From: FLOSSMAN, LOREN (

To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Two Decisions Needed for Del Rio, TX
Date: Monday, October 15, 2007 7:59:58 PM

The Alignment for the RGV is not final yet – the Wall will count – I don’t think there is a problem with
OPB or the Sector I just need to understand the process – Also CBP is in-charge of Real Estate not
the USACE - USACE is executing the Real Estate actions - – I will come see you tomorrow – thanks
loren

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 7:53 PM
To: Flossman, Loren W (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Re: Two Decisions Needed for Del Rio, TX

I will check with(b) (6) to see exactly what he means because the last I knew the only movement was
because the sector had not seen an engineering floodplain assessment to ensure the latest laydown. I know I never
saw the "final" laydown as far as north/south nor have I seen or heard an anwer to (b) question of whether we
can count the retaining wall as fencing. I didn't know there was ever a question if (6)
the Corps was in charge of real
estate or not. USACE is in charge. I believe that (b) wants to ensure that all of his work is not "for naught" so
he wants to foster all the help he can towards the (6)
process. The sector chiefs are on the hook for what happens in
this project and have delegated that responsibility to agents such as (b) (6) I can ensure you that all are working
for the greater good.
(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W (b) (6) >
To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6) Flossman, Loren W

(b) (6)

Sent: Mon Oct 15 19:37:25 2007

Subject: RE: Two Decisions Needed for Del Rio, TX

(b) I will answer Question 3 - SBI is in charge of real Estate -

(6)
(b) and (b) I have real concern if Sectors are unilaterally
(6)
negotiating(6)changes to the fence alignment - can you help resolve the
last issue with the Sector negotiating fence Alignments with owners -
The fence Alignment is final and changes will have to go through the
change management process -

-----Original Message-----
From (b) (6)
(b) (6) l]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 5:22 PM
To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Two Decisions Needed for Del Rio, TX

By way of update on the real estate for Del Rio,TX, all landowners have
signed ROE for S&E but one. The one who hasn't may not be touched by
the
final fence alignment. As a result, we no longer have an immediate need
for
condemnation in Del Rio. In order to proceed to get to negotiations
with the
owners for the permanent construction rights we need, there are some
questions we need resolved as quickly as possible in the interests of
schedule.

1. Is the fence alignment along the floodplain edge delineation final?

(b)
(6)
- can you help me with this one?)

2. Will DHS/CBP provide gate access to each of the private owners along
the
Del Rio fence segment? This area is primarily rural in use, although
near
the City of Del Rio. If we are able to acquire only the swath of land
required for the physical fence and not all of the land from the fence
south
to the Rio Grande River, then we will have lower acquisition costs by
virtue
of not needing to value the loss of riparian rights. The government
estimates of value can be completed in a quicker time period as well.
This
has to be weighed against the risks and concerns associated with private
gate
access. Purely from real estate standpoint, we would recommend the gates
because of the lower acquisition cost and more likelihood a landowner
would
voluntarily convey what we need. However, the security concerns are the
major driver of the decision. We can certainly acquire to the river if
the
project requires it.

3. We continue to have some conflicts with who is in charge of the real

estate effort from this point forward. In Del Rio, we are now prepared
to
initiate government estimates of value/appraisals. To the extent that
the
appraisers will be meeting with landowners (this is not a requirement
for
this project, but is considered nice to have if it does not impact
schedule),
(b) (6) of the Del Rio Border Patrol Sector Office has taken the
position that he needs to set up all contacts with the owners for
purposes of
negotiations. The e-mail below also indicates the potential for (b)
to (6)
re-evaluate the fence footprint and discuss other options with the
landowners. (b) (6) has been a great asset and will continue to be,
but we
need to clarify with every sector office that we are moving off
pre-decisional, the fence location is now determined, and we now have a
need
to acquire the land interests. USACE needs to be responsible for the
appointments with landowners for contacts related to appraisal and
negotiations since we are going to be held responsible for meeting the
schedule for acquisition.

Request your feedback, direction on the items above.

(b)
(6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 1:15 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: FW: Realty Information

(b) (6) - as requested (b) (6) has stated that he wants to be the
POC for
the appraisers

-----Original Message-----
From (b) (6) v]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:37 AM
To: (b) (6) WF
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Realty Information

(b) (6)

As we begin to re-analyze the fence footprint and the realty issues in

the
M-1
Project for Del Rio Sector, I would like to request some clarification
on
land use agreements for those folks that have livestock on the vega.
Basically, what terms are available, length of time, transferrable ect..

Before we begin to outreach these owners about a footprint change we

need to
know all the options available.
Let me know,

Thanks

(b) (6)
Del Rio Sector
(b) (6)