMULATIVE INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON
WILDLIFE AND LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY.

The border fence construction program not only has significant direct and cumulative effects,
but pronounced and well-documented cumulative indirect effects on the California border region.
Under NEPA’s implementing regulations, “indirect e ffects” 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 interpreting NEPA’s indir ect 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 Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989)). As the Ninth Circuit stated in Methow Valley:

This court would not require the government to speculate on impacts in order to foresee
the unseeeable. However, it must be remembered that the thrust of an agency’s
responsibilities under NEPA is to predict the environmental effects of proposed action
before the action is taken and those effects fully known. Reasonable forecasting and
speculation is implicit in NEPA, and we must reject any attempt by agencies to shirk
their responsibilities under NEPA by labeling any and all discussion of future
environmental effects as crystal ball inquiry.
 FME002680

833 F.2d at 816-17 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Because the regional indirect effects of
individual and segmented border fence construction on wildlife and protected federal lands in California
are reasonably foreseeable and significant, these indirect effects provide another compelling reason why
a regional EIS on the California border fence construction program must be initiated.

II. AN INDIVIDUAL EIS MUST BE PREPARED FOR THE EL CENTRO SEGMENT PROJECT.

In addition to the responsibilities of DHS and other federal land management agencies to
prepare a regional EIS on the border fence construction program within California, DHS is
independently responsible for preparing an individual EIS on the significant environmental effects of
the border fence construction within the El Centro Segment. In determining whether a federal action
requires an EIS because it may significantly affect the environment, an action agency must consider ten
factors, including the unique characteristics of the area, proximity to ecologically sensitive areas, whether
the action is related to other actions with cumulatively significant impacts, and to what degree the action
involves unique or unknown risks. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(3), (5), (7); Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v.
Babbitt, 241 F.3d 722, 731 (9th Cir. 2001). As demonstrated below, DHS’ action directly implicates
several of the significance factors under NEPA’s implementing regulations, and the agency’s failure to
take a “hard look” at these impacts renders its FONSI arbitrary and capricious.

A. THE PROPOSED BORDER FENCE WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPA CT A UNIQUE AND

ECOLOGICALLY CRITICAL AREA

One factor for determining significance under NEPA is “the [u]nique characteristics of the
geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands,
wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(3).

The southern Imperial Valley area is home to a variety of dry desert ecosystems and the wetlands
and streams of the Salton trough. The proposed location for the fence sections bisect two Flat-tailed
horned lizard (“FTHL”) management areas (the Yuha Desert and East Mesa FTHL management areas),
2-5
a BLM Area of Critical Environmental Concern andthe Algodones Dunes. The two FTHL areas are
part of 5 areas managed by the BLM and considered critical for the conservation of the lizard. See Flat-
tailed Horned Lizard Interagency Coordinating Committee. 2003. Flat-tailed horned lizard rangewide
management strategy, 2003 revision. Moreover, in the 2003 FTHL conservation strategy, the experts
specifically stated that “activities in the Yuha Desert . . . [Management Areas] that would prevent 2-5
interchange of FTHLs across the International Border shall be prohibited.” Id. at 29. The rationale for
such a prohibition is that this area is critical for the genetic interchange of this species.

Just as the Ninth Circuit in National Parks & Conservation Association noted that the “unique
characteristics of Glacier Bay [National Park and Preserve] are undisputed and of overwhelming
importance,” 241 F.3d at 731, so too are the unique characteristics of the Lower Imperial Valley, and
thus an EIS on the effects of border fence and road construction on this irreplaceable treasure must be
conducted.

B. THE PROPOSED BORDER FENCE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER ACTIONS, WILL

HAVE A SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON THE LOWER IMPERIAL VALLEY
WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS.

The CEQ regulations define “cumulative effect” as:

 FME002681

the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when
added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of which
agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts
can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period
of time.

40 C.F.R. § 1508.7.

The DEA’s cumulative effects analysis provides only the vaguest of generalities regarding
existing actions that already impact the human and natural environment within the lower Imperial
Valley. No attempt is made to provide detail on what these actions actually are, or the cumulative effect
such activities have on specific natural resources such as imperiled plant and wildlife species.
2-6
For example, the DEA provides no information on the expected cumulative effects of the
border wall construction on the imperiled FTHL. Despite the direct threat posed to the FTHL by the
proposed wall construction, and its already precarious status from the additive effects of other past and
present activities, the DEA simply contains no attempt to address such cumulative effects

III. DHS’S PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT IS UNLAWFULLY NARROW , PREVENTING A

REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES FROM BEING CONSIDERED

NEPA requires that an EA contain a discussion of the “alternatives to the proposed action.” 42
U.S.C. §§ 4332(C)(iii),(E); see also Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) NEPA Regulations, 40 C.F.R.
1508.9(b). This alternatives analysis is “the heart” of the NEPA process, and is intended to provide a
“clear basis for choice among options by the decisionmaker and the public.” 40 C.F.R. 1502.14; Citizens
for a Better Henderson v. Hodel, 768 F.2d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1985) (EIS must consider “every” reasonable
alternative). An agency’s failure to consider a reasonable alternative is thus fatal to its NEPA analysis of
a proposed action. See Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508, 1519-20 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The
existence of a viable, but unexamined alternative renders an environmental impact statement
inadequate.”); Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s NEPA Regulations, 48 Fed. Reg. 18,026
(March 16, 1981)(“In determining the scope of alternatives to be considered, the emphasis is on what is
’reasonable’ rather than on whether the proponent or applicant likes or is itself capable of carrying out
the particular alternative. Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from a
technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the
standpoint of the applicant.”).

In order to conduct a meaningful alternatives analysis, however, an agency must first “briefly
specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives
including the proposed action.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.13. “The stated goal of a project necessarily dictates
the range of ‘reasonable’ alternatives and an agency cannot define its objectives in unreasonably narrow
terms.” City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. DOT, 95 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 1996). Consequently, “[l]ogic and law
dictate that every time an agency prepares an environmental impact statement, it must answer three
questions in order. First, what is the purpose of the proposed project (major federal action)? Second,
given that purpose, what are the reasonable alternatives to the project? And third, to what extent should
the agency explore each particular reasonable alternative?” Id. at 903.
 FME002682

Rather than presenting a purpose and need statement that reflects the larger goal of improving
border security, and then evaluating different means to achieve that goal, DHS in this case has instead 2-7
defined border wall construction itself as the goal. See DEA at ES-1 (The “purpose of the Proposed
Action is to increase border security within the USBP El Centro Sector through the construction,
operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure in the form of fences, roads, and supporting
technological and tactical assets.”). By so radically narrowing the scope of the project’s purpose, DHS 2-7
has impermissibly constricted the range of alternatives considered. See Carmel-by-the-Sea, 123 F.3d at
1155. Indeed, it would appear that DHS is meeting is already meeting is security requirements without
building a wall. Border wide, the Border Patrol reported a 20% reduction in apprehensions in fiscal
2007. The greatest reductions in crossings were in areas such as Del Rio, Texas, where there was a 46%
reduction in apprehensions. Del Rio has never had a border wall. With such dramatic success using
conventional methods in 2007, it seems absurd for the DEA to assert on page ES-1-3 that “fences,
roads, and supporting technological and tactical assets” are essential to increasing border security.

Indeed, the DEA considers only two action alternatives, both of which are border wall
proposals: the proposed action (“Alternative 2”) and the “Secure Fence Act alignment” alternative
(“Alternative 3”). Other methods to effectively achieve border security include: employing “virtual
fence” technology-based approaches; other alternative technological solutions, such as ground-based
radar that discourage illegal activities with minimal impact to sensitive wildlife populations and habitat;
installation of vehicle barriers that stop vehiculartraffic but permit animal passage; thorn-scrub and
wetland restoration that create inhospitable conditions for undocumented migrants and drug smugglers;
increases in Border Patrol agents and other enforcement personnel; and “mixed” wall alternatives that
would concentrate necessary infrastructure in highly urban areas and avoid protected recreation and
wildlife areas such as Bureau of Land Management(“BLM”) Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
and Wildlife Management Areas, are given no consideration in the DEA. Because the purpose has been
defined as requiring border wall construction, DHS has ensured that no alternative courses of action
would be considered, regardless of whether such alternatives would also meet border security goals with
much less significant environmental impacts. See Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190,
196 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (“If the purpose is definedtoo narrowly, “only one alternative from among the
environmentally benign ones in the agency’s power would accomplish the goals of the agency’s action,
and the EIS would become a foreordained formality.”).

As stated recently by one court, “if NEPA mandates anything, it mandates this: a federal agency
cannot ram through a project before first weighing 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 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
2-8
alternatives that could meet the important purpose of improving border security with much less
damaging environmental impacts. Especially in light of NEPA’s overriding purpose to “use the NEPA
Process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize
adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment,” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.2 (e), this
course of action is clearly deficient, and the DEA must be withdrawn and replaced with a full EIS,
including an analysis of the full range of reasonable alternatives available to DHS to achieve the 2-8
overarching goal of improving border security.

IV. THE DEA’ S ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE IS INADEQUATE

 FME002683

As discussed above, the lower Imperial Valley contains an array of wildlife and plant diversity.
Despite the importance of this area to wildlife and plants such as the FTHL and Peirson’s milkvetch, the
2-3
DEA’s analysis of potential impacts to them by construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure is
cursory and insufficient. The wall segments proposed in the DEA could very quickly doom ongoing
efforts to conserve FTHL. Barriers of the sortand scale proposed in the DEA would likely contribute
to further reducing the numbers of these species ni the U.S. and could lead to the listing of this reptile
under the federal Endangered Species Act. Indeed, the construction of the border fences could be the
final straw in undermining the years of efforts by the federal agencies to list the FTHL as threatened.

Habitat connectivity is very critical in the margins of a species’ distribution, where resource
patches are typically smaller, more isolated and of lesser quality (Brown et al. 1995, Wilson et al. 2002,
Holt et al. 2005). Border walls will further isolate resource patches and prevent crucial dispersal events
from occurring. As discussed above, this fact is emphasized again and again in the conservation strategy
2-3
for the FTHL. 2003 Conservation Strategy at p. 29.

Scientific research has shown that the movement ability of a given species is a key factor that
determines its distribution, abundance, extinction/colonization dynamics, and gene flow (MacArthur
1972, Colbert et al 2001, Hanski and Gaggiotti 2004). In highly fragmented and heterogeneous
environments, such as the highly altered landscape found in southern California, wildlife movements
between habitat patches may be of greater consequence to population persistence than the demographic
potential of the patches themselves (Lande 1987, Fahrig and Paloheimo 1988). Thus, restoring
populations of species requires management approaches thatmaintain and enhance landscape-level habitat
connectivity. Impermeable border walls will undoubtedly block and limit critical cross-border dispersal
events between resource patches to the detriment of affected species and populations. Similar security
infrastructure in other 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-wildlife interactions (Pahalwan 2006).

The contention on page ES-5 that “short- and long-term negligible to moderate adverse and minor
2-9
beneficial impacts [to wildlife and aquatic resources] would be expected” is, quite simply, wrong.
Construction of the proposed infrastructure will undeniably degrade and fragment more than44 miles of
habitat. Destruction or alteration of this habitat will introduce additional and possibly 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 populations over time.
Further, any declaration of the expected impact to wildlife, especially threatened and endangered species
that are intrinsically rare and often secretive, is unsupportable with available information, given the
absurdly short biological survey period. Indeed, the DEA acknowledges that the survey period for the
endangered plant species, Algodones dune sunflower and Peirson’s milkvetch, was during a very dry
year and not optimal. DEA at 3-37. The fact that DHS would be able to draw any meaningful
conclusions from a six-day, unreplicated, presence/absence survey outside the breeding season (when 2-10
most wildlife species are most active, visible or audible) clearly illuminates the predetermined conclusion
of the DEA,in stark violation of NEPA, to constructborder walls at any and all cost to the integrity of
sensitive biological resources.

V. T HE DEA FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALY ZE INDIRECT EFFECTS

 FME002684

A. R EDIRECTION OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES INTO SENSITIVE AREAS

Border fence construction not only has significant direct and cumulative effects, but pronounced
and well-documented cumulative indirect effects. Under NEPA’s implementing regulations, “indirect
effects” are defined as those effects that “are caused by action and are later in time or farther removed
in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b). Since the early 1990s, when the
Border Patrol first began implementing its “prevention through deterrence” Southwest Strategy within the
urban border areas of San Diego, CA, and El Paso, TX, its fence construction and associated
infrastructure development of roads, lighting systems, remote camps, and other enforcement efforts
have had overwhelming indirect effects on more remote and less populated areas of the southern border
by shifting, rather than decreasing, overall levels of illegal immigration. Importantly, the Border Patrol and
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) wrongly assumed that migrants would be deterred from
crossing the often remote, inhospitable desert and mountainous regions that predominate much of the
southern border.

Shifting patterns of illegal immigrations caused by enforcement efforts, and their environmental
2-11
effects, have been extensively documented. For example, a 2004 study by the Government
Accountability Office (“GAO”) noted that while apprehensions of undocumented migrants in urban
areas such as San Diego and El Paso fell by a combined 64 percent since 1993, apprehensions on lands
administered by Department of the Interior (“DOI”) rose dramatically. Border Security: Agencies Need to
Better Coordinate Their Strategies and Operations on Federal Lands. GAO Report 04-590. For example,
according to the GAO study, between 1997 and 2000, the number of undocumented migrants
apprehended on DOI lands rose quickly from only 512 to more than 113,000. Similarly, the National
Park Service estimates that 200,000 undocumented migrants entered the Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument alone in 2001.

These indirect effects have not been considered or analyzed by DHS. In interpreting NEPA’s 2-11
indirect 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,
(S.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Methow Valley Citizens Council v. Regional Forester, 833 F.2d 810, 816, rev’d on other
grounds, Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council , 490 U.S. 332 (1989)). Agencies must thus assess
foreseeable, indirect effects of their actions:

This court would not require the government to speculate on impacts in order to
foresee the unseeable. However, it must be remembered that the thrust of an
agency’s responsibilities under NEPA is to pred ict the environmental effects of
proposed action before the action is taken and those effects fully known.
Reasonable forecasting and speculation is implicit in NEPA, and we must reject any attempt by
agencies to shirk their responsibilities under NEPA by labeling any and all discussion of future
environmental effects as crystal ball inquiry.

ID. at 816-17 (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added). In this instance, DHS has
had more than ten years of experience with the “squeezing balloon” effect of border security efforts, in
which 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 the lower Imperial Valley, are nonetheless not
analyzed in the DEA.
 FME002685

B. C OLONIZATION BY NON-NATIVE, INVASIVE SPECIES

The harmful effects of invasive, non-native species are widely recognized. It is also known that
disturbance to previously intact soils promotes the colonization and spread of harmful non-native
vegetation. It is especially concerning that the DEA proposes no method to control or monitor the
predictable and foreseeable introduction of noxious plants following construction of the proposed
walls. The DEA neither evaluated the likelihood of non-native colonization, nor proposed measures to 2-12
control or mitigate for the environmental damage that such colonization and subsequent spread would
produce.

VI. E NVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ARE NOT DEFINED

Under NEPA, “conclusory remarks [and] statements that do not equip a decisionmaker to make
an informed decision about alternative courses of action, or a court to review the Secretary’s reasoning”
is insufficient. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Hodel, 865 F.2d 288, 298 (D.C. Cir. 1988). This is
exactly the type of Environmental Impacts analysis that DHS has presented in this DEA.

More specifically, an EA must analyze the nature and severity of the environmental impacts. DHS
has not done this, but instead has listed activities that may affect or have the potential for adverse 2-13
impacts, but does not analyze the type or extent of the adverse impact, for itself or for the reader. See
Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F.Supp. 121, 138 (D.D.C. 2001) (holding an EIS insufficient because it
stated that noise would increase and pronghorn and their habitat would be disturbed, there was no
analysis of the nature and extent of the impacts on the pronghorn) (citing NRDC v. Hodel , 865 F.2d at
299). “There must be an analysis of the status of the environmental baseline given the listed impacts,
not simply a recitation of the activities of the agencies.” ID. at 128.

For example, the DEA does not identify the nature of the impacts to fish and wildlife or to
threatened and endangered species. Without such, neither DHS nor the reader can compare
alternatives. See 40 C.F.R. § 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 are no impacts to endangered
species under the No Action alternative. In the Fish and Wildlife section, on the other hand, the DEA
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.

CONCLUSION

Defenders of Wildlife recognizes the undeniable complexity and challenge of achieving operational
security of America’s southern border. But as evidenced by the dramatic decrease in apprehensions in
various Texas sectors in 2007, it remains the case that illegal activity can be effectively curtailed through
means less damaging than permanent walls and roads that: restrict wildlife movements; eliminate the
prospect of maintaining or restoring contiguous wildlife habitat; irreparably damage federal, state, and
private conservation lands; and harm local economies and people. We strongly suggest revising the
currently unlawful DEA’s purpose so it defines the overarching goal as increasing border security,
absent the predestinate conclusion that border walls are required and foregone. A new Draft EIS
 FME002686

should take the hard look required to consider the reasonable alternatives and multitude of effects
currently missing from the DEA. Defenders appreciates the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

(b) (6)

Kim Delfino
California Program Director
 FME002687

LITERATURE CITED

Akerman, E. 1998. Finally an effective fence. U.S. News & World Report 125(15):27-28.

Brown, J. H., D. W. Mehlman, and G. C. Stevens. 1995. Spatial variation in abundance. Ecology
76:2028-43.

Colbert J., E. Danchin, A. A. Dhondt, and J. D. Nichols, editors. 2001. Dispersal. Oxford University
Press, London.

Fahrig, L., and J. Paloheimo. 1988. Determinants of local population size in patchy habitats.
Theoretical Population Biology 34:194-231.

Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Interagecy Coordinating Committee. 2003. Flat-tailed horned lizard
rangewide management strategy, 2003 revision.

General Accounting Office. Report 04-590. BORDER SECURITY: AGENCIES N

BETTER COORDINATE THEIR STRATEGIES
EED TO
AND OPERATIONS ON FEDERAL . LANDS

Hanski, I., and O. E. Gaggiotti, editors. 2004. Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations.
Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam.

Holt, R. D., T. H. Keitt, M. A. Lewis, B. A. Maurer, and M. L. Taper. 2005. Theoretical models of
species’ borders: Single species approaches. Oikos 108:18-27.

Lande, R. 1987. Extinction thresholds in demographic models of territorial populations. American

Naturalist 130:624-635.

Lorey, D.E. 1999. The U.S. Mexican border in the twentieth century. Scholarly Resources Inc.
Wilmington,
DE. 195 pp.

MacArthur, R. H. 1972. Geographical ecology: patterns in the distribution of species. Harper and Row,
New York, New York.

Pahalwan, A. 2006. Fenced in, Kashmir’s leopards, bears stalk villages. Reuters. Available from
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSDEL17197120061123 (accessed December
2007).

Wilson, R. J., S. Ellis, J. S. Baker, M. E. Lineham, R. W. Whitehead, and C. D. Thomas. 2002. Large-
scale patterns of distribution and persistence at the range margins of a butterfly.
Ecology 83:3357-3368.
 FME002688

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

6-1

6-2

6-3

(b) (6)

(b)
(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)(6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)
 FME002689

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

7-1
 FME002690

7-2

7-3

7-4

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
FME002691

United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
Pacific Southwest Region
1111 Jackson Street, Suite 520
Oakland, California 94607

IN REPLY REFER TO:

ER# ER08/39

8 February 2008

El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA

c/o e2M
2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200
Fairfax, Virginia 22031

Dear Sir/Madam:

The Department of the Interior has reviewed the Draft ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA)for
Proposed Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of Tactical Infrastructure, U.S. Border
Patrol, El Centro Sector, near the City of El Centro, Imperial County, California and has the
following comments to offer.

The proposed project is to construct, maintain and operate approximately 44.6 miles of tactical
infrastructure including five sections of fence, lighting, patrol roads, and access roads along the
U.S.-Mexico border in Imperial County, California. The project would impact privately-owned
land and public lands managed by Bureau of Land Management. The proposed project would be
installed within the Roosevelt Reservation with an approximate 60-foot wide impact corridor.
Per the EA, a total of 324 acres would be impacted, including 5.3 acres of creosote bush shrub
communities, 3.4 acres of desert wash vegetation in Pinto Wash, and 8.3 acres of active sand
dune communities.

We have concerns regarding the inadequacy of project description and effects analyses for
sensitive wildlife and plants, and the determination made in the EA that environmental effects of
proposed project are not significant, without providing meaningful analysis of biological impacts
or commensurate mitigation commitments for review.

This EA does not adequately address indirect and cumulative impacts. We have concerns 9-1
regarding (1) incomplete project description, (2) adequacy of analysis of effects on natural
resources, (3) sufficiency of proposed mitigation measures, and (4) conclusion that 9-2
environmental effects of proposed project are not significant.

The project has potential to impact the following federally listed species: Yuma clapper rail
(RALLUS LOGIROSTRIS YUMANENSIS), Pierson’s milk-vetch (ASTRAGALUS MAGDALENAE PEIRSONII ),
southwestern willow flycatcher (EMPIDONAX TRAILII EXTIMUS), Peninsular bighorn sheep (OVIS
CANADENSIS ). In addition, the flat tailed horned lizard (PHRYNOSOMA MCALLII), a former candidate
species may be affected.
FME002692

The EA is lacking necessary information to assess effects of the proposal on the species
mentioned above. The infrastructural design does not seem to be decided upon. Focused 9-3
surveys were either not conducted at all, or conducted at an inappropriate time of the year.

The project description does not provide maps or spatial representation of plant communities and
listed/sensitive species habitat occurring within and surrounding the proposed impact area. 9-4
Project area aerial photographs with species distribution and vegetation communities clearly
identified should be included to assist effects analysis.

The EA should clearly describe project-related impacts (temporary and permanent) to each
vegetation community and species habitat for all aspects of the project, including road widening, 9-5
staging/lay down areas, new fence construction, and new road construction.

Without information on a definite fence design, lay-down areas, and access roads, or relevant
biological information, the EA does not adequately assess adverse effects of the proposal or 9-6
mitigation measures needed to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance.

Throughout the document, discussion and assessment of effects of construction activities should
be expanded and clarified. Indirect impacts that should be assessed include, but may not be
limited to, (1) redirection of immigrant traffic to unsecured areas of the border that may impact 9-7
wildlife habitat, (2) construction of access roads and use of staging areas that are not included in
proposed 60-foot wide right of way (ROW), and (3) effects of construction noise on wildlife.

The document references avoidance measures throughout that are not likely to be adhered to due
to the timing constraints of this project. Analyses of indirect and cumulative effects are not
provided for most resources that would be impacted by this project.

We recommend that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) work with us in an attempt to

design the project in a way that avoids and minimizes adverse effects, and may potentially avoid
the need to initiate formal consultation under section seven of the Endangered Species Act. 9-8
Unless more complete information is provided on project design and mitigation measures, it
appears that initiation of formal consultation will be needed.

The Draft EA does not adequately describe where Border Patrol intends to complete activities
that will occur outside of the 60’ wide Roosevelt Reservation. It is not clear in the Draft EA
whether Border Patrol will need to go outside the 60’ Roosevelt Reservation, and where they will
9-9
need to do so. BLM will need to review the areas planned to have staging areas and areas
outside the Roosevelt Reservation, in order to assess what resources could be impacted during
the proposed construction projects.

Please provide BLM with a map that identifies these areas. 9-10

The Draft EA does not specify the timeframe for the proposed fence construction. Please clarify
whether construction will occur on a year-round basis until proposed action is complete, or if
construction will occur only during certain times of year. Depending on which time of year 9-11
construction will take place, there will be Special Status species issues to consider.

-2-
FME002693

If construction will take place during winter months, Peirson’s Milkvetch will need to be
surveyed and avoided in Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area. If construction will take place 9-11
during summer months, Flat-tailed Horned Lizards will need to be avoided and it is possible that
a Flat-tailed Horned Lizard monitor may need to be on site during construction activities.

Habitat compensation will need to be paid for any Flat-tailed Horned Lizard habitat within East 9-12
Mesa or Yuha Management Areas that is disturbed outside the Roosevelt Reservation. Best
management practices will need to be followed for the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard, as outlined in 9-13
the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Range-Wide Management Strategy.

The Imperial Sand Dunes is one of the busiest recreation areas in the United States. Between
October and May, be prepared for heavy visitation (especially during weekends and holidays) in
the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area section of the project area.

It is unclear at this point which type of fencing Border Patrol is considering installing in Imperial
Sand Dunes. The environment of constantly shifting sand does, without doubt, pose an
engineering challenge. Please clarify which type(s) of fence you intend to construct in Imperial
Sand Dunes Recreation Area, and address impacts that will result from construction of that 9-14
particular type of fence.

The technology alternative considered but not analyzed further should be analyzed further in the
final EA. Technology may be used to minimize direct and indirect impacts that fence
9-15
construction would produce, especially in an area like Imperial Sand Dunes, that is sparsely
populated and where shifting sands make constructing a physical barrier such as a fence difficult.

The project description includes discussion of lighting added to the fence. In our discussions
with USBP, lighting would be proposed potentially in future and not included in the PF225
project. We recommend that direct and indirect effects of lighting on biological resources be
disclosed in this document if lighting might be used in the future. Although not a concern in 9-16
already disturbed areas, any lighting proposed beyond B-3 should be avoided if feasible.

The EA repeatedly states design criteria would be used to minimize adverse impacts on
threatened or endangered species and their critical habitat, but does not describe where this has 9-17
or will occur. For example, the EA says the project would avoid physical disturbance and
construction of solid barriers in wetlands/riparian areas and streambeds (ES-3); however,
location and methods are not described. If avoidance measures cannot be included in the design
criteria, mitigation measures and best management practices should be used to mitigate impacts 9-17
to levels that are less than significant.

To accurately assess impacts of the proposed project, we recommend wetland delineation for the
project be verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and that natural resource agencies be
provided with a mitigation plan for any unavoidable impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. 9-18
The mitigation plan should include a restoration plan for temporary impacts, as well as
mitigation for all permanent and indirect impacts to jurisdictional areas.

Statements used throughout the document that the fence will have beneficial impact to
wetland/riparian areas, vegetation, wildlife, and federally listed species (by reducing human
activity and trash) have not been supported with data. This is important because impacts from 9-19
vehicular activity and road maintenance would likely increase. Regardless, decision documents

-3-
FME002694

should include a thorough analysis of all direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts based on best 9-19
available scientific information.

The EA should provide current information on existing barrier fence segments along the
International Border in Imperial County so an assessment of cumulative effects is possible, 9-20
including effects to unlisted species.

Direct and indirect impacts to federal or state-listed species and candidate or potential candidate
species, including Yuma clapper rail (RALLUS LOGIROSTRIS YUMANENSIS), Pierson’s milk-vetch
(ASTRAGALUS MAGDALENAE PEIRSONII), flat tailed horned lizard (PHRYNOSOMA MCALLII), southwestern 9-3
willow flycatcher (EMPIDONAX TRAILII EXTIMUS), Peninsular bighorn sheep (OVIS CANADENSIS ), and
burrowing owl (ATHENE CUNICULARIA), are not defined or analyzed sufficiently.

Without additional information, the finding that this project would have insignificant impacts to
these species and their habitat is not supported. Due to time constraints, focused surveys may
not be practicable. Therefore, effects analyses should rely on plant community and species
distribution data to determine where sensitive species are likely to occur. Where sensitive
species cannot be avoided, direct and indirect impacts should be carefully analyzed so that
impacts can be appropriately estimated and mitigated. We provide species specific
recommendations below.

Potential direct and indirect effects to Peninsular bighorn sheep should be analyzed in the EA. In
particular, we are concerned about probable redirection of increased pedestrian traffic and
subsequent apprehension activities in the Jacumba Mountains at the west end of the project
corridor. It has recently been confirmed that a population of sheep resides in this area and is
likely to move between habitats in Mexico and the US.
9-21
We are concerned that increased human activity could adversely affect this population.
Therefore, to reduce levels of human-related disturbance in bighorn sheep habitat, we
recommend that these indirect effects be mitigated by maintaining the existing vehicle barrier
fence along at least the westernmost 1-mile reach of the B-1 segment, so that pedestrian foot
traffic and apprehension activities are spread across a larger area and not as concentrated within
bighorn sheep habitat.

We also recommend that a monitoring program be implemented, as detailed below.

The area south of I-8, the Jacumba Mountains, has not been regularly surveyed during the bi-
annual helicopter census of bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges.

The reason is a lack of financial resources to pay for the helicopter time, travel expenses of
qualified surveyors, wages, etc. The team that conducts the census is led by CDFG, and it
selects areas to be flown. Mitigation funds need to be ear-marked for the Jacumbas, which 9-22
would lead to the next step.

Some bighorn sheep have been observed from the ground in the Jacumbas. Assuming these
sheep are still present, we do not know much about their movement patterns or demographics.

For example, we do not know if they are crossing into Mexico, crossing I-8, home range size, or
major sources of mortality. To get this type of information one generally has to radio-collar a

-4-
FME002695

portion of the group. GPS-equipped collars can be programmed to collect data at pre-determined
time intervals. The data can be retrieved remotely or when the animal is recaptured.

We have found a combination of GPS and VHF collars work well. If a survey turned up an ewe
group in the Jacumbas, the next step would be to catch and collar some sheep.

Most Peninsular sheep extend down into Baja, and the population at one time was inter-
connected. Interstate I-8 and other human impacts severed the connection(s). The proposed
project likely would add to this disruption of habitat connectivity by increasing human activity 9-22
within bighorn home ranges. Populations have a higher probability of surviving long-term if
connectivity between populations is maintained, including trans-border populations (RECOVERY
PLAN FOR BIGHORN SHEEP IN THE PENINSULAR RANGES, CALIFORNIA , FWS 2000).

Currently bighorn appear to easily cross the west-bound lanes of I-8 by using bridges as an
underpass. However, the east-bound lanes appear to present a more formidable barrier, since
there are no high bridges to walk under. Since border infrastructure poses negative impacts on
cross-border habitat connectivity, contributing to the construction of such a wildlife crossing
would represent an appropriate form of mitigation.

The severity of impacts to Pierson’s milk-vetch would depend on the type of fence built.
Infrastructure that would stabilize the dunes or cause sand to accumulate around a solid structure
would alter sand transport and have significant negative effects on the composition of sand dune
biological communities.

We suggest that a least-impacting fence design be used, such as Normandy vehicle barrier or
some other moveable sectional structure that can “float” on top of the sand, minimizing
alteration of the sand transport regime and preventing eventual burial of the fence itself.
Additionally, we suggest avoidance measures be implemented to minimize impacts to milk-
vetch.
9-23
However, the claim that adverse impacts to this species “would be offset by the beneficial impact
of reduced cross-border violator traffic through remaining habitat” (p. 3-40) is problematic for
two reasons: (1) cross-border violator traffic may be reduced, but DHS operational, construction,
and maintenance traffic would likely increase, and (2) claimed reduction of impacts does not
adequately offset direct loss of habitat, or the barrier to dispersal the proposed project will cause.

Therefore, we recommend that impacts to FTHL habitat be mitigated in accordance with all
provisions of the FTHL Management Strategy. Furthermore, to allow for cross-border dispersal, 9-24
we recommend the border fence design be permeable for lizards.

Yuma clapper rail are known to occupy seepage wetlands along the All American Canal in
section B5a. Potential impacts to the rail should be analyzed for any direct and indirect impacts 9-25
to wetland habitats in this section. For example, noise and vibration from louder construction
activities could affect nesting rails that use the seepage wetlands during breeding season.

These potential indirect impacts should be adequately addressed and disturbance to breeding rails 9-26
should be minimized by avoiding the breeding season or using noise attenuation measures.
Additionally, roads that go through or near the seepage wetlands should not be used for
9-25
construction access to avoid disturbance to rails.

-5-
 FME002696

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

10-1

10-2

10-3

10-4

10-5
FME002697

The EA provides insufficient maps and information about occurrence and quality of riparian
habitat within and near project impact area, making it difficult to understand potential impacts to
southwestern willow flycatcher. We recommend that direct impacts to flycatcher habitat be 9-27
avoided throughout project corridor. Furthermore, potential indirect effects on flycatcher from
construction and maintenance-related noise and lighting should be mitigated, as recommended
above for clapper rail.

The burrowing owl is a Fish and Wildlife Service migratory non-game bird of management
concern (Birds of Conservation Concern 2002). We note the EA recorded burrowing owls in
project area. We therefore recommend that potential direct and indirect effects to burrowing
owls be analyzed and mitigated. Two pre-construction surveys should be conducted (1) no more
than 30 days from the beginning of construction and (2) within three days of on-site grubbing
and disturbance, to avoid impacts from the construction activities to burrowing owls. 9-28
We recommend a burrowing owl survey be conducted within proposed project area using a
qualified biologist who is familiar with burrowing owl use of Imperial Valley agricultural lands
and the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME STAFF REPORT (1995). We request that DHS
work with the Service to develop avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures to reduce
potential impacts.

The source of water used for fugitive dust control and other water-consuming activities
associated with proposed project should be analyzed. The project description should include
information on source and usage of water necessary for the project. Due to occurrences of 9-29
surface waters with low water quality within the area, water used to control fugitive dust or other
project-related activities should come from an uncontaminated source.

The EA does not disclose habitat impacts associated with clearing of lay-down/staging areas.
We appreciate the DHS effort to locate staging areas within previously-disturbed habitat.
However, all impacts (temporary or permanent) should be disclosed in the EA. Where staging 9-30
areas cannot be contained within already-disturbed habitat, mitigation measures should be
provided to offset temporary or permanent loss of that habitat. Restoration should be
implemented in staging areas that are needed only temporarily.

The project proposes impacts to the Alamo River, Pinto Wash (0.5 mile pedestrian fence), and
within 200 ft. of the All-American Canal. Effects are all described as insignificant, but are not
9-31
described in enough detail to understand impacts to biological resources. Wetland and riparian
habitat delineations and acres of impacts (temporary and permanent) need to be disclosed.

The Department appreciates opportunities for regional and field staff from our bureaus, as well
as our regional environmental office, to work with the DHS, Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection, in developing specific information necessary to plan, evaluate, and construct border
infrastructure for the El Centro area covered in this document. We support the Department of
Homeland Security’s efforts to develop border infrastructure which successfully protects natural,
cultural, and human resources of our nation, both for the short- and long-term.

For immediate assistance with development of the information needed to evaluate any necessary
environmental mitigation, please do not hesitate to contac (b) (6) at (b) (6) or

-6-
 FME002698

(b) (6) at (b) (6) from BLM,(b) (6) or (b) (6) at (b) (6)
from FWS, or (6)
(b) Port, REO.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this project.

Sincerely,
(b) (6)

Regional Environmental Officer

cc:
Director, OEPC
FWS
BLM

-7-
 FME002699

10-5

10-6

10-7

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)
FME002700

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FME002701

ATTACHMENT 6
SUBSTANTIVE COMMENT RESPONSES

C-43
FME002702

 
 FME002703

Comment Record
Comment Commenter Comment Comment Individual Response
Number Code
1‐1 Mr (b) (6)   The DEA does not fully disclose impacts to wetlands and waters of  Section 3.4 and 4.4 of the Final EA fully discuss the 
Regional  the U.S. and how these impacts will be mitigated to below levels  existing wetlands and impacts to those wetlands.
Environmental Review  of significance.  The Final EA should include an evaluation of the 
Coordinator, U.S.  project alternatives in this context to demonstrate the project's 
Environmental  compliance with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
Protection Agency
1‐2 Mr. (b) (6)   The DEA does not fully disclose impacts to biological resources,  Section 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8 of the EA discuss impacts 
Regional  including threatened and endangered species, and how these  to biological resources. The BA discusses BMPs for 
Environmental Review  impacts will be mitigated to below levels of significance. the mitigation of impacts to threatened and 
Coordinator, U.S.  endangered species.
Environmental 
Protection Agency
1‐3 Mr. (b) (6)   The DEA also does not identify the type of primary pedestrian  Standard designs for primary pedestrian fence was 
Regional  fence design that will be used for the 6 discreet fence segments,  included in Appendix A of the Draft EA.  Section B‐1 
Environmental Review  which will largely influence impacts. would be Normandy style primary vehicle fence.  
Coordinator, U.S.  Sections B‐2 B‐3, B‐4 and B‐5a would be bollard 
Environmental  style primary pedestrian fence.  Section B‐5b would 
Protection Agency be a special design to account for the dunes, 
designated as PV‐4 in Appendix A.  Table 2‐1 and 
Appendix A has been revised to include this 
information.
1‐4 Mr (b) (6)   EPA believes a comprehensive mitigation strategy should be  CBP is in consultation with specific resource 
Regional  developed for cumulative impacts resulting from several border  agencies to include a programmatic compensation 
Environmental Review  fence and infrastructure projects that are occuring along the  plan from proposed construction of tactical 
Coordinator, U.S.  border. infrastructure.
Environmental 
Protection Agency
1‐5 Mr. (b) (6)   EPA recommends that all mitigation measures supporting the  Mitigation measures are included in the BA and 
Regional  FONSI be identified and their effectiveness evaluated in the Final  Final EA Section 4.
Environmental Review  EA.
Coordinator, U.S. 
Environmental 
Protection Agency

Monday, March 24, 2008 Page 1 of 17
 FME002704

Comment Commenter Comment Comment Individual Response

Number Code
1‐6 Mr. (b) (6)   The Final EA should include detailed, quantified information  A formal wetland jurisdictional survey was 
Regional  regarding direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project  conducted January 17 through the 19, 2008 and 
Environmental Review  on the function and acreage of wetlands and waters of the U.S.   concluded with the issuance of a formal 
Coordinator, U.S.  We recommend inclusion of a draft Construction, Mitigation, and  Jurisdictional Determination (_______) on DATE. 
Environmental  Restoration (CM&R) Plan in the Final EA to support the FONSI. The description of the wetlands located within the 
Protection Agency proposed project area has been reflected to show 
the results of the jurisdictional survey. Based upon 
the formal Jurisdictional Determination, it is 
expected that approximately ____ acres of 
jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the 
proposed action (see Final EA Section 3.__).
1‐7 Mr. (b) (6)   EPA recommends expansion of the alternatives analysis, including  Proposed fencing is one component of a long term 
Regional  evaluation of the use of additional agents and/or technology in  program for gaining effective control of our 
Environmental Review  environmentally sensitive areas in conjunction with primary fence  borders.  Technology and additional agents are 
Coordinator, U.S.  and tactical infrastructure to avoid and minimize impacts. another important piece of the program.  However, 
Environmental  they cannot replace the proven effectiveness of 
Protection Agency border barriers in slowing and deterring illegal 
border crossers. Border security is a Federal 
responsibility and cannot be delegated by 
agreements with local law enforcement.
1‐8 Mr. (b) (6)   EPA recommends improvements to the cumulative impacts  Need CBP input, if the cumulative impact analysi 
Regional  analysis.  EPA recommends the use of the June 2005 Guidance for  should be expanded.
Environmental Review  Preparer's of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Analysis developed 
Coordinator, U.S.  jointly by Caltrans, FHWA, and EPA.
Environmental 
Protection Agency
1‐9 Mr. (b) (6)   To the extent that information is available and obtainable,  The CEQ has guidance on NEPA analyses for 
Regional  include an analysis of reasonable foreseeable impacts to the  transboundary impacts.  During the scoping 
Environmental Review  environment and communities on the Mexican side of the border  process, relations with Mexico was identified as a 
Coordinator, U.S.  in the Final EA. potential socioeconomic impact (Draft EIS Appendix 
Environmental  B).  Section 1.6 references the USIBWC as a 
Protection Agency cooperating agency and their responsibility 
regarding applicable treaty obligations between the 
U.S. and Mexico.

Monday, March 24, 2008 Page 2 of 17
 FME002705

Comment Commenter Comment Comment Individual Response

Number Code
1‐10 Mr (b) (6)   Fence maintenance in waterways:  It is not clear who would be  USBP would be responsible for the maintenance of 
Regional  responsible for ongoing maintenance of fences in  the fence and an annual budget would be allocated.
Environmental Review  wetland/riparian areas and streambeds to ensure flow.  Please 
Coordinator, U.S.  clarify in the Final EA who would be responsible for this 
Environmental  maintenance and how it would be funded.
Protection Agency
2‐1 Ms. (b) (6)   The DEA is unlawfully narrow because it fails to thoroughly  The purpose and need statement (given in Section 
California Program  consider any action alternatives that do not involve significant  1.2) briefly specifies the underlying issue to which 
Director, Defenders of  mileages of border walls, when the purpose of the DEA should be  CBP is responding with its Proposed Action.  The 
Wildlife to assess effective but environmentally benign, methods of  CEQ regulations state that all reasonable 
achieving operational control of the international border. alternatives should be considered.  Reasonable 
generally means an alternative that meets the 
purpose and need for the proposed action and is 
technically and economically feasible.  If a 
suggested alternative does not meet these criteria, 
it is not evaluated in detail in the EA.
2‐2 Ms. (b) (6)   In this instance, several factors demonstrate that a border fence 
California Program  construction "proposal" for the state of California exists, 
Director, Defenders of  including: (1) Congressional direction in the Secure Fence Act; (2) 
Wildlife the draft EIS for a similar border fence proposal in San Diego; (3) 
DHS' initiation of an EIS process for a similar border fence 
proposal in southern Texas; and (4) the simultaneous planning 
and development of several individual and segmented fence 
construction projects in different areas of the State. The existence 
of a comprehensive fence construction plan with significant 
environmental impacts within California thus requires the 
preparation of a regional EIS before construction of individual 
fence segments may lawfully proceed.

Monday, March 24, 2008 Page 3 of 17
 FME002706

Comment Commenter Comment Comment Individual Response

Number Code
2‐3 Ms. (b) (6)   No NEPA analysis conducted on the overall impacts of fence  Comment noted. Impacts to threatened and 
California Program  construction on wildlife within the California borderlands region.  endangered species is discussed in Section 4.8 of 
Director, Defenders of  The California borderlands region contains many species of plants  the EA and the BA.
Wildlife and wildlife that have otherwise limited distributions within the 
United States (e.g., Algodones Dunes sunflower, Peirson's 
milkvetch, and flat‐tailed horned lizard). Because DHS' 
Environmental Assessment for the El Centro 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.  The 
construction of significant fencing along the El Centro segment 
will result in fragmentation of habitat, genetic isolation, and 
increases the species' risk of extinction within the U.S.  Reference 
the 2003 FTHL Conservation Strategy.
2‐4 Ms. (b) (6)   The DEA contains a brief discussion of cumulative impacts within  NEPA requires a cumulative affect analysis of 
California Program  the El Centro segment area but does not address or acknowledge  reasonably foreseeable actions. Section 5.0 goes 
Director, Defenders of  the potential cumulative impacts of simultaneous fence  beyond that in analysis and looks generally at 
Wildlife construction being undertaken or planned within different areas  tentative projects; it is acceptable to generalize 
of the California border. these impacts since reasonably foreseeable projects 
may never be implemented. Cumulative impacts 
could be less or more in any given year and provide 
a good opportunity for studies to be conducted. 
Please see Section 4.0 of the EA for revisions.  The 
cumulative effects analysis considers the 
appropriate geographic scale of analysis for each 
resource area. For example, the air quality analysis 
considers the Southeast Desert AQCR is the 
appropriate geographic scale. The entire southern 
border has not been identified as the appropriate 
geographic scale for any resource area. Therefore, 
consideration of other USBP Sectors would not be 
appropriate.

Monday, March 24, 2008 Page 4 of 17
 FME002707

Comment Commenter Comment Comment Individual Response

Number Code
2‐5 Ms (b) (6)   The proposed location for the fence secitons bisect two Flat‐ The proposed fence is not anticipated to function as 
California Program  tailed horned lizard (FTHL) management areas (the Yuha Desert  a barrier to movement by  the mentioned taxa.  This 
Director, Defenders of  and East Mesa FTHL management areas), a BLM Area of Critical  species would be able to disperse through the 
Wildlife Environmental Concern and the Algodones Dunes.  The two FTHL  proposed fence.
areas are part of 5 areas managed by the BLM and considered 
critical for the conservation of the lizard. In the 2003 FTHL 
conservation strategy, the experts specifically stated that 
"activities in the Yuha Desert...that would prevent interchange of 
FTHLs across the International Bridge shall be prohibited."
2‐6 Ms. (b) (6)   The DEA's cumulative effects analysis provides only the vaguest of  The proposed fence is not anticipated to function as 
California Program  generalities regarding existing actions that already impact the  a barrier to movement by  the mentioned taxa.  This 
Director, Defenders of  human and natural environment within the lower Imperial  species would be able to disperse through the 
Wildlife Valley.  No attempt is made to provide detail on what these  proposed fence.
actions actually are, or the cumulative effect such activities have 
on specific natural resources such as imperiled plant and wildlife 
species.  For example, the DEA provides no information on the 
expected cumulative effects of the border wall construction on 
the imperiled FTHL.  Despite the direct threat posed to the FTHL 
by the proposed wall construction, and its already precarious 
status from the additive effects of other past and present 
activities, the DEA simply contains no attempt to address such 
cumulative effects.
2‐7 Ms. (b) (6)   Rather than presenting a purpose and need statement that  The purpose and need statement (given in Section 
California Program  reflects the larger goal of improving border security, and then  1.2) briefly specifies the underlying issue to which 
Director, Defenders of  evaluating different means to achieve that goal, DHS in this case  CBP is responding with its Proposed Action.  The 
Wildlife has instead defined border wall construction itself as the goal.    context of Section 1.2 has been expanded for the 
By so radically narrowing the scope of the project's purpose, DHS  Final EIS.
has impermissibly constricted the range of alternatives 
considered.

Monday, March 24, 2008 Page 5 of 17
 FME002708

Comment Commenter Comment Comment Individual Response

Number Code
2‐8 Ms. (b) (6)   DHS is obviously attempting to ram through an ineffective, costly, The purpose and need statement (given in Section 
California Program  and highly controversial border wall project without considering  1.2) briefly specifies the underlying issue to which 
Director, Defenders of  the many alternatives that could meet the important purpose of  CBP is responding with its Proposed Action.  The 
Wildlife improving border security with much less damaging  CEQ regulations state that all reasonable 
environmental impacts. This course of action is clearly deficient  alternatives should be considered.  Reasonable 
and the DEA must be withdrawn and replaced with a full EIS,  generally means an alternative that meets the 
including an analysis of the full range of reasonable alternatives purpose and need for the proposed action and is 
available to DHS to achieve the overarching goal of improving  technically and economically feasible.  If a 
border security. suggested alternative does not meet these criteria, 
it is not evaluated in detail in the EA.
2‐9 Ms. (b) (6)   The contention on page ES‐5 that "short‐ and long‐term negligible  To clarify, the table was changed to "Moderate 
California Program  to moderate adverse and minor beneficial impacts [to wildlife and  adverse impacts would be expected."
Director, Defenders of  aquatic resources] would expected" is, quite simply, wrong.
Wildlife
2‐10 Ms. (b) (6)   Indeed, the DEA acknowledges that the survey period for the  Subsequent surveys for Peirson's milkvetch and 
California Program  endangered plant species, Algodones dune sunflower and  Algodones dune sunflower have been conducted 
Director, Defenders of  Peirson's milkvetch, was during a very dry year and not optimal  and the results are incorporated in the FEA and the 
Wildlife (page 3‐37).  The fact that DHS would be able to draw any  BA.
meaningful conclusions from a six‐day, unreplicated, 
presence/absence survey outside the breeding season (when 
most wildlife species are most active, visible, audible) clearly 
illuminates the predetermined conclusion of the DEA, in stark 
violation of NEPA, to construct border walls at any and all cost to 
the integrity of sensitive biological resources.
2‐11 Ms. (b) (6)   The indirect environmental effects of shifting illegal immigration  Potential impacts from illegal cross‐border activities 
California Program  patterns caused by enforcement efforts have not been  in areas around tactical infrastructure is included in 
Director, Defenders of  considered or analyzed by DHS. the EA.
Wildlife
2‐12 Ms (b) (6) It is especially concerning that the DEA proposes no method to  Treatment of non‐native, invasive species is 
California Program  control or monitor the predictable and foreseeable introduction  addressed as BMPs in the BA.
Director, Defenders of  of noxious plants following construction of the proposed walls.  
Wildlife The DEA 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.

Monday, March 24, 2008 Page 6 of 17
 FME002709

Comment Commenter Comment Comment Individual Response

Number Code
2‐13 Ms. (b) (6)   An EA must analyze the nature and severity of the environmental  The nature and severity of impacts on each 
California Program  impacts.  DHS has not does this, but instead has listed activities  resource is included under environmental 
Director, Defenders of  that may affect or have the potential for adverse impacts, but  consequences for each resource area analyzed.  A 
Wildlife does not analyze the type or extent of the adverse impact, for  description of impact characteristics has been 
itself of for the reader. added to the beginning of Section 3.
2‐14 Further, the DEA provides an unfortunately shallow analysis of  The EA has been revised to reflect the impacts on 
indirect effects, and as such fails to adequately consider or work  resource areas from the potential redirection of 
to minimize: the predictable redirection of illegal activities  illegal border activities. The BA addresses mitigation 
resulting from construction of discontinuous wall segments; the  measures for invasive species and the EA has been 
introduction and colonization of invasive vegetation due to land  revised to include potential impacts to vegetation 
disturbances; and the restrictions land managers will face as they  communities from the introduction of invasive 
work to create, maintain, or restore wildlife habitat, conduct  species. It is not anticipated that the fence would 
prescribed burns, or control annual wildfires, due to the limited  restrict land managers.
access points proposed.
6‐1 (b) (6) , U.S.  As indicated in previous consultations with this agency, we  Final designs are not yet available at this time in 
International  recommend that final engineering drawings be submitted for  accordance with the early planning aspects of NEPA 
Boundary and Water  review and approval prior to beginning any construction near the  (40 CFR 1501.2).  Final engineering drawings will be 
Commission international boundary.  These drawings must show the location  provided when available.
of each component in relation to the international boundary, 
arroyo washes, and the boundary monuments.
6‐2 (b) (6) , U.S.  In addition, we request that proposed construction activities be  Tactical infrastructure would not affect drainage in 
International  accomplished in a manner that does not change historic surface  washes.  However, it might not be practical to 
Boundary and Water  runoff characteristics at the international border. design the tactical infrastructure to not modify 
Commission sheet flow runoff throughout the proposed project 
area.
6‐3 (b) (6) , U.S.  We will require assurances that structures constructed along the  CBP will ensure that tactical infrastructure would be 
International  United States‐Mexico border are maintained in an adequate  adequately maintained.
Boundary and Water  manner and that liability issues created by these structures are 
Commission addressed.
7‐1 (b) (6)   It is unclear to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District  Text revised per comment. Table 1‐1 revised to 
Imperial County Air  (ICAPCD) why Table 1‐1 includes the San Diego Air Pollution  reflect that ICAPCD is responsible to approvals and 
Pollution Control  Control District as an approving agency.  However, rather than  permits for this Proposed Action.
District ask for an explanation the ICAPCD would like to reaffirm to the 
lead agency that jurisdiction falls onto the ICAPCD for approvals, 
permits and adherence to subsequent enacted rules and 
regulations.

Monday, March 24, 2008 Page 7 of 17
 FME002710

Comment Commenter Comment Comment Individual Response

Number Code
7‐2 (b) (6)   Section 3.10 (Air Quality): As mentioned above, this section as  Text revised per comment. "ICAQCD" was removed 
Imperial County Air  well as Appendix G concentrated its analysis on construction  from the Final EA.
Pollution Control  activities and little or no operational analysis was conducted.  
District Therefore, the ICAPCD would like to see, at a minimum, a 
qualitative analysis on maintenance and operational impacts in 
the long term.
7‐3 (b) (6)   It is reasonable to assume that the potential for increased agents  Text revised per comment. Dust control Plan for 
Imperial County Air  and subsequent associated activity, such as tire dragging and  Operations was referenced.
Pollution Control  increased vehicle activity, along these proposed sections may 
District occur.  One avenue is to use the current "Dust Control Plan" as 
submitted by USBP, El Centro Sector as guidance.
7‐4 (b) (6)   it will be necessary to develop a dust control plan for the  Section 3.10 and Appendix F were revised per 
Imperial County Air  proposed project.  In addition, the Draft EA failed to mention  comment.
Pollution Control  compliance with the requirements of Regualtion VIII, Fugitive 
District Dust Emissions.  Therefore, the Final EA should include language 
which commits to compliance with the requirements of 
Regulation VIII and a qualitative discussion on long term 
operational impacts to air quality with identified mitigation 
measures.
9‐2 (b) (6)   We have concerns reagrding (1) incomplete project description,  CBP has consulted with the USFWS on the Proposed 
Port, USDOI Office of  (2) adequacy of analysis of effects on natural resources, (3)  Action, impacts on sensitive species, and potential 
Environmental Policy  sufficiency of proposed mitigation measures, and (4) conclusion  mitigation measure.  Effect determinations on 
and Compliance that environmental effects of the proposed project are not  threatened and endangered species is included in 
significant. the Biological Assessment.
9‐3 (b) (6)   The EA is lacking necessary imformation to assess effects of the  Impacts to the referenced listed species are 
Port, USDOI Office of  proposed on the following species: Yuma clapper rail, Pierson's  addressed in the BA.
Environmental Policy  milk‐vetch, southwestern willow flycatcher, Peninsular bighorn 
and Compliance sheep, burrowing owl, and the flat tailed horned lizard.  Focused 
surveys were either not conducted at all, or conducted at an 
inappropriate time of the year.  Direct and indirect impacts to 
these federal or state‐listed species and candidate or potential 
candidate species, are not defined or analyzed sufficiently.

Monday, March 24, 2008 Page 8 of 17
 FME002711

Comment Commenter Comment Comment Individual Response

Number Code
9‐4 (b) (6)   The project description does not provide maps or spatial  Vegetation maps are incorporated in the Biological 
Port, USDOI Office of  representation of plant communities and listed/sensitive species  Survey Report.
Environmental Policy  habitat occurring within and surrounding the proposed impact 
and Compliance area.  Project area aerial photographs with species distribution 
and vegetation communities clearly identified should be included 
to assist effects analysis.
9‐5 (b) (6)   The EA should clearly describe project‐related impacts  Vegetation impacts are included with the EA. 
Port, USDOI Office of  (temporary and permanent) to each vegetation community and  Impacts and mitigation measures to protected 
Environmental Policy  species habitat for all aspects of the project, including road  habitats are included in the BA.
and Compliance widening, staging/lay down areas, new fence construction, and 
new road construction.
9‐6 (b) (6)   Without information on a definite fence design, lay‐down areas,  Thank you.  The final EA provides the requested 
Port, USDOI Office of  and access roads, or relevant biological information, the EA does  locations and the construction lay‐down/staging 
Environmental Policy  not adequately assess adverse effects of the proposal or  areas and access roads have been field evaluated 
and Compliance mitigation measures needed to reduce impacts to a level of  and the plant communities and land use types have 
insignificance. been delineated on aerial photography for 
automation in a GIS.  From this digital product, 
acreages by vegetation and land use type have 
been calculated to inform the impact analysis in the 
final EA.  A complete description and illustration of 
biological resources, including wetlands and rare 
species habitat, has been prepared in the Biological 
Survey Report (attached to the EA), which also 
serves to inform the impact analyses.  To the extent 
possible DHS has selected construction lay‐down 
sites that were previously disturbed to reduce the 
effect to biological resources.
9‐7 (b) (6) (  Throughout the document, discussion and assessment of effects  Analysis of these activities is included in the EA.
b
Port, USDOI Office of  of construction activities should be expanded and clarified.  
Environmental Policy  Indirect impacts that should be assessed include, but may not be 
and Compliance limited to, (1) redirection of immigrant traffic to unsecured areas 
of the border that may impacts wildlife habitat, (2) construction 
of access roads and use of staging areas that are not included in 
proposed 60‐foot wide right of way, and (3) effects of 
construction noise on wildlife.

Monday, March 24, 2008 Page 9 of 17
 FME002712

Comment Commenter Comment Comment Individual Response

Number Code
9‐8 (b) (6)   We recommend that DHS work with us in an attempt to design  DHS has cooperated closely with USFWS 
Port, USDOI Office of  the project in a way that avoids and minimizes adverse effects,  throughout this NEPA process, and incorporated 
Environmental Policy  and may potentially avoid the need to initiate formal consultation  USFWS input to the fullest extent practicable while 
and Compliance under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Unless more  still meeting the mission mandates.
complete information is provided on project design and 
mitigation measures, it appears that initiation of formal 
consultation will be needed.
9‐9 (b) (6)   The Draft EA does not adequately describe where Border Patrol  With the exception of access roads and some 
Port, USDOI Office of  intends to complete activities that will occus outside of the 60‐ staging areas, all construction, operation, and 
Environmental Policy  foot wide Roosevelt Reservation.  It is not clear in the Draft EA  maintenance activities would be within the 60‐foot 
and Compliance whether Border Patrol will need to go outside of the 60‐foot  corridor.  The access roads and staging areas are 
Roosevelt Reservation, and where they will need to do so. BLM  identified in the EA.
will need to review the areas planned to have staging areas and 
areas outside the Roosevelt Reservation, in order to assess what 
resources could be impacted during the proposed construction 
projects.
9‐10 (b) (6)   Please provide BLM with a map that identifies these areas  With the exception of access roads and some 
Port, USDOI Office of  (mentioned in comment 9‐9). staging areas, all construction, operation, and 
Environmental Policy  maintenance activities would be within the 60‐foot 
and Compliance corridor.  The access roads and staging areas are 
identified in the EA.
9‐11 (b) (6)   The Draft EA does not specify the timeframe for the proposed  EA Section 2.2.2 (page 2‐4), states that "If approved, 
Port, USDOI Office of  fence construction.  Please clarify whether construction will occur  construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure 
Environmental Policy  on a year‐round basis until proposed action is complete, or if  would begin in Spring 2008 and continue through 
and Compliance construction will occur only during certain times of year.  December 31, 2008.  Installation of lighting would 
Depending on which time of year construction will take place,  occur after December 31, 2007."
there will be Special Status Species issues to consider.  If 
construction will take place during winter months, Peirson's 
milkvetch will need to be surveyed and avoided in Imperial Sand 
Dunes Recreation Area.  If construction will take place during 
summer months, Flat‐tailed Horned lizards will need to be 
avoided and it is possible that a Flat‐tailed Horned lizard monitor 
may need to be on site during construction activities.
9‐12 (b) (6)   Habitat compensation will need to be paid for any Flat‐tailed  These BMPs are addressed in the BA.
Port, USDOI Office of  Horned lizard habitat within East Mesa or Yuha Management 
Environmental Policy  Areas that is disturbed outside the Roosevelt Reservation.
and Compliance

Monday, March 24, 2008 Page 10 of 17
 FME002713

Comment Commenter Comment Comment Individual Response

Number Code
9‐13 (b) (6)   Best management practices will need to be followed for the Flat‐ These BMPs are addressed in the BA.
Port, USDOI Office of  tailed Horned lizard, as outlined in the Flat‐tailed Horned lizard 
Environmental Policy  Range‐Wide Mangement Strategy.
and Compliance
9‐14 (b) (6)   Please clarify which type of fence you intend to construct in  Section B‐5B would be a special design to account 
Port, USDOI Office of  Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area, and address impacts that  for the dunes, designated as PV‐4 in Appendix A.
Environmental Policy  will result from construction of that particular type of fence.
and Compliance
9‐15 (b) (6)   The technology alternative considered but not analyzed further  CEQ regulations state that a NEPA document must 
Port, USDOI Office of  should be analyzed further in the final EA.  Technology may be  evaluate all reasonable alternatives.  Reasonable 
Environmental Policy  used to minimize direct and indirect impacts that fence  generally means an alternative that meets the 
and Compliance construction would produce, especially in an area like Imperial  purpose and need for the proposed  action and is 
Sand Dunes, that is sparsely populated and where shifting sands  technically and economically feasible.  If a 
make constructing a physical barrier such as a fence difficult. suggested alternative does not meet these criteria, 
it is not evaluated in detail in the EA.  Section 2.3.2 
discusses the use of technology and why it is not a 
reasonable alternative to the proposed action.
9‐16 (b) (6)   We recommend that direct and indirect effects of lighting on  Proposed lighting has been modified in 
Port, USDOI Office of  biological resources be disclosed in this document if lighting  coordination with USFWS.
Environmental Policy  might be used in the future.  Although not a concern in already 
and Compliance disturbed areas, any lighting proposed beyond B‐3 should be 
avoided if feasible.
9‐17 (b) (6)   The EA repeatedly states design criteria would be used to  BMPs addressing federally listed species would also 
Port, USDOI Office of  minimize adverse impacts on threatened or endangered species  be applicable to general wildlife species and are 
Environmental Policy  and their critical habitat, but does not describe where this has or  addressed in the BA.
and Compliance will occur.  If avoidance measures cannot be included in the 
design criteria, mitigation measures and best management 
practices should be used to mitigate impacts to levels that are 
less than significant
9‐18 (b) (6)   To accurately assess impacts of the proposed project, we  Any wetlands regulated by the USACE would be 
Port, USDOI Office of  recommend wetland delineation for the project be verified by the  coordinated with the USACE and mitigation 
Environmental Policy  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and that natural resource agencies  measures would be implemented.
and Compliance be provided with a mitigation plan for any unavoidable impacts 
to wetlands and waters of the U.S.  The mitigation plan should 
include a restoration plan for temporary impacts, as well as 
mitigation for all permanent and indirect impacts to jurisdictional 
areas.

Monday, March 24, 2008 Page 11 of 17
 FME002714

Comment Commenter Comment Comment Individual Response

Number Code
9‐19 (b) (6)   Statements used throughout the document that the fence will  Thank you.  The present level of human activity, 
Port, USDOI Office of  have beneficial impact to wetland/riparian areas, vegetation,  pets, feral dogs and cats, and trash accumulation 
Environmental Policy  wildlife, and federally listed species (by reducing human activity  were observed during field research, noted, and 
and Compliance and trash) have not been supported with data.  This is important  photographed.  Human activity observed included 
because impacts from vehicular activity and road maintenance  foot trails, motorbike and vehicle accesses, access 
would likely increase.  Regardless, decision documents should  for rafts, fishing, swimming, and strolling.  Feral 
include a thorough analysis of all direct, indirect, and cumulative dogs and cats were observed in the proposed 
impacts based on best available scientific information. corridor near Mexicali, as were some dog 
carcasses.  Delineation of the land use units roads 
and trails and other disturbed lands from recent 
aerial photography and automating these data to a 
GIS allowed calculation of acreages that do not 
currently support vegetation.  These data provide 
the baseline from which long‐term impacts due to 
development and use of tactical infrastructure were 
determined.
9‐20 (b) (6)   The EA should provide current information on existing barrier  The USBP El Centro Sector currently has __ miles of 
Port, USDOI Office of  fence segments along the International Border in Imperial County  primary pedestrian fence around existing Ports of 
Environmental Policy  so an assessment of cumulative effects is possible, including  Entry (POEs).  Proposed Tactical Infrastructure is 
and Compliance effects to unlisted species. shown on Figure 1‐1 of the EA.  EA Section 4 (page 
4‐3) presents Reasonably Foreseeable Future 
Actions regarding additional tactical infrastructure 
in the USBP El Centro Sector.
9‐21 (b) (6)   Potential direct and indirect effects to Peninsular bighorn sheep  Section B‐1 is currently proposed as vehicular 
Port, USDOI Office of  should be analyzed in the EA.  In particular, we are concerned  fence.  Proposed lights have been withdrawn from 
Environmental Policy  about probable redirection of increased pedestrian traffic and  this section in coordination with USFWS.
and Compliance subsequent apprehension activities in the Jacumba Mountains at 
the west end of the project corridor.  It has recently been 
confirmed that a population of sheep resides in this area and is 
likely to move between habitats in Mexico and the US.  We are 
concerned that increased human activity could adversely affect 
this population.  Therefore, to reduce levels of human‐related 
disturbance in bighorn sheep habitat, we recommend that these 
indirect effects be mitigated by maintaining the existing vehicle 
barrier fence along at least the westernmost 1‐mile reach of the B‐
1 segment, so that pedestrian foot traffic and apprehension 
activities are spread across a larger area and not as concentrated 
within bighorn sheep habitat.

Monday, March 24, 2008 Page 12 of 17
 FME002715

Comment Commenter Comment Comment Individual Response

Number Code
9‐22 (b) (6)   We also recommend that a monitoring program be implemented,  Section B‐1 is currently proposed as vehicular 
Port, USDOI Office of  as detailed below.  The area south of I‐8, the Jacumba Mountains,  fence.  Proposed lights have been withdrawn from 
Environmental Policy  has not been regularly surveyed during the bi‐annual helicopter  this section in coordination with USFWS.  As such, 
and Compliance census of bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges.   The reason is  mitigation for Peninsular Big Horn Sheep is not 
a lack of financial resources to pay for the helicopter time, travel  anticipated.
expenses of qualified surveyors, wages, etc.  The team that 
conducts the census is led by CDFG, and it selects areas to be 
flown.  Mitigation funds need to be ear‐marked for the Jacumbas, 
which would lead to the next step.  Some bighorn sheep have 
been observed from the ground in the Jacumbas.  Assuming these 
sheep are still present, we do not know much about their 
movement patterns or demographics.  For example, we do not 
know if they are crossing into Mexico, crossing I‐8, home range 
size, or major sources of mortality.  To get this type of 
information one generally has to radio‐collar a portion of the 
group.  GPS‐equipped collars can be programmed to collect data 
at pre‐determined time intervals.  The data can be retrieved 
remotely or when the animal is recaptured.  We have found a 
combination of GPS and VHF collars work well.  If a survey turned 
up an ewe group in the Jacumbas, the next step would be to 
catch and collar some sheep. Most Peninsular sheep extend down 
into Baja, and the population at one time was inter‐connected.  
Interstate I‐8 and other human impacts severed the 
connection(s).  The proposed project likely would add to this 
disruption of habitat connectivity by increasing human activity 
within bighorn home ranges.  Populations have a higher 
probability of surviving long‐term if connectivity between 
populations is maintained, including trans‐border populations 
(Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, 
California, FWS 2000).

Monday, March 24, 2008 Page 13 of 17
 FME002716

Comment Commenter Comment Comment Individual Response

Number Code
9‐23 (b) (6)   The severity of impacts to Pierson’s milk‐vetch would depend on  the fence design proposed for the active portion of 
Port, USDOI Office of  the type of fence built.  Infrastructure that would stabilize the  the dunes is a floating style fence that is not 
Environmental Policy  dunes or cause sand to accumulate around a solid structure  anticipated to inhibit dune movement.  BMPs for 
and Compliance would alter sand transport and have significant negative effects  milk vetch are addressed in the BA.
on the composition of sand dune biological communities.   We 
suggest that a least‐impacting fence design be used, such as 
Normandy vehicle barrier or some other moveable sectional 
structure that can "float" on top of the sand, minimizing 
alteration of the sand transport regime and preventing eventual 
burial of the fence itself.  Additionally, we suggest avoidance 
measures be implemented to minimize impacts to milk‐vetch.
9‐24 (b) (6)   However, the claim that adverse impacts to this species "would  The fence design is permeable to FTHL.  The 
Port, USDOI Office of  be offset by the beneficial impact of reduced cross‐border  potential impact corridors are already patrolled, 
Environmental Policy  violator traffic through remaining habitat" (p. 3‐40) is problematic  and increased patrol is not anticipated.
and Compliance for two reasons: (1) cross‐border violator traffic may be reduced, 
but DHS operational, construction, and maintenance traffic would 
likely increase, and (2) claimed reduction of impacts does not 
adequately offset direct loss of habitat, or the barrier to dispersal 
the proposed project will cause. Therefore, we recommend that 
impacts to FTHL habitat be mitigated in accordance with all 
provisions of the FTHL Management Strategy. Furthermore, to 
allow for cross‐border dispersal, we recommend the border fence 
design be permeable for lizards.
9‐25 (b) (6)   Yuma clapper rail are known to occupy seepage wetlands along  Potential impacts to Yuma clapper rail and 
Port, USDOI Office of  the All American Canal in section B5a.  Potential impacts to the  corresponding BMPs are addressed in the BA.
Environmental Policy  rail should be analyzed for any direct and indirect impacts to 
and Compliance wetland habitats in this section. Additionally, roads that go 
through or near the seepage wetlands should not be used for 
construction access to avoid disturbance to rails.
9‐26 (b) (6)   These potential indirect impacts should be adequately addressed  Potential impacts to Yuma clapper rail and 
Port, USDOI Office of  and disturbance to breeding rails should be minimized by  corresponding BMPs are addressed in the BA.
Environmental Policy  avoiding the breeding season or using noise attenuation 
and Compliance measures.

Monday, March 24, 2008 Page 14 of 17
 FME002717

Comment Commenter Comment Comment Individual Response

Number Code
9‐27 (b) (6)   The EA provides insufficient maps and information about  CBP has consulted with the USFWS, USFWS has 
Port, USDOI Office of  occurrence and quality of riparian habitat within and near project  agreed that southwestern willow flycatcher is not a 
Environmental Policy  impact area, making it difficult to understand potential impacts to  species of concern for this project.
and Compliance southwestern willow flycatcher.  We recommend that direct 
impacts to flycatcher habitat be avoided throughout project 
corridor.  Furthermore, potential indirect effects on flycatcher 
from construction and maintenance‐related noise and lighting 
should be mitigated, as recommended above for clapper rail.
9‐28 (b) (6)   The burrowing owl is a Fish and Wildlife Service migratory non‐ Migratory birds survesys will be conducted 
Port, USDOI Office of  game bird of management concern (Birds of Conservation  immediately prior to construction.  It is anticipated 
Environmental Policy  Concern 2002).  We note the EA recorded burrowing owls in  that impacts to burrowing owls will be avoidable as 
and Compliance project area.  We therefore recommend that potential direct and  they burrow in the sides of the canal where no 
indirect effects to burrowing owls be analyzed and mitigated.   construction activities would take place and are 
Two pre‐construction surveys should be conducted (1) no more  demonstrably tolerant of noise and general activity.
than 30 days from the beginning of construction and (2) within 
three days of on‐site grubbing and disturbance, to avoid impacts 
from the construction activities to burrowing owls.  We 
recommend a burrowing owl survey be conducted within 
proposed project area using a qualified biologist who is familiar 
with burrowing owl use of Imperial Valley agricultural lands and 
the California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report (1995).  
We request that DHS work with the Service to develop avoidance, 
minimization and/or mitigation measures to reduce potential 
impacts.
9‐29 (b) (6)   The source of water used for fugitive dust control and other  Text revised per comment. Dust control Plan for 
Port, USDOI Office of  water‐consuming activities associated with proposed project  Operations was referenced.
Environmental Policy  should be analyzed.  The project description should include 
and Compliance information on source and usage of water necessary for the 
project.  Due to occurrences of surface waters with low water 
quality within the area, water used to control fugitive dust or 
other project‐related activities should come from an 
uncontaminated source.

Monday, March 24, 2008 Page 15 of 17
 FME002718

Comment Commenter Comment Comment Individual Response

Number Code
9‐30 (b) (6)   The EA does not disclose habitat impacts associated with clearing  Thank you.  The construction lay‐down/staging 
Port, USDOI Office of  of lay‐down/staging areas.  We appreciate the DHS effort to  areas have been field evaluated and the plant 
Environmental Policy  locate staging areas within previously‐disturbed habitat.   communities and land use types have been 
and Compliance However, all impacts (temporary or permanent) should be  delineated on aerial photography for automation in 
disclosed in the EA.  Where staging areas cannot be contained  a GIS.  From this digital product, acreages by 
within already‐disturbed habitat, mitigation measures should be  vegetation and land use type have been calculated 
provided to offset temporary or permanent loss of that habitat.   to inform the impact analysis in the final EA.  Some 
Restoration should be implemented in staging areas that are  sites occupy sparse creosote bush shrublands that 
needed only temporarily. also support OHV recreation and would be difficult 
to restore.  Some sites with ground water seepage 
from canals and ditches support the nonnative, 
invasive salt‐cedar or tamarisk and Bermuda grass, 
which would be cleared.  Restoration of these sites 
could consider introduction of native seepage‐
driven species including arrowweed shrubs.
9‐31 (b) (6)   The project proposes impacts to the Alamo River, Pinto Wash (0.5  The wetlands and waters of the U. S. section of the 
Port, USDOI Office of  mile pedestrian fence), and within 200 ft. of the All‐American  EA has been updated based on formal wetland 
Environmental Policy  Canal.  Effects are all described as insignificant, but are not  delineations conducted in January 2008. Text has 
and Compliance described in enough detail to understand impacts to biological  been modified to describe and discuss Jurisdictional 
resources.  Wetland and riparian habitat delineations and acres  wetlands and waters of the U.S. in the project area.  
of impacts (temporary and permanent) need to be disclosed. Coordination is ongoing with the LA District of 
USACE and required permitting and associated 
mitigation necessary to minimize any adverse 
effects will be determined as a part of the 
permitting process.  The text has been modified to 
address this process.
10‐1 (b) (6)  Bureau  The Draft EA does not adequately describe where Border Patrol  With the exception of access roads and some 
of Land Management intends to complete activities that will occur outside of the 60'  staging areas, all construction, operation, and 
wide Roosevelt Reservation. It is not clear in the Draft EA whether  maintenance activities would be within the 60‐foot 
Border Patrol will need to go outside of the 60' Roosevelt  corridor.  The access roads and staging areas are 
Reservation, and where they will need to do so. BLM will need to  identified in the EA.
review the areas where you plan to have staging areas and where 
you plan to go outside the Roosevelt Reservation, in order to 
assess what resources could be impacted during the proposed 
construction projects. Please provide our office with a map that 
identifies these areas.

Monday, March 24, 2008 Page 16 of 17
 FME002719

Comment Commenter Comment Comment Individual Response

Number Code
10‐2 (b) (6)  Bureau  The Draft EA does not specify the timeframe for the proposed  Construction should begin in Spring 2008 and 
of Land Management fence construction. Please clarify whether construction will occur  continue through 12/31/08
on a year‐round basis until the proposed action is complete, or if 
the proposed action will occur only during certain times of the 
year. Depending on which time of year that construction will take 
place, there will be Special Status Species issues to consider. If 
construction will take place during the winter months, Peirson's 
Milkvetch will need to be surveyed for and avoided in the 
Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area. If construction will take 
place during the summer months, Flat‐tailed Horned Lizards will 
need to be avoided and it is possible that a Flat‐tailed Horned 
Lizard monitor may need to be on site during construction 
activities.
10‐3 (b) (6)  Bureau  Habitat compensation will need to be paid for any Flat‐tailed  Comment noted.
of Land Management Horned Lizard habitat within the East Mesa or Yuha Management 
Areas that is disturbed which is outside the Roosevelt Reservation.
10‐4 (b) (6)  Bureau  Best management practices will need to be followed for the Flat‐ Comment noted.
of Land Management tailed Horned Lizard, as outlined in the Flat‐tailed Horned Lizard 
Range Wide Management Strategy.
10‐5 (b) (6)  Bureau  The Imperial Sand Dunes is one of the busiest recreation areas in  Comment noted.
of Land Management the United States. Between the months of October and May, be 
prepared for heavy visitation (especially during weekends and 
holidays) in the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area section of 
the project area.
10‐6 (b) (6)  Bureau  Please clarify which type of fence you intend to construct in the 
of Land Management Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area, and address the impacts 
that will result from the construction of that particular type of 
fence.
10‐7 (b) (6)  Bureau  The technology alternative that was considered but not analyzed  CBP determined that technology alone would not 
of Land Management further should be analyzed further in the final EA. Technology  meet the purpose and need of the Proposed Action.
may be used to minimize the direct and indirect impacts that 
fence construction would produce, especially in an area like the 
Imperial Sand Dunes, that is sparsely populated and where 
shifting sands may make constructing a physical barrier such as a 
fence difficult.

Monday, March 24, 2008 Page 17 of 17
FME002720

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FME002721

ATTACHMENT 7
NON-SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTORS

C-45
FME002722
 FME002723

Non‐substantive Comments
Commentor ID Commentor
1 (b) (6)
FME002724

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK