J.04_Appendix_A_Comments_on_Draft_PEIS_Dec_26th.pdf

APPENDIX A

WRITTEN AND PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS

ON THE DRAFT PEIS

Appendix A presents Draft PEIS comments received from agencies, regional legislative and management authorities, organizations, and individuals during a 45-day public review period ending September 24, 2007. This appendix also presents oral comments provided during public hearings held at El Paso, Presidio and McAllen, Texas. Full transcripts of the public hearings are provided in Appendix C.

A total of 19 written responses were received during the Draft PEIS review period, nine from regulatory agencies (identified in Appendix A, for tracking purposes, as AG-1 to AG-10);

six from various organizations (identified as ORG-1 to ORG-6); and from individual reviewers (identified as IND-1 to IND-3). Oral comments were received during the August 21, 2007 public hearing at El Paso (four presenters, identified as EP-H1 to EP-H4); August 22, 2007 hearing at the Presidio (four presenters, identified as PR-H1 to PR-H4); and August 28, 2007 hearing at McAllen (four presenters, identified as McA-H1 to McA-H4). Individual comments provided by each reviewer are indicated by a letter following the reviewer tracking number (e.g. AG-2a, AG-2b, etc.) along the right margin of each comment. Responses to those comments are presented in Appendix B, following the same sequence and identification numbers.

Comments on the Draft PEIS are organized into four sub-sections, comments that are applicable to all flood control projects, and comments related individually to the Rectification FCP, Presidio FCP, and Lower Rio Grande FCP. The list of reviewers is as follows:

PART 1. COMMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE THREE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS

AG-1: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 8/21/07 ……………………………………. page 2

AG-2: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 9/24/07 ………. .page 4

AG-3: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 9/24/07 ……………………….…... page 7

AG-4: U.S. Department of the Interior, 9/24/07 ………………………………….... page 9

AG-5: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 9/24/07…………..… page 11

AG-6: Natural Resources Conservation Service, 12/10/2007 …………………....page 12

AG-7: Texas Historical Commission, 9/12/07 ………………………………….... page 13

AG-8: Texas Commission of Environmental Quality, 9/24/07……………….….. page 14

ORG-1: Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, 9/24/07 ……………………..….. page 15

IND-1: Mr. Conrad Keyes, 9/6/07 ……………………………………………….... page 17

PART 2. COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE RECTIFICATION FCP

AG-9: Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, 9/14/07 …………………………………………….. page 19

ORG-2: Friends of the Rio Grande, 9/21/07 ……………………………………... page 20

ORG-3: Southwest Environmental Center, 9/24/07 …………………………….. page 22

ORG-4: University of Texas at El Paso, 9/13/07 …………………………………. page 24

EP-H: EL PASO PUBLIC HEARING, AUGUST 21, 2007

• EP-H1: Ms. Heather McMurray, 9/21/07 ………………………….………..page 27

• EP-H2: Mr. John Sproul, 9/21/07……………………………………..…….. page 31

• EP-H3: Mr. Kevin Bixby, 9/21/07 …………………………………… ……..page 32

• EP-H4: Mr. Ari Michelsen, 9/21/07 …………………………………………..page 36

PART 3. COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE PRESIDIO FCP

PR-H: PRESIDIO PUBLIC HEARING, AUGUST 22, 2007

• PR-H1: Mr. Carlos E. Nieto, 9/22/07 ……………………………… ……..page 41

• PR-H2: Mr. Lorenzo Hernandez, 9/22/07 …………………………… .page 45

• PR-H3: Ms. Patt Simms, 9/22/07 …………………………………………..page 48

• PR-H4: Mr. Dennis McEntire, 9/22/07 ……………………………………..page 50

PART 4. COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE LOWER RIO GRANDE FCP

AG-10: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 11/15/07 ……………………….. ……….page 57

ORG-5: Lower Rio Grande Committee, 8/21/07 …………………………………..page 66

ORG-6: The Arroyo Colorado Watershed Partnership, 09/24/07 ……… ……….page 68

IND-2: Mr. Carl A. Boyd, 9/14/07 ………………………………………………..….page 69

IND-3: Mr. Bill Forbes, 9/24/07 ………………………………………………….…. page 71

McA-H: McALLEN PUBLIC HEARING, AUGUST 28, 2007

• McA-H1: Ms. Laura de la Garza, 8/28/07 ………………………………….page 73

• McA-H2: Mr. Eric Ellmer, 8/28/07 ………………………………………….page 77

• McA-H3: Mr. Godfrey Garza, 8/28/07 …………………………..………….page 80

• McA-H4: Mr. Ernesto Reyes, 8/28/07 ………………………….………….page 82

WRITTEN COMMENTS COMMON TO RECTIFICATION,

PRESIDIO AND LOWER RIO GRANDE

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS

Draft PEIS Comments Page 1

48667 Line

48667 Line

Draft PEIS Comments Page 2

Text Box AG-1: Fish & Wildlife Service

Draft PEIS Comments Page 3

Line

48667

AG-1a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 4

Text Box AG-2: USDI - Bureau of Reclamation

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Text Box AG-2a

48667 Text Box AG-2b

48667 Text Box AG-2c

48667

AG-2d

Draft PEIS Comments Page 5

Line

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Text Box AG-2k

48667 Text Box AG-2n

48667 Text Box AG-2m

48667 Text Box AG-2l

48667 Text Box AG-2e

48667 Text Box AG-2f

48667 Text Box AG-2g

48667 Text Box AG-2h

48667 Text Box AG-2i

48667 Text Box AG-2j

48667 Text Box AG-2o

48667 Text Box AG-2q

48667

AG-2p

Draft PEIS Comments Page 6

Line

48667 Text Box AG-2r

Draft PEIS Comments Page 7

Text Box AG-3: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

48667 Line

48667

AG-3a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 8

Line

48667 Line

48667 Text Box AG-3b

48667

AG-3c

United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance TAKE PRIDE P.O. Box 26567 (MC-9) INAMERICA

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87125-6567

IN REPLY REFER TO:

ER 07/68 1

File 9043.1

September 24,2007

Daniel Borunda Environmental Protection Specialist U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC)

Environmental Management Division 4171 North Mesa St., C-100 El Paso, Texas 79902

Subject: Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) for the Improvements to the USIBWC Rio Grande Flood Control Projects along the Texas-Mexico Border

Dear Mr. Borunda:

The U.S. Department of the Interior has reviewed the subject DPEIS. In this regard, we provide the following comments for your use in preparing the final document.

General Comments

The Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque Area Office, submitted comments independently in their role as a cooperating agency in a letter dated September 2 1,2007.

Specific Comments

Chapter 11, page 2-3, Rectification FCP. Section 2.1.4 Ground Water Resources, lines 7-9; and Chapter 111, page 2-2, Presidio FCP. Section 2.1.4 Ground Water Resources. lines 25-27 - Nitrate and fluoride concentrations would normally be reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L), so it is not clear to the reader what the reported percentages represent.

Page A-5, Section Appendix A - References - The full citation for "USGS, 1996" should be:

Ryder, Paul D., 1996, GROUND WATER ATLAS of the LJNITED STATES, Chapter E;

Oklahoma, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas 730-E. Also, the link provided for this USGS publication has been updated; the new link is:

http://cap~.~ater.us~s. pov/walch e/index. html

Draft PEIS Comments Page 9

48667 Text Box AG-4: U.S. Department of the Interior

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Text Box AG-4b

48667

AG-4a

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this DPEIS. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Lloyd Woosley, Chief, Environmental Affairs Program, U.S. Geological Survey, at 703-648-5028 or at lwoosley@usgs.gov.

Sincerely, I ~ t e f i e n R. Spencer

Regional Environmental Officer

Draft PEIS Comments Page 10

September 24, 2007

Mr. Daniel Borunda Environmental Management Division

USIBWC

4171 North Mesa St., C-100 El Paso, Texas 79902

Dear Mr. Borunda, We have provided comments on the (DEIS) regarding the Programmatic - Rio Grande Flood Control Projects, Proposing a Range of Alts for Maintenances Activities & Future Improvements, along the TX-Mexico Border (20070331).

The DEIS has been reviewed within the areas of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Geodetic Survey’s (NGS) geodetic responsibility, expertise, and in terms of the impact of the proposed actions on NGS activities and projects.

If there are any planned activities which will disturb or destroy geodetic control monuments, NGS requires notification not less than 90 days in advance of such activities in order to plan for their relocation. NGS recommends that funding for this project includes the cost of any required relocation(s).

All available geodetic control information about horizontal and vertical geodetic control monuments in the subject area is contained on the homepage of NGS at the following Internet address: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov. After entering this website, please access the topic “Products and Services” then “Data Sheet.” This menu item will allow you to directly access geodetic control monument information from the NGS database for the subject area project. This information should be reviewed for identifying the location and designation of any geodetic control monuments that may be affected by the proposed project.

We hope our comments will assist you. Thank you for giving NGS the opportunity to review your DEIS.

Sincerely, Christopher W. Harm Program Analyst NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey Office of the Director

1315 East-West Highway

SSMC3 8729, NOAA, N/NGS

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

Draft PEIS Comments Page 11

48667 Text Box AG-5: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

48667 Line

48667

AG-5a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 12

Text Box AG-6: Natural Resources Conservation Service

48667 Line

48667

AG-6a

From: "Debra Beene" <Debra.Beene@thc.state.tx.us> To: "Daniel Borunda" <danielborunda@ibwc.state.gov>, <dborunda@ibwc.state.go...

Date: 09/12/2007 6:49 PM Subject: PEIS Rio Grande Flood Control Projects along the Border

CC: "Amy Hammons" <Amy.Hammons@thc.state.tx.us> RE: PEIS Rio Grande Flood Control Projects along the Border

Mr. Borunda: The above referenced document does not address the historic or prehistoric cultural resoures;

it simply states that avoidance will take place when possible and when not, testing, excavation and mitigation will be coordinated through our office. We may not always agree that a site should be destroyed through mitigation when it is extremely significant; we may recommend complete avoidance. The cultural resource sections would benefit from in-depth assessments of what is known about the resources in the three flood control project areas and what is expected. What is the purpose of including such a preliminarily discussion of the cultural resources? Please advise at to what you are requesting from our office regarding this PEIS; it is very difficult to respond to such limited data.

Thank you, debra beene debra l. beene archaeologist, review & compliance regional archeologist, lower pecos texas historical commission po box 12276.austin.texas.78711 el rose building, 1st floor 108 west 16th street.austin.texas.78701 phone 512.463.5865 fax 512.463.8927 dbeene@thc.state.tx.us

Draft PEIS Comments Page 13

Text Box AG-7: Texas Historical Commission

48667 Line

48667

AG-7a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 14

Text Box AG-8: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

48667 Line

48667 Text Box AG-8a

Environmental Protection Specialist

USIBWC

4171 N. Mesa St, C-100 El Paso, TX 79902 danielborunda@ibwc.state.gov

The Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Improvements to USIBWC Rio Grande Flood Control Projects along the Texas-Mexico Border. The Lone Star Chapter, Sierra Club is the state conservation office for the Sierra Club, and has over 25,000 members in Texas. These include both residents of border counties as well as Texans who enjoy the natural beauty and resources of the Texas-Mexico borderlands. In addition, in the last few years, we have worked with organizations and individuals in Mexico concerned with particular issues impacting border health and the environment. Most recently, our chapter has announced its opposition to a physical wall along the Texas- Mexico border which could impact both water management and habitat management goals.

At one point, Sierra Club took legal action against IBWC for the manner in which it implemented its flood control projects along the border, but reached consensus on a more holistic management approach to assure that vegetation important to habitat and endangered species was not completely removed. As such, we recognize that IBWC has already moved beyond a simple technical vision of flood control toward more of a management strategy that takes into account other issues.

These very brief comments are offered in support of the Agency’s fourth alternative:

Multipurpose Project Management Alternative. We believe that it makes sense for the IBWC, in concert with CILA, other federal, state and local agencies and non-governmental organizations and individuals to move beyond flood control, and even more integrated management of water resources to look at issues of habitat enhancement, river flow and coordination with natural areas. We generally support many of the specific actions that would be incorporated into the MPM Alternative, and again believe that for the area downstream of El Paso, upstream and downstream of Presidio and in the Lower

Draft PEIS Comments Page 15

48667 Text Box ORG-1: Lone Star Chapter of Sierra Club

48667 Line

48667

ORG-1a

Rio Grande Valley, it only makes sense to move beyond the more narrow goal of flood control to also consider and implement other goals. While we reserve the right to comment on individual IBWC programs or projects – such as how proposed salt cedar removal projects are carried out – we do support the idea that the IBWC should be in the business of supporting water and habitat management for a variety of uses.

One issue that was not specifically mentioned as part of the MPM Alternative is the issue of water quality. We would ask – and these comments echo similar comments being made by the Arroyo Colorado Watershed Partnership’s Citizens Forum – that as part of the alternative you also incorporate the issue of maintenance and enhancement of water quality.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.

Sincerely, Cyrus Reed, On Behalf of Lone Star Chapter of Sierra Club 1202 San Antonio Austin, Texas 78701 Reed_c@grandecom.net 512-477-1729

Draft PEIS Comments Page 16

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Text Box ORG-1b

48667 Text Box ORG-1a (cont.)

Draft PEIS Comments Page 17

Text Box IND-1: Mr. Conrad Keyes

48667 Line

48667 Text Box IND-1a

48667 Line

48667

IND-1b

WRITTEN AND PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS FOR THE

RECTIFICATION FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

Draft PEIS Comments Page 18

Draft PEIS Comments Page 19

Text Box AG-9: Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo Nation

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Text Box AG-9b

48667

AG-9a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 20

ORG-2: Friends of the Rio Bosque

Draft PEIS Comments Page 21

Line

48667 Line

48667 Text Box ORG-2a

48667

ORG-2b

Daniel Borunda Environmental Management Division

USIBWC

4171 North Mesa, C-100 El Paso, TX 79902

Dear Mr. Borunda:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft programmatic environmental impact statement (DPEIS) for Improvements to the USIBWC flood control projects along the Texas-Mexico border.

We do not believe the DPEIS complies with either the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act to analyze impacts of, and alternatives to, current management, or with the MOU signed in 1999 with the Southwest Environmental Center.

The USIBWC signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Southwest Environmental Center dated March 22, 1999. This agreement was negotiated in lieu of SWEC pursuing litigation against USIBWC for violations of the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It was understood by both parties that the litigation would be renewed if the USIBWC failed to comply with its commitments.

In the MOU, USIBWC committed to making a comprehensive and in-depth reevaluation of existing management practices for the Rectification Flood Control Project in order to find ways to improve the condition of the Rio Grande ecosystem and come into full compliance with federal environmental laws. This has not been done.

Section I.C. of the MOU reads as follows:

The scope of the Rectification EIS will include analysis of available flood protection and alternatives to current management, including watershed-oriented and non-structural alternatives, and including collaborative measures with other agencies and landowners, to determine to what extent project management can support restoration of native riparian and aquatic habitats, as well as the restoration of natural fluvial processes such as channel meanders and overbank flooding. The DEIS shall analyze, pursuant to NEPA, the indirect and cumulative effects of “past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non- Federal) or person undertakes such other actions,” such actions’ impacts are to include, but not be limited to, impacts of USIBWC actions in the project on the Rio Grande ecosystem above and below the project. The DEIS shall make explicit the USIBWC’s modeling assumptions concerning the magnitude and frequency of flood events that flood protection is meant to control. The DEIS shall make explicit the statutory or other basis for USIBWC’s flood protection mandate.

Specifically, the DPEIS does not:

Draft PEIS Comments Page 22

48667 Text Box ORG-3: Southwest Environmental Center

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Text Box ORG-3a

48667

ORG-3b

• Provide sufficient information about the (degraded) ecological condition of the

RFCP and the potential to improve it;

• analyze real alternatives to current management;

• analyze watershed-oriented and non-structural alternatives to flood control;

• analyze collaborative measures with other agencies and landowners to any meaningful extent

• determine, other than in a dismissive way, to what extent project management can support restoration of native riparian and aquatic habitats;

• determine how and to what extent restoration of natural fluvial processes such as channel meanders and overbank flooding can be achieved;

• adequately explain the statutory basis for current management of the RFCP;

• provide adequate explanation or justification of current management practices in terms of objective, measurable criteria.

As stated in our scoping comments, we expected the PEIS to include a serious, detailed analysis of the potential for watershed oriented, non-structural and collaborative measures to meet USIBWC’s flood control responsibilities as well as improve the Rio Grande ecosystem. This was not done. We made extensive, detailed suggestions for specific analyses to undertake. These were largely ignored. We are disappointed at USIBWC’s apparent retreat from its earlier commitment to comply with federal environmental laws and its willingness to improve the dismal ecological condition of its projects.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.

Sincerely, Kevin Bixby Executive Director

Draft PEIS Comments Page 23

48667 Line

48667

ORG-3c

Draft PEIS Comments Page 24

Text Box ORG-4: University of Texas at El Paso

48667 Line

48667

ORG-4a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 25

Line

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Text Box ORG-4d

48667 Text Box ORG-4c

48667

ORG-4b

Draft PEIS Comments Page 26

Line

48667 Line

48667 Text Box ORG-4f

48667

ORG-4e

Draft PEIS Comments Page 27

Text Box

EP-H1

Ms. Heather McMurray

48667 Text Box

48667 Line

48667 Text Box EP-H1a

48667 Text Box

EL PASO PUBLIC HEARING - AUGUST 22, 2007

EXCEPT OF COMMENTS FROM COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT (full text in presented in Appendix C)

Draft PEIS Comments Page 28

Line

48667 Text Box EP-H1a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 29

Line

48667 Text Box

Draft PEIS Comments Page 30

Line

48667 Text Box

Draft PEIS Comments Page 31

Text Box

EP-H2

Mr. John Sproul

48667 Line

48667

EP-H2a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 32

Text Box

EP-H3

Mr. Kevin Bixby

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Text Box EP-H3b

48667

EP-H3a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 33

Line

48667 Line

48667 Text Box EP-H3c

48667 Text Box EP-H3b

Draft PEIS Comments Page 34

Line

48667 Line

48667 Text Box EP-H3c (cont.)

48667

EP-H3d

Draft PEIS Comments Page 35

Line

48667 Text Box EP-H3d

Draft PEIS Comments Page 36

Text Box

EP-H4

Mr. Ari Michelsen

48667 Line

48667

EP-H4a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 37

Line

48667 Line

48667 Text Box EP-H4b

48667 Text Box EP-H4a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 38

Line

48667 Line

48667 Text Box EP-H4d

48667

EPH-4c

Draft PEIS Comments Page 39

Line

48667 Text Box EP-H4d

PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS FOR THE

PRESIDIO FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

Draft PEIS Comments Page 40

Draft PEIS Comments Page 41

Text Box

PRESIDIO PUBLIC HEARING - AUGUST 23, 2007

EXCEPT OF COMMENTS FROM COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT (full text is provided in Appendix C)

48667 Line

48667 Text Box

PR-H1

Mr. Carlos E. Nieto

48667

PR-H1a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 42

Line

48667 Text Box PR-H1a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 43

Line

48667

PR-H1b

Draft PEIS Comments Page 44

Line

48667

PR-H1c

Draft PEIS Comments Page 45

Line

48667 Text Box

PR-H2

Mr. Lorenzo Hernandez

48667

PR-H1d

Draft PEIS Comments Page 46

Line

48667

PR-H2a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 47

Line

48667

PRH-2b

Draft PEIS Comments Page 48

Line

48667 Line

48667 Text Box

PR-H3

Ms. Patt Sims

48667 Text Box PR-H2b (cont.)

48667

PR-H3a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 49

Line

48667 Text Box PR-H3a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 50

Line

48667 Line

48667 Text Box

PR-H4

Mr. Dennis McEntire

48667 Text Box PR-H3a (cont.)

48667

PR-H4a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 51

Line

48667 Text Box

Draft PEIS Comments Page 52

Line

48667 Text Box

Draft PEIS Comments Page 53

Line

48667 Text Box PR-H2b

Draft PEIS Comments Page 54

Line

48667 Line

48667 Text Box PR-H1e

48667 Text Box PR-H2b

Draft PEIS Comments Page 55

Line

48667 Text Box PR-H1e

WRITTEN AND PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS FOR THE

LOWER RIO GRANDE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

Draft PEIS Comments Page 56

Draft PEIS Comments Page 57

Text Box AG-10: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

48667 Line

48667

AG-10a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 58

Line

48667 Text Box AG-10a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 59

Draft PEIS Comments Page 60

Draft PEIS Comments Page 61

Draft PEIS Comments Page 62

Draft PEIS Comments Page 63

Draft PEIS Comments Page 64

Draft PEIS Comments Page 65

The Arroyo Colorado Watershed Partnership

2401 E. Hwy 83

Weslaco, Texas 78596

956/969-5607 Office 956/969-5639 Fax www.arroyocolorado.org

Environmental Protection Specialist Environmental Management Division, USIBWC 4171 North Mesa, C-100 El Paso, TX 79902

Dear Mr. Borunda, First of all, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project. As a Board Member of the of the LRG Citizen’s Forum and Watershed Coordinator for the Arroyo Colorado Watershed Partnership (ACWP) I submit the following comments regarding the Draft

PEIS.

The ACWP is a coalition of over 500 individuals representing federal, state, and local agencies, NGOs and concerned citizens of the general public. Our mission is to reduce the additions of pollutants to the Arroyo Colorado to the maximum extent possible in order to meet state water quality standards and improve the natural terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic habitat associated with the Arroyo Colorado Watershed. The interior floodway of the USIBWC is part of and within the Arroyo Colorado Watershed and we request that you recognize the initiative to not only improve regional water quality in the Arroyo Colorado and the Lower Laguna Madre, but also to promote a thriving environment and economy for the LRG Valley.

First of all, the USIBWC mandate for flood protection, boundary stabilization, and water delivery is acknowledged and recognized as the core mission of the USIBWC and is of primary importance. Moreover, we acknowledge the USIBWC adoption of additional goals that include improvements in water use, quality, conservation, and multipurpose utilization of projects in support of local or regional initiatives for recreational use and environmental improvement.

The Draft PEIS evaluates maintenance improvement alternatives to maximize flood protection and provides alternatives to minimize potential environmental impacts. However, the Draft PEIS does not address water quality. The ACWP developed “A Watershed Protection Plan for the Draft PEIS Comments Page 66

48667 Text Box ORG-5: The Arroyo Colorado Watershed Partnership

48667 Line

48667

ORG-5a

Arroyo Colorado, Phase I” and the top strategy of the plan is the construction of regional and individual wetland systems. Currently, three small wetland systems are being developed outside the interior floodway and additional potential sites are being reviewed within and outside the interior floodway. Two potential large-scale wetland sites have been identified within the interior floodway, one in the Llano Grande area and one south of the City of La Feria where sand is currently being quarried.

We understand that any growth within the floodway will have some impact on the ability of the floodway to convey water but ask that you evaluate potential alternative practices within the pilot channel and on the levees that consider environmental impacts including impacts to existing and migratory animals. These practices might include wetland systems and selective clearing of vegetation in limited areas with sensitivity to timing.

We request that you evaluate the potential impact of a large-scale (300 -700 ac) wetland system of appropriate low growing plants within the interior floodway. Again, flood control and the protection of human health and safety is priority. Moreover, there may be an opportunity in the flood control project for environmental and recreational improvements. Our Partnership will continue to look for opportunities to improve water quality within and outside the USIBWC interior floodway and we look forward to continued work with the USIBWC in regards to flood control, human safety, environmental improvement and quality of life.

Sincerely, Laura

Laura De La Garza Arroyo Colorado Watershed Coordinator

Cc: Arroyo Colorado Steering Committee

Draft PEIS Comments Page 67

Text Box ORG-6 __ Lower Rio Grande Water Committee, Inc.

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667 Text Box ORG-5a (cont.)

48667

ORG-5b

Draft PEIS Comments Page 68

Text Box ORG-6: Lower Rio Grande Water Committee, Inc.

48667 Line

48667 Line

48667

ORG-6a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 69

Text Box IND-2: Mr. Carl A. Boyd

48667 Line

48667

IND-2a

Draft PEIS Comments Page 70

Line

48667 Line

48667 Text Box IND-2a (cont.)

48667

IND-2b

From: "Bill Forbes" <bforbes@care2.com> To: <danielborunda@ibwc.state.gov> Date: 09/24/2007 7:51 PM Subject: Re: Rio Grande PEIS public hearings this month

Dear Mr. Borunda, My comment is to utilize natural flood control measures as much as possible, including wetland construction and restoration, training Mexican citizens to lead tours of the site highlighting their aesthetic and dollar value for ecosystem services, habitat, and recreation.

---- Begin Original Message ---- From: Sally Spener <sallyspener@IBWC.STATE.GOV> Sent: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:16:02 -0600 To: BECCNET@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Rio Grande PEIS public hearings this month

For immediate release

AGENCY SEEKS COMMENT ON STUDY OF RIO GRANDE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS

The United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) is seeking public comment on its Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Improvements to the USIBWC Rio Grande Flood Control Projects along the Texas-Mexico Border (Draft PEIS). The document analyzes potential environmental impacts of future flood control project improvements under consideration over the next 20 years.

The Draft PEIS considers future improvements to three projects in Texas - the Rectification Flood Control Project in El Paso and Hudspeth Counties, the Presidio Flood Control Project in Presidio County, and the Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties. The Draft PEIS takes a broad programmatic look at the potential environmental implications of measures identified for future implementation. This broad evaluation will guide more detailed future studies of individual projects that may be implemented.

The Draft PEIS is available on the USIBWC web page at http://www.ibwc.state.gov/Files/RioGrandeDraftPEIS.pdf. Copies of the Draft PEIS are also available for inspection and review at the following locations:

§ USIBWC Headquarters, 4171 N. Mesa, Bldng C, El Paso, TX 79902 § City of Presidio Library, 2440 Oreilly St., Presidio, TX 79845 § McAllen Public Library, 601 N. Main Street, McAllen, TX 78501 § USIBWC Mercedes Field Office, 325 Golf Course Road, Mercedes, TX 78570 § Harlingen Public Library, 410 ’76 Drive, Harlingen, TX 78550 § Brownsville Public Library, 2600 Central Blvd., Brownsville, TX 78520

The USIBWC has also scheduled three public hearings in August to accept comments on the Draft PEIS. The hearings are scheduled as follows:

El Paso - 6:00 p.m. August 21, USIBWC Headquarters, 4171 N. Mesa St., Draft PEIS Comments Page 71

48667 Text Box IND-3: Mr. Bill Forbes

48667 Line

48667

IND-3a

Bldng C Presidio - 6:00 p.m. August 22, Presidio Chamber of Commerce, 202 W.

Oreilly St.

McAllen - 6:00 p.m. August 28, Four Point Sheraton Hotel, 2721 S. 10th St.

Written comments are requested by September 24, 2007. To submit written comments or to request additional information, please contact Mr. Daniel Borunda, Environmental Protection Specialist, USIBWC, 4171 N.

Mesa St., C-100, El Paso, TX 79902 or via e-mail at danielborunda@ibwc.state.gov.

For more information:

Sally Spener 915-832-4175 sallyspener@ibwc.state.gov

Daniel Borunda 915-832-4767 danielborunda@ibwc.state.gov

---- End Original Message ----http://toolbar.Care2.com Make your computer carbon-neutral (free).

http://www.Care2.com Green Living, Human Rights and more - 7 million members!

Draft PEIS Comments Page 72

1 MR. PENA: Thank you.

2 As I mentioned, part of our analysis we're

3 asking for your input. We're interested in hearing from

4 all of you to find out if you have any particular

5 concerns, questions or comments about this draft

6 Programmatic EIS. And if you have any questions or

7 concerns, this is the time to express them or bring them

8 forward to us.

9 Remember that the September 24th is the

10 date we will take comments up until that time so we have a

11 couple more weeks to do that.

12 I'll continue with the second part. As I

13 mentioned before, we're going to take comments from you.

14 As I mentioned we're interested in what you have to say, 15 so -- we won't be making any official responses or

16 comments. All responses will be included in the final

17 Programmatic EIS after we had a chance to consider all of

18 the comments fully.

19 I'm going to call for our first group of

20 speakers here.

21 Laura de la Garza.

22 MS. DE LA GARZA: Thank you. I appreciate

23 this opportunity to review and comment on the draft of

24 Programmatic EIS. My name is Laura de la Garza. I serve

25 as a board member of the Lower Rio Grande Valley Citizens

Draft PEIS Comments Page 73

48667 Text Box McALLEN PUBLIC HEARING - AUGUST 28, 2007 EXCEPT OF COMMENTS FROM COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT (full text is provided in Appendix C)

48667 Text Box McA-H1 Ms. Laura de la Garza

1 Forum and I'm also watership coordinator for the

2 implementation of the Arroyo Colorado Watershed Protection

3 Plan.

4 The watershed protection plan was developed

5 by the Arroyo Colorado watershed partnership, a coalition

6 of over 500 individuals representing federal, state and

7 local agencies, NGOs and concerned citizens of the general

8 public.

9 The implementation of the plan is a

10 regional initiative, not only to improve the quality of

11 water in the Arroyo Colorado and Lower Lagune Madre but

12 also an initiative to promote a driving environment and

13 economy for the Lower Rio Grande Valley. The focus of my

14 comment this evening is the Lower Rio Grande Port Isabel

15 project as the interior floodway is connected to and part

16 of the Arroyo Colorado.

17 First of all, I acknowledge the mission of

18 the IBWC, including the immense responsibility to minimize

19 potential flood impacts through levee and floodway

20 projects. Improvement to flood control systems including

21 levees are part of the Corps mission. Moreover, the IBWC

22 has adopted additional goals that include improvement to

23 water use, quality, conservation, and multipurpose

24 utilization of projects in support of levee regional

25 initiatives for recreational use and environmental

Draft PEIS Comments Page 74

48667 Line

48667

McA-H1a

1 improvement.

2 The draft Programmatic EIS is being

3 prepared to evaluate the maintenance and improvement

4 alternatives to maximize flood protection. It also

5 provides alternatives to minimize potential environmental

6 impact; however, the draft EIS does not address water

7 quality.

8 Again, there is a regional initiative to

9 improve water quality in the Arroyo Colorado. The top

10 strategy of that plan is the construction of regional and

11 individual wetland systems.

12 As many of you know, wetlands not only

13 improve water quality, settle out sediments and provide

14 habitat, they also provide recreational, educational and

15 economic opportunities.

16 Other strategies in the Arroyo Colorado

17 watershed protection plan include the support of best

18 management practices for agriculture, improved wastewater

19 collection and treatment facilities, including improved

20 infrastructure for colonias, the support for ongoing

21 local, federal and state agencies and other organizations

22 in regards to habitat conservation and protection and

23 restoration of existing repairing areas resacas and fresh

24 water wetlands.

25 In the plan, we also call for reduction of

Draft PEIS Comments Page 75

48667 Line

48667 Text Box

(cont)

1 stream channel and bank erosion and the development of

2 alternative drainage ditch maintenance and practices.

3 The partnership plans to submit formal

4 comments regarding this draft PEIS and they will be along

5 the lines of the need to address water quality with

6 consideration to the added potential of creating

7 environmental recreational and economic opportunities.

8 Again, all this while considering the mandate for flood

9 protection boundary stabilization and water delivery.

10 Representatives of the IBWC Mercedes field

11 office are valued members of our partnership and increased

12 participation in the IBWC is encouraged in the evaluation

13 and positive development of wetlands projects.

14 As brought up at the last citizens forum

15 meeting held here in the Valley, we also look forward to

16 discussing alternative stream and drainage ditch

17 configurations that promote improved water quality. Also

18 recommended is an increased IBWC participation in current

19 and future efforts of other agencies, local governments

20 and organizations for increased use of the Lower Rio

21 Grande Valley as an ecco-tourism destination, improve our

22 local economy and promoting habitat enhancement and

23 recreational opportunities.

24 Tourism is estimated to bring over a

25 hundred million dollars annually to the Lower Rio Grande

Draft PEIS Comments Page 76

48667 Line

48667 Text Box

(cont)

1 Valley and increased attention to water quality and

2 habitat restoration to build on an economic potential.

3 Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

4 MR. PENA: Thank you, Laura. Next speaker

5 is Eric Ellmer.

6 MR. ELLMER: I didn't have time to prepare

7 a text because I was reminded of this meeting recently.

8 I represent Los Ninos Del Rio. It's a

9 nonprofit organization that was founded in '91 to promote

10 and preserve, preserve and promote the environmental and

11 cultural heritage of the Valley from Laredo to

12 Brownsville. And we just recently have received new

13 funding to reinvigorate the organization. It's been quiet

14 the last few years. We're doing -- our goal is to get

15 more people to visit historical places that have been

16 previously preserved by the organization along the

17 corridor and to get them to do that through recreational

18 programs.

19 We're in the process of identifying wraps

20 for peddling and paddling in and around the river, and all

21 of this is very closely tied to economic initiative. The

22 medium term goal is to get national heritage area status

23 for the region and all that kind of goes underlying with

24 what Laura de la Garza was saying about ecco-tourism for

25 the area.

Draft PEIS Comments Page 77

48667 Text Box McA-H2 Mr. Eric Ellmer

48667 Line

48667

McA-H2a

1 There's been a huge investment in birding

2 made down here which appeals to the twelve million birds

3 in the country. Their numbers are declining though

4 according to the studies by the outdoor industry

5 association. The people who are most active at it are

6 getting older and retiring, and worse, they're not really

7 being replaced by a younger generation.

8 Conversely, there's 20 million paddlers in

9 the country and the same studies shows that their numbers

10 are increasing and it's particularly increasing among

11 Hispanics. So twice as many paddlers out there that could

12 be potentially coming down to this area to engage in that

13 kind of activity, and seven times as many cyclists, there

14 are 80 million cyclists in the country.

15 We just finished making a presentation

16 yesterday with the City of McAllen that involves creating

17 a 50-mile loop that stitches together irrigation drainage

18 and IBWC right-of-ways. We've had some preliminary

19 discussions with the IBWC about using the levees with some

20 of the absolute finest opportunities down here. We got a

21 representative from the Hidalgo County Drainage District

22 here who has been involved in the same discussions.

23 And one of the real challenges to attract

24 the people that come down here and bicycle and also to get

25 the local people primarily involved in more active use of, Draft PEIS Comments Page 78

48667 Line

48667 Text Box

1 really, some of the best habitat that is down here which

2 is along your levee system. One of the true challenges is

3 getting people to come out when all the trees have been

4 cut down.

5 So one of the things we really want to

6 encourage and we are really pleased to see that the draft

7 includes an alternative, and I really emphasize multiple

8 use. We'd really like to see long hard thought given to

9 how levee improvements can incorporate amenities that will

10 encourage more people to get out there.

11 Some other managers of property, like, 12 Godfrey Garza has told me that, you know, he feels like

13 having more people out there is something that is actually

14 an impediment, deterrents to vandalism and other things

15 that are going to endanger your work.

16 So we'd like to see where -- in fact, we

17 are offering small stipends to engineering students to

18 investigate possible alternatives or design alternatives

19 that will allow you to incorporate shade trees, native

20 vegetation, you know, into levee improvements so that in

21 10 or 20 years in addition to preventing flooding that's

22 going to jeopardize the area, you can actually be

23 providing something that's going to create some economic, 24 you know, stimulants for more growth here. So thank you

25 very much.

Draft PEIS Comments Page 79

48667 Line

48667 Text Box

1 MR. PENA: Thank you.

2 Next speaker is Godfrey Garza.

3 MR. GARZA: Thank you very much for your

4 time and opportunity to speak here.

5 As I mentioned, my name is Godfrey Garza.

6 I serve as a drainage manager for Hidalgo County. I would

7 just like the IBWC, to remind them, I guess, that one of

8 the core objective is flood control. It is great for the

9 economy, for the ecco for water resources, but a lot of

10 these issues have come to pass because the population

11 growth we had in Hidalgo County.

12 If these levee systems are not repaired, 13 properly maintained, there is no ecco growth down in South

14 Texas. Again, we need to remember that the levees are for

15 flood control. If they have dual use that's great, but we

16 need to look at the primary objective of the levee system

17 when it was built, which is mandated by the treaty and

18 maintain flood control in our area.

19 As citizens, we want to have the best for

20 everybody, but I think life is one of the most important

21 things down in our area, and this levee system we have

22 down here protects over a million population, and we got

23 over $30 billion worth of assets down over here. And this

24 community is not just a community itself, but fine

25 financial resources as a whole. We are talking hundreds

Draft PEIS Comments Page 80

48667 Text Box McA-H3 Mr. Godfrey Garza

48667 Line

48667

McA-H3a

1 of thousands maquilas down over here that operate both in

2 Mexico and the United States. They keep the General Motor

3 plants, the Emerson Electric, and all companys operating.

4 If we do not have a solid flood control system that we can

5 maintain and properly, then we're going to lose the

6 advantage, all the growth we had.

7 And part of the issue the IBWC has gotten

8 into, this is my personal opinion, is allowing more

9 vegetation growing in the floodway system that is causing

10 the levees, because the levees do not wear away nine feet

11 to ten feet. Start looking at the environmental issues, 12 the back water, start looking at different moments in the

13 ground. And those are millions and millions of dollars we

14 the taxpayer is not spending in to raise levees because

15 levees do not disappear eight or nine feet like people

16 driving up and down on them over a short period of time.

17 There are other issues that are in place

18 for levees to be efficient and we need to be sure if we're

19 going to do these improvements, what needs to happen is

20 ten years from now, 20 years from now we're not going to

21 have a similar situation where the environment is taking

22 over and the wetlands have taken over and trees have grown

23 in there, and we need to start looking at different

24 priorities, not against vegetation.

25 I've got farmland. I love it. But I have

Draft PEIS Comments Page 81

48667 Line

48667 Text Box McA-H3a

1 to look at the citizens that live down here and I think

2 IBWC needs to remember what their core objective is flood

3 control. Thank you.

4 MR. PENA: I don't have anymore cards.

5 Would anybody else like to make a comment.

6 MR. REYES: I'll make one.

7 MR. PENA: Please state your name.

8 MR. REYES: My name is Ernesto Reyes for

9 the ecological service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and

10 the refuge manager could not be here for the Lower Rio

11 Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge.

12 One of their concerns is, which I hate to

13 bring this is up, is the proposed border fence. And of

14 course, they're proposing to build that fence on the north

15 side of the levee. And one of the things is some of these

16 levees are supposed to be raised, you know, several feet

17 high and wide, and so we just, the refuge is concerned

18 about if the fence is not coordinated with the levee with

19 expansion, then what's going to happen if they put it too

20 close to the levee on the north side, what's going to

21 be -- what's going to happen it's going to have to expand

22 to the south side, and that's where they have the most, 23 the better habitat for some of the refuge which is the

24 south side of the levee.

25 So that's one of the considerations that

Draft PEIS Comments Page 82

48667 Text Box McA-H4 Mr. Ernesto Reyes

48667 Line

48667

McA-H4a

1 the refuge would like the IBWC to look is when they

2 propose a fence not to be too close because if that

3 expansion happens, you know, we would like to have it on

4 the north side instead of the south side that's going to

5 be impacting the better habitat on the refuge. Thank you.

6 MR. PENA: Anybody else like to make a

7 comment?

8 If there's not, I would like to make a

9 final reminder that the comment period is open until

10 September 24; therefore, any comments you wish to submit

11 you can do so. Here is the mailing address for mailing

12 your comments in.

13 And if you haven't done so, I know some

14 people got here late. There's a registration form in the

15 back so we can get your name and number, e-mails, to have

16 further information or documentation to make sure we get

17 that to you.

18 For the record, the time now is 6:50. This

19 public hearing is concluded. And I thank you again for

20 coming out and taking part in this process and we'll be

21 seeing more documentation in the near future regarding

22 this process.

24 (Proceedings concluded at 6:50 PM.)

Draft PEIS Comments Page 83

48667 Line

48667 Text Box McA-H4a