From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Appropriations Q#13
Date: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 7:19:33 AM

(b)
(6)
I only found personnel used once. I believe it was used correctly as in it spoke to manpower not anti-
personnel fencing. Did I miss something?
(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 7:06 AM
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
'
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Appropriations Q#13

Good morning.

I was not aware that the terminology for our fence had changed again.

I was under the impression we were staying away from the term “personnel” as people tend to slide
into using the term “anti -personnel” which is a military term and not desirable for our program.

However, it is likely that I am just out of the loop.

Please let me know – as much as possible – who directed that we change the terminology, and when
and why.

Thanks.

(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
For more information about the Secure Border Initiative, visit www.cbp.gov/sbi or contact us at SBI info@dhs.gov.

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 3:09 PM
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: Appropriations Q#13
Importance: High

(b) (6)

Attached is a revised version of the appropriations response, per our discussion on Friday, (b)
(6)
There are several comments inserted with questions for (b) (6) ; for example, there are
two segments greater than 14 miles in length that we need to divide (on paper) logically (perhaps
geographic barrier).

(b) as requested, I highlighted in yellow several sections that appeared duplicative. I would
(6)
recommend shortening & referencing the previous section, if it’s the correct text (not mistakenly
inserted twice). I can make that revision if you want, if we end up doing that.

(b) (6) -- I know the terminology for “primary pedestrian fence” has changed, at least in the fence
tool box; I wasn’t sure whether the term “primary pedestrian fence” needed to be updated to
“personnel fence”, “personnel/vehicle fence”, etc in this documented. I highlighted in green a several
instances of that term.

Please let me know what else you

(b) (6)
Business Manager, Operations
SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 10:15 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Subject: RE: Appropriations Q#13

Here’s the version I sent out last night. I thought I copied Loren, but must have missed him.

I welcome all your comments, please make any suggested additions or edits directly to the document
with Track Changes on.

Also, I’ve heard from OFAM that they will be able to provide detailed environmental information, but not
until Monday.

Thanks.

(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
For more information about the Secure Border Initiative, visit www.cbp.gov/sbi or contact us at SBI info@dhs.gov.

From:(
Sent: bFriday, February 01, 2008 10:10 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Subject: Appropriations Q#13

(b) – Loren has requested a copy of the document that you are compiling for the response to
(6)
question #13. Do you have the most up to date copy? Or do you need some help from us to clean it
up. Please let me know whenever you have a chance. Thanks!

(b) (6)
Metrics and Reporting Analyst, SBI Tactical Infrastructure PMO
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: UT-Brownsville
Date: Friday, December 07, 2007 5:52:25 PM

Thank you -- sorry I’m so high maintenance!!

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 5:52 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: UT-Brownsville

I will find out!

----- Original Message -----

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Dec 07 17:50:36 2007
Subject: UT-Brownsville

Back to that article – do you remember if there are there proposed fence projects that border the property? Want to
make sure I send out the right info.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: Flossman, Loren(b) (6)
Subject: RE: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE
Date: Monday, January 14, 2008 9:15:33 AM

(b) (6)

I checked with our TI Branch and they have been counting that section of chain link as primary fence
so it appears this will not be counted as new fence miles (370). This fence was constructed by IBWC
and maintained by BP. I don’t agree with the assessment to count any chain link as actual primary
fence but this determination was made before my time.

(b) (6)

I imagine the original EA was over 5 years ago so would this require a supplemental or does the latest
EA cover it?

From:(
b
Sent: )Sunday, January 13, 2008 9:19 PM
To: (b) (6)

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

Subject: FW: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE
Importance: High

All

As a "core" member of the FEIT, your review & comment on the requested change to the scope of J1
is needed (see attached change order request). Specifically, we need to try to develop a consensus as
to whether or not to recommend approval of the requested change to Loren. Your analysis should
primarily be related to your area of expertise (e.g. (b) (6) -is this covered by the existing FONSI?) One
BIG question I have is whether or not the existing fencing proposed to be replaced is currently being
counted towards our 370 mile goal-J(b) (6) can you please advise the group as to your
understanding. Please provide me your feedback by COB Tuesday. Would like to provide Loren a
recommendation on Wednesday.

Thanks all

(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 6:19 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:20 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE

(b) (6)
Please find the attached Change Order Request for Loren Flossman's approval/rejection for the J1
Project regarding the existing chain link fence that the CBP would like removed and replaced to meet
their operational needs.

I have conveyed to the CBP that this is not an automatic approval, but subject to the approval of Loren
based upon their needs and availability of funding.

<<PF225 Change Request (J1).doc>>

Please advise ASAP for me to proceed accordingly.
Thanks,
(b
)
(6
)Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers-Albuquerque District
4101 Jefferson Plaza NE
Albuquerque, NM, 87109
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN(b) (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format
Date: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 4:16:58 PM

(b) (6)

(b)(5),(b)(6)

Thanks,

(b) (6)
Business Manager, Operations
SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 3:00 PM
To:(
Cc:b(b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format
(b) (6)
(b) (5)

(b)
(6)

Assistant Chief
Headquarters U.S. Border Patrol
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 6:54 PM
To: (b) (6)

Cc: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

Subject: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format

Importance: High

All,

Here’s the draft template for response to #13 of the appropriations requirements, based on our meeting
today. Please let us know if you think it needs further tweaks. This only includes primary fence right
now, should have a firmed up laydown for vehicle fence tomorrow. Of the primary fence segments,
only 1 is greater than 15 miles in length – will need advice on how to break that down, possibly by
terrain or other location attributes.

To recap for those who weren’t there, Congress is requiring us to fulfill certain requirements before they
will release our FY 08 funding to us. Requirement # 13 applies to TI and states:
“An analysis by the Secretary, for each segment, defined as no more than 14 miles, of fencing
or tactical infrastructure, of the selected approach compared to other, alternative means of
achieving operation control; such analysis should include cost, level of operational control,
possible unintended effects on communities, and other factors critical to the decision-making
process;”
(b) (6) – do you by chance have an electronic copy of the appropriations requirements?)
In the meeting, we came to the conclusion that it made the most sense to respond by following the
framework of the “4 factors” of the fence decision-making process, consistent with the external
messaging developed by (b) (6) team and being used in our public meetings:
• (b) (6) – we will need input from OBP on operational requirements analysis
for each segment; I will call you tomorrow to explain if you’re in the office.
• (b) & his team are going to handle the stakeholder input factor & the introduction for
the (6)
response.
• (b) (6) & his team are going to look at the environmental factors/assessments.
• (b) is going to provide a couple paragraphs on engineering criteria ((b) this could
(6)
possible be used or boiled down for the intro), and then we’ll need to decide(6) how best to
respond on a segment-by-segment basis for that factor.

I believe (b) (6) s going to be sending out an official tasker. We agreed today to have all parts done
by next Wed so we can review as a team & firm up.

Thanks,

(b) (6)
Business Manager, Operations
SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
 Primary Fence Segment Analysis
Map Project ID State Sector Station Location Horizontal Length (mi)

Segment A-1 CA SDC BRF Pack Truck Trail 3.58

Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC ECJ Ceti's Hill 0.57
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC ECJ W. Horseshoe Canyon 0.89
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC ECJ East Bell Valley 0.12
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC ECJ Ag Loop 1.02
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC CAO Soutwest Rim of Smith 0.17
Canyon
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC CAO Rattlesnake Ridge to Larry 1.06
Pierce Road
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC CAO West edge of Boundary 0.09
Peak
Border Patrol Assessment
r
 Primary Fence Segment Analysis
Map Project ID State Sector Station Location Horizontal Length (mi)

Stakeholder Input
Facto

Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC BLV Willows Access #1 1.63
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC BLV Willows Access #2 2.01
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC BLV Airport Mesa 0.05
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC BLV O'Neil Valley 1.47
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment B-2 CA ELC ELS Mon 224 to ELS West 2.36
Checks
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment B-4 CA ELC CAX CAX East Checks 8.59
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment B-5A CA ELC CAX 19.16
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment B-5B CA ELC CAX 2.85
 Primary Fence Segment Analysis
Map Project ID State Sector Station Location Horizontal Length (mi)

Border Patrol Assessment

Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment C-1 CA YUM CAX/YUS Andrade POE: Imperial 10.28
sand dunes to CA-AZ line

Border Patrol Assessment

Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment C-2B AZ YUM YUS From end of PF70 project 3.70
to County 18
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment D-2 AZ TCA AJO AJO 2mi east of POE 3.10
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment D-2 AZ TCA AJO AJO 2mi west of POE 2.10
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment D-5A AZ TCA NGL 1mi W to 3mi W of 2.00
Mariposa POE
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment D-5B AZ TCA NGL NGL 1mi E to 6mi E of 5.16
POE
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment D-6 AZ TCA NGL E Deconcini POE 2.23
 Primary Fence Segment Analysis
Map Project ID State Sector Station Location Horizontal Length (mi)

Border Patrol Assessment

Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment E-2A AZ TCA NCO NCO 17.75mi W to San 6.44
Pedro River
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment E-2B AZ TCA NCO Monument 97 to 4.75mi W 6.94
of POE
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment E-3 AZ TCA NCO NCO 3.4mi E to 12.4mi E 5.07
of POE
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment F-1 AZ TCA NCO From existing fence to 0.97
Kings Ranch
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment H-2A NM EPT DNM 17 miles West of COL 14.11
POE beginning 3 miles
West of COL POE
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment I-1A NM EPT DNM DNM 1.5mi E to 3mi E of 2.56
POE
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
 Primary Fence Segment Analysis
Map Project ID State Sector Station Location Horizontal Length (mi)
F
Engineering
Segment I-1B NM EPT DNM/STN 3mi E of POE to Luna 9.89
County Line
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment J-1 NM EPT STN STN 1mi W of POE 1.15
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment J-1 NM EPT STN STN 1mi E of POE 1.15
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment J2 NM EPT STN West side of blackie’s gate 3.49
to west side of the
cattlepens
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment J-3 NM EPT STN STN Blackie's Gate to W 1.08
end Sunland
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment K-1 TX EPT EPS EPS Pumphouse to end of 1.07
fence at Roadside Park

Border Patrol Assessment

Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment K-1 TX EPT EPS EPS End of fence at 0.65
Roadside Park to
Headgates
 Primary Fence Segment Analysis
Map Project ID State Sector Station Location Horizontal Length (mi)

Border Patrol Assessment

Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment K-1 TX EPT EPS EPS Headgates to West 1.26
RR bridge
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment K-2A TX EPT YST 1mi E of US 54 to Socorro 9.60
Headgates
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment K-2B&C TX EPT YST Socorro Headgates to 1 mi 19.42
W of FAB POE
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment K-3 TX EPT FBN FAB 1mi W to 3mi E of 9.03
POE
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment K-4 TX EPT FBN 3 mi E of Fabens to 1.5mi 13.48
W of Fort Hancock
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment K-5 TX EPT FHT FHT 1.5mi W to 1.5mi E of 5.21
POE
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
 Primary Fence Segment Analysis
Map Project ID State Sector Station Location Horizontal Length (mi)

Segment L-1 TX MAR SBT Neely's Crossing 4.63

Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment L-1A TX MAR PRS Presidio POE to 3.2mi E of 3.28
POE
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment L-1B TX MAR PRS Presidio POE to 3.2mi W 2.87
of POE
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment M-1 TX DRT DRS DRS San Felipe & Rio 2.36
Grande to Cienegas Creek
& Rio Grande
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment M-2A TX DRT EGT EGT 2.3mi upstream to 0.75
1mi No of POE
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment M-2B TX DRT EGT EGT POE to North of POE 1.06

Border Patrol Assessment

Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-1 TX RGV RGC Near Roma POE 3.76
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
 Primary Fence Segment Analysis
Map Project ID State Sector Station Location Horizontal Length (mi)
F
Engineering
Segment O-2 TX RGV RGC Near RGC POE 8.75
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-3 TX RGV MCS Los Ebanos POE 1.85
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-4 TX RGV MCS From Penitas to Abram 4.35
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-5 TX RGV MCS Future Anzalduas POE 1.73
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-6 TX RGV MCS Hidalgo POE 3.86
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-7 TX RGV MER Proposed Donna POE 0.90
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-8 TX RGV MER Retamal Dam 3.24
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-9 TX RGV MER Progresso POE 3.86
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
 Primary Fence Segment Analysis
Map Project ID State Sector Station Location Horizontal Length (mi)
F
Engineering
Segment O-10 TX RGV MER Progresso POE 2.33
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-11 TX RGV HRL Joe's Bar-Nemo Road 2.33
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-12 TX RGV HRL Weaver's Mountain 0.96
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-13 TX RGV HRL W Los Indios POE 1.59
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-14 TX RGV HRL E Los Indios POE 3.59
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-15 TX RGV HRL Triangle - La Paloma 1.93
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-16 TX RGV HRL Ho Chi Minh - Estero 2.45
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-17 TX RGV BRP Proposed Carmen Road 1.63
Feight Train Bridge
Border Patrol Assessment
ctor

Stakeholder Input
 Primary Fence Segment Analysis
Map Project ID State Sector Station Location Horizontal Length (mi)
Fac
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-18 TX RGV BRP Proposed Flor De Mayo 3.58
POE to Garden Park
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-19 TX RGV BRP B&M POE to Los Tomates 3.37

Border Patrol Assessment

Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-20 TX RGV BRP Tomates Y 0.91
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-21 TX RGV FTB International POE to Sea 12.98
Shell Inn
Border Patrol Assessment
Factor

Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
From: (b) (6)
To: Pagan, David ( (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Draft EA Handouts
Date: Thursday, January 03, 2008 6:53:23 PM

Hudspeth County is in El Paso Sector. That is where Ft. Hancock Station is located.

----- Original Message -----

From: PAGAN, DAVID G (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)

PAGAN, DAVID G (b) (6)

Sent: Thu Jan 03 18:18:34 2008

Subject: RE: Draft EA Handouts

Based on the information I saw this morning, I identified the following

counties:
Marfa Sector -
Presidio County, Hudspeth County
Del Rio Sector -
Maverick County, Val Verde County

Please let me know if that is not correct.

Thanks,
David

David G. Pagan
Advisor to the Commissioner and State & Local Liaison
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Department of Homeland Security
(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 5:47 PM
To: (b) (6) PAGAN, DAVID
G.; (b) (6)

Subject: Draft EA Handouts

Good afternoon.

Attached for your review are the draft handouts for the next round of
PF225 Draft EAs.
These will be issued on Monday and Tuesday of next week.

We have used previously approved versions as a template, and only

changed the details.

(b) (6) I'm hoping you can provide which counties these include.

Looking for your input as soon as possible.

Thanks.

(b) (6)

Secure Border Initiative

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

For more information about the Secure Border Initiative, visit

www.cbp.gov/sbi <http://www.cbp.gov/sbi> or contact us at
SBI_info@dhs.gov <mailto:SBI_info@dhs.gov> .
DRAFT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DEL RIO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

On January 7, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) and Environmental Protection Agency will publish a Notice of Availability (NOA) and
Public Open House Announcement in the local newspapers inviting public comment on a Draft
Environmental Assessment (EA) for possible fence construction proposed for the U.S. Border
Patrol (USBP) Del Rio Sector in Texas.

The purpose of the proposed action is to aid CBP in controlling and deterring illegal cross-border
incursions into the United States. The proposed action is part of a broader strategy to secure our
nation’s borders through the development and deployment of the most effective mix of tactical
infrastructure (including pedestrian fence, vehicle fence and access roads), personnel and
technology.

As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the completed EA provides an
opportunity to identify, assess and make available to the public potential activities and effects
associated with the proposed construction, maintenance, and operation of tactical infrastructure
(including pedestrian fence, access roads, and patrol roads) along approximately 4 miles of the
U.S.-Mexico international border within the Del Rio Sector. At this time, no final decisions on
projected fencing locations have been made.

The Del Rio Sector includes the area along the international border between the United States and
Mexico in the XXX counties of Texas. Fence construction proposals under consideration at this
time include the construction of tactical infrastructure in 2 site locations, approximately 1 mile and
3 miles in length.

The EA is only one part of the decision-making process and gives the public further opportunity to
provide input to CBP on the proposed project. In fact, fencing may not necessarily be constructed
in all locations identified in this Draft EA. However, CBP is required to evaluate all lands that have
the potential to meet the purpose and need of the proposed action.

Although the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security may, in the interest of national
security, waive certain environmental laws, DHS and CBP are committed to making every effort to
comply with federal environmental laws and be good stewards of the environment.

Public notices will also be published in the Del Rio News-Herald, Eagle Pass News Guide, and the
News Gram.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:

CBP continues to invite public participation and comment as part of this ongoing process to
determine proposed action within the El Centro Sector. A public open house will be held on
January 24, 2008, at the City of Del Rio Civic Center, 1915 Veterans Boulevard, Del Rio, Texas
78840. The public open house will be held from 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.

FOF OFFICIAL USE ONLY As of January 3, 2008 DRAFT

DRAFT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

The public comment period for the Draft EA officially begins on January 7, 2008 when the NOA is
published in the local newspapers. The public is invited to use one of the following methods to
comment on the Draft EA by February 5, 2008:
(a) Attendance and submission of comments at the Public Open House meeting to be held
January 24, 2008, at the City of Del Rio Civic Center, 1915 Veterans Boulevard, Del Rio,
Texas 78840.
(b) Electronically through the Web site at www.BorderFenceNEPA.com.
(c) By email to DRcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com.
(d) By mail to: Del Rio Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o e²M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue,
Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031.
(e) By fax to (757) 299-4101.

Public questions should be forwarded to Mr. Charles McGregor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Fort Worth District, Engineering and Construction Support Office, 819 Taylor St., Room 3B10,
Fort Worth, Texas 76102; and fax (757) 299-4101.

COPIES OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

Copies of the Draft EA have been mailed to local public libraries and members of the public who
have previously requested copies. Copies of the Draft EA are available to the public through the
following:
(a) Via the Internet at www.BorderFenceNEPA.com and
https://ecso.swf.usace.army.mil/Pages/Publicreview.cfm
(b) By emailing information@BorderFenceNEPA.com
(c) By toll-free phone request (877) 752-0420
(d) By writing to Mr. Charles McGregor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering and
Construction Support Office, 819 Taylor St., Room 3B10, Fort Worth, Texas 76102; fax:
(757) 299-4101
(e) By reading the Draft EA in the following local libraries:
- Eagle Pass Public Library - 589 East Main Street Eagle Pass, Texas 78852, (830) 773-
2516
- Val Verde County Library - 300 Spring Street, Del Rio, Texas 78840, (830) 774-7595

FOF OFFICIAL USE ONLY As of January 3, 2008 DRAFT

DRAFT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

MARFA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

On January 8, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) and Environmental Protection Agency will publish a Notice of Availability (NOA) and
Public Open House Announcement in the local newspapers inviting public comment on a Draft
Environmental Assessment (EA) for possible fence construction proposed for the U.S. Border
Patrol (USBP) Marfa Sector in Texas.

The purpose of the proposed action is to aid CBP in controlling and deterring illegal cross-border
incursions into the United States. The proposed action is part of a broader strategy to secure our
nation’s borders through the development and deployment of the most effective mix of tactical
infrastructure (including pedestrian fence, vehicle fence and access roads), personnel and
technology.

As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the completed EA provides an
opportunity to identify, assess and make available to the public potential activities and effects
associated with the proposed construction, maintenance, and operation of tactical infrastructure
(including pedestrian fence, access roads, and patrol roads) along approximately 11 miles of the
U.S.-Mexico international border within the Marfa Sector. At this time, no final decisions on
projected fencing locations have been made.

The Marfa Sector includes the area along the international border between the United States and
Mexico in XXX counties of Texas. Fence construction proposals under consideration at this time
include the construction of tactical infrastructure in three site locations, ranging from approximately
3.1 miles to approximately 4.6 miles in length.

The EA is only one part of the decision-making process and gives the public further opportunity to
provide input to CBP on the proposed project. In fact, fencing may not necessarily be constructed
in all locations identified in this Draft EA. However, CBP is required to evaluate all lands that have
the potential to meet the purpose and need of the proposed action.

Although the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security may, in the interest of national
security, waive certain environmental laws, DHS and CBP are committed to making every effort to
comply with federal environmental laws and be good stewards of the environment.

Public notices will be published in the Big Bend Advocate, Hudspeth Herald, Alpine Avalanche and
the Van Horn Sentinel.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:

CBP continues to invite public participation and comment as part of this ongoing process to
determine proposed action within the El Centro Sector. A public open house will be held on
January 23, 2008, at the Hotel Paisano, 207 North Highland Avenue, Marfa, Texas 79843. The
public open house will be held from 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.

FOF OFFICIAL USE ONLY As of January 3, 2008 DRAFT

DRAFT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

The public comment period for the Draft EA officially begins on January 7, 2008 when the NOA is
published in the local newspapers. The public is invited to use one of the following methods to
comment on the Draft EA by February 6, 2008:
(a) Attendance and submission of comments at the Public Open House meeting to be held
January 23, 2008, at the Hotel Paisano, 207 North Highland Avenue, Marfa, Texas 79843.
(b) Electronically through the Web site at www.BorderFenceNEPA.com.
(c) By email to MScomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com.
(d) By mail to: Marfa Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o e²M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite
200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031.
(e) By fax to (757) 299-8444.

Public questions should be forwarded to Mr. Charles McGregor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Fort Worth District, Engineering and Construction Support Office, 819 Taylor St., Room 3B10,
Fort Worth, Texas 76102; and fax (757) 299-8444.

COPIES OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

Copies of the Draft EA have been mailed to local public libraries and members of the public who
have previously requested copies. Copies of the Draft EA are available to the public through the
following:
(a) Via the Internet at www.BorderFenceNEPA.com and
https://ecso.swf.usace.army.mil/Pages/Publicreview.cfm
(b) By emailing information@BorderFenceNEPA.com
(c) By toll-free phone request (877) 752-0420
(d) By writing to Mr. Charles McGregor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering and
Construction Support Office, 819 Taylor St., Room 3B10, Fort Worth, Texas 76102; fax:
(757) 299-8444
(e) By reading the Draft EA in the following local libraries:
- Marfa Public Library - 115 East Oak Street, Marfa, Texas 79843, (432) 729-4631
- Alpine Public Library - 203 North 7th Street, Alpine, Texas 79830, (432) 837-2621
- City of Presidio Library - 1203 East O'Rielly Street, Presidio, Texas 79845, (432) 229-
3317
- Van Horn City and County Library - 410 Crockett Street Van Horn, TX 79855, (432)
283-2855

FOF OFFICIAL USE ONLY As of January 3, 2008 DRAFT

DRAFT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SAN DIEGO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

On January 7, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) and Environmental Protection Agency will publish a Notice of Availability (NOA) and
Public Open House Announcement in the local newspaper inviting public comment on a Draft
Environmental Assessment (EA) for possible fence construction proposed for the U.S. Border
Patrol (USBP) San Diego Sector in California.

The purpose of the proposed action is to aid CBP in controlling and deterring illegal cross-border
incursions into the United States. The proposed action is part of a broader strategy to secure our
nation’s borders through the development and deployment of the most effective mix of tactical
infrastructure (including pedestrian fence, vehicle fence and access roads), personnel and
technology.

As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the completed EA provides an
opportunity to identify, assess and make available to the public potential activities and effects
associated with the proposed construction, maintenance, and operation of tactical infrastructure
(including pedestrian fence, access roads, and patrol roads) along approximately 30 miles of the
U.S.-Mexico international border within the San Diego Sector. At this time, no final decisions on
projected fencing locations have been made.

The San Diego Sector includes the area along the international border between the United States
and Mexico in the XXX counties of California. Fence construction proposals under consideration at
this time include the construction of tactical infrastructure in 14 site locations, ranging from
approximately 0.1 miles to approximately 4.0 miles in length.

The EA is only one part of the decision-making process and gives the public further opportunity to
provide input to CBP on the proposed project. In fact, fencing may not necessarily be constructed
in all locations identified in this Draft EA. However, CBP is required to evaluate all lands that have
the potential to meet the purpose and need of the proposed action.

Although the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security may, in the interest of national
security, waive certain environmental laws, DHS and CBP are committed to making every effort to
comply with federal environmental laws and be good stewards of the environment.

Public notices will also be published in the San Diego Tribune.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:

CBP continues to invite public participation and comment as part of this ongoing process to
determine proposed action within the El Centro Sector. A public open house will be held on
January 16, 2008, at the Ayres Inn, 1251 Tavern Road, Alpine, California 91901. The public open
house will be held from 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.

FOF OFFICIAL USE ONLY As of January 3, 2008 DRAFT

DRAFT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

The public comment period for the Draft EA officially begins on January 7, 2008 when the NOA is
published in the local newspapers. The public is invited to use one of the following methods to
comment on the Draft EA by February 5, 2008:
(a) Attendance and submission of comments at the Public Open House meeting to be held
January 16, 2008, at the Ayres Inn, 1251 Tavern Road, Alpine, California 91901.
(b) Electronically through the Web site at www.BorderFenceNEPA.com.
(c) By email to SDEAcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com.
(d) By mail to: San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o Gulf South Research
Corporation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70820.
(e) By fax to (225) 761-8077.

Public questions should be forwarded to Mr. Charles McGregor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Fort Worth District, Engineering and Construction Support Office, 819 Taylor St., Room 3B10,
Fort Worth, Texas 76102; and fax (225) 761-8077.

COPIES OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

Copies of the Draft EA have been mailed to local public libraries and members of the public who
have previously requested copies. Copies of the Draft EA are available to the public through the
following:
(a) Via the Internet at www.BorderFenceNEPA.com and
https://ecso.swf.usace.army.mil/Pages/Publicreview.cfm
(b) By emailing information@BorderFenceNEPA.com
(c) By toll-free phone request (888) 275-9740
(d) By writing to Mr. Charles McGregor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering and
Construction Support Office, 819 Taylor St., Room 3B10, Fort Worth, Texas 76102; fax:
(225) 761-8077
(e) By reading the Draft EA in the following local libraries:
- San Diego County Library, Rancho San Diego Branch, 11555 Via Rancho San Diego, El
Cajon, California 92019, (619) 660-5370
- Potrero Public Library, 24883 Potrero Valley Road, Potrero, California, 91963, (619)
478-5978

FOF OFFICIAL USE ONLY As of January 3, 2008 DRAFT

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: DRAFT schedule
Date: Monday, July 23, 2007 7:08:29 PM

Sorry, unintentional. Didn't mean to do that. It's better to set the expectation level low from the start.
If we exceed then we look good.

(
b
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jul 23 18:37:29 2007
Subject: Re: DRAFT schedule

Hey! Thanks for contradicting my "not impossible" with an "impossible". You Californians, always with
the one upmanship! Good response though.

----- Original Message -----

From: (b) (6)
To: ADAMS, ROWDY D; SELF, JEFFREY D;(b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jul 23 18:13:39 2007
Subject: Fw: DRAFT schedule

The K1 Project is the Texas project that is closest to a construction date. That being said, it will be
impossible to begin before the end of the FY due to all the necessary contractual procedures. The best
case scenario would have them starting to grub the site but no real construction will begin until Oct..

I'll see if design bid build would save time but if not, that is pretty much the scoop per the Corps.

(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)

Sent: Mon Jul 23 17:58:10 2007

Subject: DRAFT schedule

(b) (6)

Here is the DRAFT schedule. The current baseline in our system had contract awards in OCT for El Paso
K-1. Our draft schedule attached is trying to "push schedule to the left" and as you can see, the K1
schedule has the NTP 28 Sept. As I previously stated, on that award date, dependent upon the design,
the Contractor can begin clearing and grubbing. The design will dictate how soon the fence construction
will begin.

(b)
(6)

Project Manager
USACE-PM-ECSO
(b) (6)
(b)(2),(b)(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: El Paso Sector- Upcoming Community Meetings

Date: Monday, July 02, 2007 11:48:59 AM

Please disregard my last message it was sent out prematurely.

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 11:44 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: El Paso Sector- Upcoming Community Meetings

(b)
(5),
(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 1:19 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: El Paso Sector- Upcoming Community Meetings

All,

The El Paso Sector has scheduled two community meetings in the area of the Texas
Mobile Project. The first meeting is scheduled to be held at the Fort Hancock High
School, 100 School Drive, Fort Hancock, Texas 79839 on July 10, 2007, at 7:00
p.m. This meeting will be in the Texas 23rd congressional district- Congressman Ciro
Rodriguez.

The second meeting is tentatively scheduled to be held at the Fabens Community

Center, 201 Camp Street, Fabens, Texas 79838 on July 26, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. This
meeting is in the 16th congressional district- Congressman Sylvestre Reyes.

Both meetings are community meetings that have been set-up by the respective
stations to address any local border patrol issues. We will use this opportunity to
disseminate information in regards to SBInet projects (PF-225, Texas Mobile, El
Paso Sector SBInet). We will solicit attendance by using printed flyers and word of
mouth.
Take Care,

(b) (6)
Special Operations Supervisor
El Paso Sector
8901 Montana Avenue
El Paso, Texas 79925
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Minimum cat opening size and frequency - RGV
Date: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:57:37 PM

(b)
(6)
I have (b) (6) looking into this at the moment. I don’t believe (b) vetted this through the field
so it will be interesting to here what RGV has to say. While writing this(6) I saw (b) (6) message stating
that this will affect other sectors as well so we’ll have to put something out for comment.

(b)
(6)
From:(
b
Sent: )Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:17 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) .
Subject: FW: Minimum cat opening size and frequency - RGV

(b)
(6)
Not sure if you are aware of all that has gone on about the potential holes needed in the RGV fence to
allow ocelot and jaguarandi to get through and still keep people out.

OBP (b) (6) proposed 8.5" x 11" opening but FWS has now come back with 9 x 12. Can
OBP live with that??

(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:07 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Minimum cat opening size and frequency - RGV

FWS came back with a request of 9” wide x 12” high, and every other panel. Can we live with that?

(b) (6)
Natural Resources
engineering-environmental Management, Inc.
18897 Eichler Rd
Newell, SD 57760
(b) (6)

CONFIDENTIALITY. The information contained in this transmission is advice intended exclusively for the proper use by the intended addressees
and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this information in error, you are requested to inform the sender and/or
addressee immediately and permanently delete and/or destroy the material. Please note that no confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any
mis-transmission.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: More fence
Date: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:57:54 PM

(b)
(6)
This is a P225 project, (b) (2) E-2B. The total mileage for the project is 5.3 miles. Without
mesh, there is no finished product.

(b) (6)
Field Operations Supervisor
Tucson Sector Tactical Infrastructure Office
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 1:52 PM
To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: More fence

Where does this leave the fence at mileage-wise if there are no deliveries until 9/23? I don’t have a
breakdown in front of me. How short will it be from completion?
(b)
(6)

Assistant Chief
OPA Division
Office of Border Patrol
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6.5E
Washington, D.C. 20229
(b) (6)

From:(
Sent: bMonday, September 10, 2007 4:49 PM
To: (b) (6)

Cc:(
b
Subject: FW: More fence
Importance: High

All,

(b)(5),(b)(6)
(b) (6)
Field Operations Supervisor
Tucson Sector Tactical Infrastructure Office
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:38 PM
(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: More fence

Granite Construction Company was awarded a contract to build 5.4 miles of pedestrian fence on
the Naco west line. The contract includes mesh fencing, 13' high, bollard in the washes, and low-water
crossings. The stretch of fence they are responsible for is from the second wood gates to the BLM
boundary. They will probably start work on Monday and the job is to be completed by 9/26/2007! Yes,
the year is correct in that date.

(b) and I met with representatives from Granite and the Army Corps of Engineers this morning.
(6)
Granite will truck their materials down Paloma Trail to Rachael's Ridge and then to the line via an old
two-track along the west side of Gringo Draw. The (b) (6) will provide Granite with a materials lot on
their deeded property, water from the well near the (b) (6) , and they will allow for a batch plant
for cement on their deeded property. Granite will improve the two-track and the washed out area on
Paloma Trail to be able to access the project area with trucks and large equipment. I need to note that
those improvements are not part of the contract for the fencing project. Those details were worked out
between Granite Construction and the (b) (6) and (b) (6)

We have no responsibility to provide force protection for this project. Granite is to obtain their own
security guards for the work sites. They will attempt to hire off-duty Sheriff's Deputies on overtime
through that department. We will need to patrol that area as normal and expect a good number of G-
123 calls from workers at the project, as there will be many more eyes on the border.

(b) (6)
Field Operations Supervisor
Naco Station
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: On a work-related note...
Date: Friday, December 21, 2007 7:29:05 PM

Thank you, I'll look the number up online! :)

----- Original Message -----

From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Dec 21 19:15:40 2007
Subject: Re: On a work-related note...

(b) (6) is an A-CHIEF there. I don't have the number but the Del Rio Sector # is the one!

----- Original Message -----

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Dec 21 19:12:14 2007
Subject: On a work-related note...

Off the top of your head, do you know who in Del Rio a constituent of Rep. Rodriguez's can contact re:
fencing. Apparently he/she is not sure whether his property is a place where there are fence plans.
And my response that "if they haven't been contacted by anyone in the BP then probably not" didn't
help.

If you don't know, don't sweat it. They should have followed up before 7pm on the Friday before
Christmas!
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: outreach
Date: Sunday, January 06, 2008 9:35:20 AM

Good morning(b) (6)

Yes, (b) is requesting this information, and from all Sectors.

(6)
The Sectors have periodically provided updates on their outreach efforts, and the information has
contributed to the document I've maintained.

However, we have not previously requested the specifics for the town hall meetings on date, location,
approximate number of attendees, and whether the town hall meeting included any local
representatives.

In some cases, Sectors may have provided some of those details, but that wasn't required at the time
and so wasn't kept.

We are looking for this information specifically for the town hall meetings.

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

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Sun 1/6/2008 9:00 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: outreach

Is it (b) (6) requesting this information? Which sectors? All of the SWB sectors that have
PF225 projects I'm guessing. I just want to be sure what he wants because this sounds exactly like the
one document (I guess that was the one you provided (b) ). Does that document not provide dates? I
(6)halls" with dates and locations and a same day
will request the sectors provide information for all "town
return on the info.

(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sun Jan 06 08:12:59 2008
Subject: FW: outreach

Good morning (b)

(6)
As you can see in the e-mail chain below, DHS Public Affairs is asking for the dates and locations of
Sector town hall meetings. In addition, it would be good to get the approximate number of attendees,
and if any local representatives attended.

Can you please forward this request to the Sectors, with a due date of COB Monday?
Thank you.

(b)
(6)
________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Sun 1/6/2008 8:05 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: outreach

Good morning (b)

(6)
The details are kept by Border Patrol sectors.

I will ask them to provide the details from their after action reports.

(b)
(6)
________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Fri 1/4/2008 5:42 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: outreach

(b) , can you assist?

(6)
(b) (6)

Director

Media Relations Division

Office of Public Affairs

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 5:42 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: outreach
Thanks. This has some great info. However, would it be possible to get more details about each Town
Hall meeting? This document has great info about Congressional outreach and etc but I am looking for
a little more specific info on the townhall meetings. Is it possible to get a listing of the dates and
location of each meeting?

Any info I use I will run it by everyone before I send.

Thanks.

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 4:52 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: outreach

(b)
(6)
See the attached outreach conducted regarding tactical infrastructure. Please let me if this helps and
what you intend to provide specifically to the DMN from this document.

Regards,

(b) (6)

Director

Media Relations Division

Office of Public Affairs

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 4:46 PM
To (b) (6)
Subject: outreach

Here you go…

(b) (6)

Secure Border Initiative

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

For more information about the Secure Border Initiative, visit www.cbp.gov/sbi
<http://www.cbp.gov/sbi> or contact us at SBI_info@dhs.gov <mailto:SBI info@dhs.gov> .
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF225 Fence Segment Operational Requirements for Congressional Appropriations
Date: Monday, January 14, 2008 7:01:27 PM

These segments have not changed. I?e asked the corps to verify the mileage amounts (again).
Thanks

(b)
(6)
Message sent from my Blackberry

----- Original Message -----

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jan 14 11:40:10 2008
Subject: RE: PF225 Fence Segment Operational Requirements for Congressional Appropriations

For M-1 and M-2A, is this in the change management process? I hadn't seen official word that these
segments had changed (unless of course I have missed something). Thanks for the help!

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:36 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: PF225 Fence Segment Operational Requirements for Congressional Appropriations

(b) (6)
I copied/pasted it and sent it. But see below!
(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jan 14 11:34:49 2008
Subject: RE: PF225 Fence Segment Operational Requirements for Congressional Appropriations

Ryan, We looked at the numbers and they seem to be off.

Project M-1 should be 3.01 miles. The description should be Starr Ranch Curve to Cienegas Creek as
opposed to San Felipe Creek to Cienegas Creek.

Project M-2A should be 0.91 miles.

Project M-2B is correct and reads 1.06 miles.

We’re working on the justification document now. Also, just as an FYI, (b) and I are going to Tucson
tomorrow to see their GSR system since we will be getting one soon. We (6) are also going to see what P-
28 is all about.
(b)
(6)
________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 9:27 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Fence Segment Operational Requirements for Congressional Appropriations

It’s not that easy…..

(b) (6)

Assistant Chief

Headquarters U.S. Border Patrol

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 10:23 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Fence Segment Operational Requirements for Congressional Appropriations

I didn’t see a Del Rio Attachment.

(b)
(6)
________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 9:15 AM
To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Subject: PF225 Fence Segment Operational Requirements for Congressional Appropriations
Importance: High

Sectors,
Congressional Appropriations is requiring that all of the PF225 fencing segments be operationally
justified. Most if not all of the sectors have already done this in one form or another. I am requesting
that each sector complete a brief summary of the operational requirements for each of your PF225
fence segments. I am attaching the segments broken down by sector to ensure you have the latest.
You do not need to fill in anything on these excel documents. Paragraph form for each segment will be
fine.

I am also attaching an over arching explanation of the SBInet solution. Use this as needed to help with
approved terminology. If there are any questions then please ask. I would ask that these be
completed by COB Friday January 18th. Thanks.

(b)
(6)

Assistant Chief

Headquarters U.S. Border Patrol

(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: PF225 Phase I Project Issues for J1/J3 & I1A
Date: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 4:27:08 PM

(b)
(6)
This change is going to need to go through our change management process. I will send you the
change request form tomorrow. With regards to the man gates to provide IBWC access to their
concrete monuments-they must be provided per our MOA with IBWC and the RFP requirements (see
the performance criteria in Section 01 00 50).

Thanks

(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 8:14 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: PF225 Phase I Project Issues for J1/J3 & I1A

ALCON;
I have the contractor working up a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) for the additional section that is
required along J1 at the POE. Should have this information shortly to advise Loren Flossman
accordingly.
Thanks,
(b
)

(b) (6)
Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers-Albuquerque District
4101 Jefferson Plaza NE
Albuquerque, NM, 87109
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 10:33 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF225 Phase I Project Issues for J1/J3 & I1A

Thanks (b) (6) Please advise if you do not get the required answers for your questions. OBP is obviously behind
the sector's position on operational placement of the fencing around the POE. The IBWC issue will more than
likely need to be discussed with IBWC, SBI and OBP if SBI TI is not inclined to place the gates in the fence.
There is an open communication with IBWC at the DC level so hopefully we can get a feel for their wishes at that
level also. Thanks again.
(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Fri Dec 28 17:04:32 2007

Subject: PF225 Phase I Project Issues for J1/J3 & I1A

(b)
(6)

On December 28, the SBInet Office conducted a teleconference with (b) (6)
Several issues came up that I wanted to address with you so that we can get a resolution in a rapid
manner. I’m not sure if you are aware, but we are holding the Pre-Construction Meeting for the projects in Santa
Teresa on January 9th. Once this is completed, the fence will be going in the ground almost immediately. At that
point all issues will be considered either out in the open for resolution or resolved.

About a week ago we received the project plans from Tetra Tech for our review. I was told that a copy was also
sent to (b) (6) and yourself. During the review of the plans (b) (6) brought up
some valid issues. After speaking with(b) (6) about it this morning, it was decided collectively that
decisions on some of these issues will have to be made at your level. I have tried to outline the issues below and
cc’d all involved for clarification.

Issue #1 – I have attached two JPEG photos to outline the issue here. The J-1 project area is divided by the Santa
Teresa Port of Entry. The J-1 project extends out 1.15 miles east and west from the POE on both sides for a total
of 2.3 miles. The issue lies in the actual grounds of the POE itself (refer to the JEPGs for clarification). In between
the J-1 projects on either side of the POE, there is a stretch of about 800 feet where there is a chain link fence. The
SBInet Office and the Santa Teresa Border Patrol Station were all under the impression that the fence would run
continuous through this area with the only breaks being the gates that would cover the roads leading to and from the
POE. The project plans call for the new vehicle/pedestrian fence to stop on the outer edges of the POE with the
chain link fence remaining in the middle for this estimated space of about 800 feet. (b) (6) has already
coordinated with OFO and management at the POE and they want the fence to cover this area. If it does not, then
this presents a weak link in the fence for the STN AOR. The POE shuts down each night at 10 p m. Once it shuts
down, it is probable that the chain link fence would be utilized as an area of easy penetration, and vandalism to the
chain link fence and illegal entries in this area will rise dramatically. Coupled with the fact that this area is easily
accessible by vehicle because of the paved roads leading to and from the POE, alien smuggling organizations will
make this a main business route. The El Paso Sector wants the fence to cover this entire area. (b) (6) with
USACE says it will have to be approved at OBP, but that it would only require a slight modification to the
contract, and extend the completion date by about two weeks (from mid April to beginning of May).

Issue #2 – The Santa Teresa Border Patrol Station is reviewing the plans for the projects to ensure they get all of the
gates along the border that they need for operations. One issue that has not been resolved is the fence access to the
monuments for the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). These gates are not accounted for on
the schematics depicting the project areas, and it is assumed that they are not in the plans to be built at or near each
monument. It has been expressed to us numerous times that at the national level IBWC has expressed no need for
gates at each monument because in New Mexico the IBWC office in Mexico is responsible for the upkeep and
maintenance of the monuments. The local IBWC office in El Paso has expressed a desire for the gates for their
own access. The El Paso Sector would prefer the whole area be fenced, but Sector also wants to ensure that IBWC,
as a major stake holder, has a voice in this issue and has what it needs to do their job. On the surface it seems like
this might be a Sector issue to decide whether or not to grant the local IBWC request of having gates at each
monument, but some time ago we were told that there was a National and Regional MOU between CBP and IBWC
in regards to this issue, and whatever was decided and expressed in this MOU would provide us with the guidance
we need to make a decision that everyone can live with.

* Note - I was under the assumption that the gates for IBWC were to be included in the plans because in the
Site Visit Report that Tetra Tech submitted with the project plans the following were revealed:
* Section 4.1 – Monumentation Control – Based on the limits of work, it was agreed that the monumentation
control should begin at monument #5 (west of J1 project limits) and work east of monument #2C (east of J3 project
limits).
* Section 4.3 – Monument Gate Locations – it states: (b) (6) (IBWC) stated that the gates to serve the
monuments should not be located at the monument location due to activity that could damage the monuments. They
should be off set a distance to be determined.

With the project set to begin in less than two weeks, we need guidance on these issues immediately.

To ensure that there are no other issues representatives from USACE and Tetra Tech will be coming out to the
Santa Teresa Border Patrol Station on January 4th for a site visit. During this visit we will tour all of the project
areas to ensure that everyone involved understands exactly what is being built, and where it is being built. This
should also ensure that our understanding accurately reflects Tetra Tech’s intentions.

Thanks for the assistance.

(b) (6)

Field Operations Supervisor

El Paso Sector SBInet Office

(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF225: ROE DT filings
Date: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 5:40:47 PM

Can you verify. The man says he's ready but has been told to stand down

(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jan 08 17:33:29 2008
Subject: FW: PF225: ROE DT filings

Just got this a little bit ago but it doesn't say they need to hold off!

(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
Headquarters U.S. Border Patrol
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 5:07 PM
To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Fw: PF225: ROE DT filings
Importance: High

All,

(b) (5)

More to follow...

V/r
(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)

Cc:(b) (6)

Sent: Tue Jan 08 16:06:06 2008

Subject: PF225: ROE DT filings
(b)(5),(b)(6)

(b) (6)
ECSO
819 Taylor Street, 3B10
Fort Worth TX, 76102
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY ( ; (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Planned fence miles
Date: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:58:22 AM

Good morning.

As we discussed yesterday, I drafted a decision paper on this.

I did this last night pretty late, and have not had time to review it, so it may be rough.

Please make any changes to this with Track Changes on, and provide any feedback by this afternoon
at 2:00 pm.

Thanks.

(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
For more information about the Secure Border Initiative, visit www.cbp.gov/sbi or contact us at SBI_info@dhs.gov.

-----Original Appointment-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 2:25 PM
To: ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)

Subject: Planned fence miles

When: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:15 PM-3:45 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: XD's Conference Room

When: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:15 PM-3:45 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

Where: XD's Conference Room

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Rowdy requested that we meet this afternoon to discuss planned fence miles. (b) (6) will attend
on behalf of (b) (6) and there will be a hard stop at 3:45 p.m.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet
Date: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:18:20 AM

All of that sounds great. The only issue could be with the DHS Seal. We don't stock that at sectors.
Only the CBP seal leatterhead.
(b)
(6)

Assistant Chief
OPA Division
Office of Border Patrol
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6.5E
Washington, D.C. 20229
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:05 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet
Importance: High

Please make this change to the template.

(b)(5),(b)(6)

Please do not hesitate to call with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:51 AM
To: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet

(b) (6)

(b) (5)
(b) (5)

Thanks-

(b)
(6)
Attorney
Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, Indianapolis
Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)

This communication might contain communications between attorney and

client, communications that are part of the agency deliberative process,
or attorney-work product, all of which are privileged and not subject to
disclosure outside the agency or to the public. Please consult with the
Office of Assistant Chief Counsel-Indianapolis, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection before disclosing any information contained in this email.

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 4:22 PM
To: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet

To all addressees:

Please see attached REVISED ROE Form, and provide your comments
regarding any necessary, additional changes or clarifications in the
wording.

Your expeditious review and response would be greatly

appreciated!

THANKS!

(b) (6)
Management & Program Analyst
Customs & Border Protection (CBP)
Office of the Commissioner
Secure Border Initiative (SBI)
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 7.3-D
Washington, D.C. 20229
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 3:49 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet

Add changes and please send for review.

Please do not hesitate to call with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 3:31 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet

Can you send it? And we can quickly review. Then it should be good for
vetting if necessary.

(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
Office of Border Patrol
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6.5E
Washington, D.C. 20229
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 3:30 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet

I just wanted to add a few words and (b) (6) made a suggestion.

Please do not hesitate to call with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From:(b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 3:29 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet

Did you create one for vetting with your specifications changed?

(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
Office of Border Patrol
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6.5E
Washington, D.C. 20229
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 3:28 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet

Good. We are set to finish this up.

Please do not hesitate to call with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 12:10 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet

I didn't wait for an updated version for RGV because it is a fencing

project right now. I really wanted to get the discussion of the Corps
fulfilling their role of "real estate specialists" started. After
hearing some of the concerns with an ROE that does not require a GOV
signature....I though it best to continue forward with the vetted
version. We have a big meeting at 1:00 until whenever about fencing in
FY '07. When we get out we will call you and check your availability.
Thanks.
(b)
(6)

Assistant Chief
OPA Division
Office of Border Patrol
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6.5E
Washington, D.C. 20229
(b) (6)
-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6) C
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:56 AM
To: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet

Could we finalize the ROE form today? I saw some E Mail with
instructions but did not see a new template. There are just some small
additions to be made.

Do you have time to finalized this with me today?

Please do not hesitate to call with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:04 AM
To (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet

(b) (6)

(b) (5)

If there are any discrepancies, let me know.

(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
Office of Border Patrol
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6.5E
Washington, D.C. 20229
(b) (6)
-----Original Message-----
From:(b) (6)
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 7:01 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet

Please attend with me. I think we need a pre meeting to finalize what we
want to do.

(b) (6)

----- Original Message -----

From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)

Sent: Fri Jul 20 19:30:41 2007

Subject: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet

When: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:30 AM-9:30 AM (GMT-07:00) Arizona.

Where: virtual, info below

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the realty process of SBInet,

specifically obtaining ROE. The deliverable is to reach an
understanding of the of the process at the highest level: key elements,
chronological steps, RAA of principle parties, and scope of work.
Please invite others as appropriate.

(b) (6)
The Boeing Company
IDS SBInet
Environment, Health and Safety
(b) (6)

TOPIC: Framework of Realty/ROE process

DATE: Tuesday, July 24, 2007
TIME: 8:30 am, Pacific Daylight Time (GMT -07:00, San Francisco ) .

Teleconference:
(b) (2)

(b) (2)

Join meeting as Attendee:

(b) (2)
Start meeting as Host: (b) (2)

3. Host Key for Alternate Hosting

(b) (2)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGOR( ADAMS, ROWDY( D; (b) (6)

Subject: RE: Requests
Date: Friday, September 07, 2007 3:59:34 PM

(b)
(6)
(b) (5)

(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 3:32 PM
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY; ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)

Subject: RE: Requests

My comments are regarding the approach in general, and not specific to the language in the document:

(b
)
(5
)
(b) (6)
Office of Congressional Affairs
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 7:45 PM
To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6) ; GIDDENS, GREGORY; ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)

Subject: Requests

Good afternoon.

As we discussed at this afternoon’s brief-out, attached is a file with requests to (1) release fence maps,
(2) notify Congress of our intent to seek RoE for C, and (3) provide landowners with the DOT brochure
that addresses condemnation and relocation.

Please review and comment on the text by 4:00 pm EST tomorrow. The revised version will be
provided to Mr. Giddens to forward for approval.

Thank you.

(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: RGV Public Meetings December 2007
Date: Monday, December 10, 2007 7:53:00 AM

Awesome! I'm impressed with your lightening speed... thank you!

(b) (6)
INATR-SBI Liaison
U.S. Customs Border Protection
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 7:52 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: RGV Public Meetings December 2007

(b) (6) of RGV. He will be there.

----- Original Message -----

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Dec 10 07:51:30 2007
Subject: FW: RGV Public Meetings December 2007

(b) (6)

Who will be the POC in RGV for the public meetings this week? I will be reaching out to IBWC this AM
to provide them the heads up and a POC would be helpful.

Your earliest reply is greatly appreciated! Thanks...

(b) (6)
INATR-SBI Liaison
U.S. Customs Border Protection
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 8:30 AM
To: (b) (6) A
Cc: (b) (6) Rowdy D Adams; (b) (6)
Subject: RE: RGV Public Meetings December 2007

Good morning (b) (6)

I apologize for the late notice, but wanted to let you know three things
that you may wish to pass on to the IBWC.

First, we have added a third public meeting in RGV next week. The
meeting will be on Thursday, December 13, 2007, at the VFW Post in Rio
Grande City.
Second, the Border Patrol will have less of a presence at the meetings
than originally anticipated, and I don't know the names of the
attendees. As such, I'm not sure who the best point of contact will be
for IBWC at the meetings.

I will be at the meetings and my bb number is (b) (6) They are

welcome to contact me if necessary, but I defer to (b) (6)
direction.

Third, we will have an "orientation" session for the meetings starting

Tuesday morning at 10:00 am in McAllen. We'll be discussing the meeting,
making final arrangements, and do a few quick walk-throughs.

Please let (b) or me know if you have any questions. Thanks.

(6)
(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
For more information about the Secure Border Initiative, visit
www.cbp.gov/sbi or contact us at SBI_info@dhs.gov.

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:25 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) Rowdy D Adams; (b) (6)

Subject: RE: RGV Public Meetings December 2007

(b) (6)

Thank you very much for your prompt response. Have a great Holiday!

(b) (6)
INATR-SBI Liaison
U.S. Customs Border Protection
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From:(b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:01 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) Rowdy D Adams; (b) (6)

Subject: Re: RGV Public Meetings December 2007

Morning (b) (6)

(b) (6) will attend on the 11th and (b) (6) will attend
on the 12th.

Thanks

(b)
(6)

Principal Engineer for Operations

U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission
4171 N. Mesa St.
El Paso, TX 79902

(b) (6)

(b) (6) 11/20/2007 7:31 AM >>>

Good Morning Gentlemen,

This email is to provide you with advanced notice of the upcoming Public
Open House meetings being held in Mc Allen and Brownsville, Texas. The
RGV-EIS was published on November 16, 2007 and is now available for
public comments as described in the attached document. The first Open
House meetings will take place on December 11, 2007 in Mc Allen
Convention Center, Mc Allen, TX. The second Open House will be held
December 12, 2007 at the Brownsville Events Center, Brownsville, TX.
Both Open Houses are scheduled from 4:30-8:00 PM (CST).

You and your staff are invited to participate in the Open Houses. After
you have reached the attached document, if you would please let me know
who from your staff will be attending, I would like to notify the
CBP-SBI staff who to expect in order be available for meet and greet as
well as provide any assistance to them if needed.

Regards,

(b) (6)

INATR-SBI Liaison

U.S. Customs Border Protection

(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: SFA language
Date: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:54:20 PM

Per (b) (6) suggestion, I propose the following:

(b) (5)

What do you think?

(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:39 PM
To: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: SFA language

(b) (5)

(b) (6)
Office of Congressional Affairs
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
((b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 12:28 PM
To: (b) (6)

Subject: SFA language

Good morning.

Our current environmental documents provide the Secure Fence Act as the justification for our fence
projects.

Attached is a document that provides the existing standard language and my proposed modifications.

Please review the file and let me know if you have any suggested changes by COB today.
Thank you.

(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
From: FLOSSMAN, LOREN (
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Texas brief to C-1
Date: Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:35:01 PM

Commissioner conference room

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:32 PM
To: Flossman, Loren W
Subject: Re: Texas brief to C-1

Where is the C-1 brief at 2:00?

----- Original Message -----

From: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)

Sent: Thu Nov 15 12:21:40 2007

Subject: Texas brief to C-1

This is a revision to the brief from this morning - we need OBP to weigh in on the desire to have a fence built in
Texas if the segments aren’t complete – let me know if you have an comments - thanks loren
 Tactical Infrastructure:
Decision for Texas
Commissioner Basham
November 15, 2007

SBI net
SBInet
For Official Use Only – Pre-decisional
 Tactical Infrastructure
SBI TI and SBInet Management Collaboration

Tactical Infrastructure Is an Integral Part of the SBI Solution Set

– Border Calculus : Time to reach the vanishing point >> Time to apprehend
– TI Needs to be Integral with Detection, C4I, and Response Capability
– Wherever Possible SBI Will Consider and Deploy Tactical Infrastructure in
Concert with Detection and C4I Capabilities
Missions
– SBI Team will construct 225 miles of pedestrian fence and 300 miles of
vehicle fence to secure the Nation’s southern border NLT December 31,
2008 in support of OBP

For Official Use Only – Pre-decisional 2

 Tactical Infrastructure

Decision for Texas Tactical Infrastructure:

1. Is Texas fence a priority for BP?
2. If Texas is a fence priority are we willing to condemn property and Execute the
Wavier ?

In order to complete the 70+ miles in Texas SBI needs the following support
decisions:
1. decision supporting condemnation by 26 Nov 07
2. decision on use of the for DOI lands
3. decision on potential use of the environmental for the RGV EIS

For Official Use Only – Pre-decisional 3

 Tactical Infrastructure

Remaining Fence Required to be contracted to complete PF 225 - 190 miles

Remaining Fence miles to be contract in Texas 127 miles or 65% of total

remaining mileage (127/190)

PF225 – Phase 2 Right of Entry for Survey & Exploration Status for Texas
TEXAS TEXAS TEXAS TEXAS
SIGNED UNDETERMINED DENIED TOTAL

PARCELS 332 234 94 660 PARCELS

% PARCELS 50.3% 35.5% 14.2%

OWNERS 258 110 40 408 OWNERS

% OWNERS 63.2% 27.0% 9.8%

MILES 86 26 15 127 MILES

% MILES 67.7% 20.5% 11.8%

RISK: Having a signed ROE does not guarantee we will be able to acquire the land to build the fence; particularly
in Rio Grande Valley Sector (RGV).
For Official Use Only – Pre-decisional 4
 Tactical Infrastructure

Risks to PF 225 if Texas fence is built without the Wavier and Condemnation tool:

Land owners apposed to the fence will not sell their property knowing they will halt the fence
project

City Land owners opposed to the fence have decided not to allow CBP access to city property
where fence is required

Assumption all ROEs for S&E (86 miles) agree to sell their property to CBP

Option 1. Accept fence segments with multiple gaps which OPB feels is
operationally unbeneficial

To complete PF 225 move to lesser priority contingency miles

outside of Texas

Option 2. Execute condemnation and use the Waiver authority

RISK: - we could loose the majority of 86 miles

- to the PF 225 project when the remaining states discover DHS isn’t
condemning property in Texas

For Official Use Only – Pre-decisional 5

 Tactical Infrastructure

Texas DOI slide:

For Official Use Only – Pre-decisional 6

 Tactical Infrastructure

Texas Environmental Compliance:

Environmental Assessments (3 EAs) underway in Marfa, Del Rio, and El Paso Sectors
Marfa and Del Rio Draft EAs to be posted on 19 Dec07
El Paso EA to be posted in early Jan 08
30 day Public Comment Period, 19 Dec 07 – 18 Jan 08 for Marfa and Del Rio
30 day Public Comment Period for El Paso starts when draft EA posted
All Findings of No Significant Impact to be signed by 25 Feb 08

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared for Rio Grande Valley Sector
Draft EIS to be posted on 16 Nov 07
45 day Public Comment Period, 16 Nov 07 – 31 Dec 07
Final EIS to be posted on 1 Feb 08
Record of Decision (ROD) to be signed on 4 March 08

High probability of litigation actions by environmental and anti-fence groups

challenging the EIS process

For Official Use Only – Pre-decisional 7