RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS - CBP.gov

1-17
Response to Public Comments August 2008
Comment Category Comment Category Description Commenter Draft Response
Honest Consideration
of Public Comments
3. Comment is concerned with residences
on the “south” side of fence or access to
the south side of fence.
4. Comment states that secondary roads
will need to be constructed to cope with
the increased traffic around gate sites.
More habitat loss will be incurred
because of this.
5. Comment requests to know if access
gates will be ADA compliant
1. Comment expresses concern that
scoping comments were not fully
addressed in the Draft EIS.
TNC
TNC
William Hudson
Public Involvement Process
USEPA
TBC
Sierra Club
LRGVC
EDF
Sierra Club
LSC
NBW
3. Very few residences will be on the south side of
the infrastructure. They will be provided with
access points. Security operations for the
properties between the Rio Grande and the fence
will be the same as it is today. No land is being
“ceded” to Mexico. The U.S./Mexico international
border will remain the same. Land use may
become more restricted or access may be
inconvenienced. Furthermore, access will not be
denied for property owners, government officials,
business owners, recreational users, or other
legitimate purposes.
4. CBP does not anticipate increased vehicle traffic
around gate sites and no secondary roads are
planned.
5. CBP is working with landowners and local
agencies to identify gate locations and design. To
the extent they are required, reasonable
accommodations will be made to ensure that
affected landowners can utilize the gates.
1. Every scoping comment and every comment on
the Draft EIS sent to CBP and USBP has been
evaluated and incorporated into the Project and
reflected in the scope of issues addressed in the
ESP, as appropriate.
Rio Grande Valley Sector Tactical Infrastructure