CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 4/28/2010 - RE_16 Congressional Appropriations Response Redacted) 4 - RE_ Fence Thoughts Redacted) 1

Published on November 2019 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 11 | Comments: 0 | Views: 293
of 75
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

From: To:

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

Cc:

FLOSSMAN, LOREN ( ; (b)

Subject: Date:

RE: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format Tuesday, January 15, 2008 8:47:45 PM

(6)

Good evening.  Attached for your review is a first draft of the introduction, using (mostly) previously approved text. We’ll nee need to to ad add in in(b) (6) language on on en engineering cr criteria. Please review and comment on the draft language, including any suggestions or questions into the file using Track Changes. I still need to add the stakeholder input information into the Excel file. Thanks.

(b) (6) Secure Border Initiative U.S. Customs and Border Protection (b) (6) For more information about the Secure Border Initiative, visit (b)

(2)

or contact us at (b)

(2)

.

From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, Sent:  Monday, January 07, 2008 6:54 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: FLOSSMAN, Cc:  FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6) Subject: Congressional Subject:  Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format Importance: High 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 should have a firmed firmed up laydown for vehicle fence fence tomorrow. tomorrow. Of the primary fence fence segments, segments, only 1 is greater greater than 15 miles in length – will need advice advice on how to break that down, possibly 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 funding to us. Requirement 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;” process;” (b) (6)  – do you by chance have an electronic copy of the appropriations requirements? ) In the meeting, meeting, we came to the conclusion that it made the most sense to respond by following 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; segment; I will call you tomorrow to explain if you’re in the office.



• •

(b) & his team are going to handle the stakeholder stakeholder input factor & the introductio introduction n for  the 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 possible possible be used or boiled down for the intro), and then we’ll need to decide decide how best to respond respond on a segment-by-segment segment-by-segment basis for that factor. factor.

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

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

(b) (5)

DRAFT

As of January 15, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

(b) (5)

DRAFT

As of January 15, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

From: To:

Cc: Subject: Date:

GIDDENS, GREGOR  (

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

FLOSSMAN, LOREN (b

(b) (6)

 ADAMS, ROWDY( D (b) (6) Re: Requests Requests Friday, September 07, 2007 6:59:10 PM

 Agree, we just need to get it over with. Also, wee have to move forward programmatically.  You have (b) initial offering and he will w ill be honing it over the weekend. I ask that we turn the energy into helping helping hone the message needed needed to go to the Hill and the one needed needed to support support OBP/COE OBP/COE as they begin begin to engage engage landowners on the ROE-C. Greg G ----- Original Message Message ---- From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) (b) (6)

GIDDENS, GIDDENS, GREGORY; GREGORY; (b) (6)

; FLOSSMAN, FLOSSMAN,

Sent: Fri Sep 07 18:08:07 2007 2007 Subject: RE: Requests (b) (6)

-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, September September 07, 2007 5:51 PM To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6) (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6) ADAMS, ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6) Subject: RE: Requests (b) (5)

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;

(b) (5)

(b) (6) Congressional Liaison Officer U.S. Customs and Border Protection (b) (6) -----Original Message----From: GIDDENS, GREGORY  Sent: Friday, September September 07, 2007 5:42 PM To: (b) (6) LOREN W; (b) (6)

FLOSSMAN,

Cc: (b) (6) ADAMS, ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6) Subject: Re: Requests What are you hearing? Greg G ----- Original Message Message ---- From: (b) (6) To: GIDDENS, GREGORY;(b) (6) (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;

ADAMS, ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)

Sent: Fri Sep 07 17:18:27 2007 2007 Subject: RE: Requests (b) (5)

(b) (6) Congressional Liaison Officer U.S. Customs and Border Protection (b) (6) -----Original Message----From: GIDDENS, GREGORY  Sent: Friday, September September 07, 2007 5:13 PM To: (b) (6)

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

(b) (6) Cc: (b) (6)

; ADAMS, ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)

Subject: Re: Requests Noted, but incorrect incorrect.. We just have to be clear on the messaging. messaging. Greg G ----- Original Message Message ---- From: (b) (6) To: GIDDENS, GIDDENS, GREGORY; GREGORY; (b) (6)

Cc:(b) (6)

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

; ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)

Sent: Fri Sep 07 17:05:22 2007 2007 Subject: Re: Requests (b) (5)

(b) ----- Original Message Message ---- From: GIDDENS, GREGORY  To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

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

; ADAMS, ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)

Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:58:19 2007 2007 Subject: RE: Requests We are not changing message, message, we are continuing to move forward forward in our process... process... I assume you have have been working with the messaging messaging aspect. aspect. If not, I ask ask that you help us craft it. It is not rocket rocket science. science. We can notify on Mon. The message message is that we are continuing continuing the process of gathering info. info. A ROE-C is not a final decision. decision. Please create create the list of folks we need to reach out and who should do it. Greg G

-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, September September 07, 2007 4:55 PM

To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6) (b) (6)

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;

Cc: (b) (6) ADAMS, ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6) Subject: Re: Requests (b) (5)

(b) ----- Original Message Message ---- From: GIDDENS, GREGORY  To: (b) (6)

Cc:(b) (6)

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

ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)

Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:46:18 2007 2007 Subject: RE: Requests Notify Hill on Mon and pursue ROEs on Tues would be great. The clock is ticking. Greg G -----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, September September 07, 2007 4:45 PM To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6) (b) (6)

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;

Cc:(b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6) Subject: Re: Requests Get started started with notifying the Hill, or get started with pursuing pursuing ROEs? (b) ----- Original Message Message ---- From: GIDDENS, GREGORY  To: (b) (6)

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

(b) (6) Cc: (b) (6)

ADAMS, ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)

Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:39:26 2007 2007 Subject: RE: Requests  Agree we have to let everyone know, but we have to get started. Greg G -----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, September September 07, 2007 4:10 PM To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6) ; GIDDENS, GIDDENS, GREGORY; GREGORY; ADAMS, ROWDY D;(b) (6) Subject: Re: Requests (b)(5),(b)(6)

----- Original Message Message ---- From: (b) (6) To (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 15:31:35 2007 2007 Subject: RE: Requests My comments are regarding the approach approach in general, general, and not specific specific to the language language in the document:

(b ) (5 )

(b) (5)

(b) (6) Office of Congressional Affairs U.S. Customs and Border Protection (b) (6)  ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, Thursday, September 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, m aps, (2) notify Congress of our intent intent to seek RoE for C, and (3) provide landowners landowners with the DOT brochure that addresses condemnation and relocation.

Please review review and comment on the text by 4:00 pm EST tomorrow. tomorrow. The revised version 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: To: Cc:

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

Subject: Date:

RE: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE Friday, January 18, 2008 3:22:01 PM

FLOSSMAN, LOREN (

(b) We checked with the GIS office on Wednes Wednesday day and the chain link fencing around around the Santa Teresa (STN) POE is not included in the OBP baseline baseline of primary fencing. fencing. The only fencing fencing in the STN area that we have included in the pedestrian fencing fencing baseline baseline is the BP-erected fencing in the Anapra Anapra,, NM area. (b) (6)  Assistant Chief  Office of Border Patrol Tactical Infrastructure Branch (b) (6)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, Sent:  Friday, January 18, 2008 11:06 AM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6)

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W

Subject: RE: Subject:  RE: Change Order Request Request for J1 at the POE (b) (6) There are 2 different chain link fence issues in EPT. The IBWC fence, installed by IBWC, paid for and aintained aintai ned by BP ( approx 14 miles) and then this fence near the Santa Teresa POE (1,900 feet) which was built by the county county and is not maintained by the BP. Maybe someone someone “assumed” “assumed” it was the same but that was a mistake. (b)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, Sent:  Friday, January 18, 2008 10:53 AM To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W Cc ( b ) Request for J1 at the POE Subject: RE: Subject:  RE: Change Order Request (b) (6) – there was chain link fence in EPT added into the primary fence inventory last year that was originally built my my IBWC. This fence, however, however, is maintained and utilized operational operational by OBP. At least this is what sector told us, and the joint decision was made last year by OBP, and concurred by SBI, to bring it into the primary fence inventory. (b) (6) Business Manager, Operations SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (b) (6)

(b) (6)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, Sent:  Friday, January 18, 2008 10:49 AM To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: Subject:  RE: Change Order Request Request for J1 at the POE  All, This brings brings me to the question of who keeps adding adding chain link fence as primary primary fencing. It is not operational operat ional fencing. fencing. Before anyone anyone says the BP added that to the 370 miles needs to do research. research. For many of the reason reasons s listed below and other places….it places….it gets noted over and over… over…WE WE DO NOT OWN THAT FENCE…so FENCE…so Why Why do people keep tallying it as part of our fence totals? totals? What if the owner  decided decide d to take it down? down? What would would your totals totals be then? This has to be revisited revisited.. (b)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, Sent:  Friday, January 18, 2008 10:43 AM To: FLOSSMAN, To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W Cc: (b) (6)

Request for J1 at the POE Subject: FW: Subject:  FW: Change Order Request Loren  Attached is a change request for segment J1 to replace existing chain link pedestrian fencing associated associ ated with the Santa Teresa Teresa Port of Entry. The core members of the FEIT have reviewed the change request request and recomm recommend end that it be DENIED prima primarily rily for the following reasons. reasons.

The existing fence proposed to be replaced with PF225 fence is legacy fencing currently being counted towards the 370 mile goal. Replacing this fence would result in no additional miles relative to the 370 mile goal. The existing NEPA docum documents ents do not cover the replacement replacement of the fence. A suppl supplementa ementall environmental assessment would need to be prepared. The existing chain link fence is not the proper property ty of OBP/or OFAM and would require require the approval of GSA. Please let me know if you have any questions and how you would like to proceed. Thanks

(b)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, Sent:  Friday, January 11, 2008 6:19 AM To: (b) (6)

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

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

Subject: Change Subject:  Change Order Request 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 conveyed to the CBP that this is not an automatic approval, approval, but subject to the approval of Loren based upon their needs and availability of funding.

(b) (2) 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: To: Cc:

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

Subject: Date:

RE: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:24:23 PM

FLOSSMAN, LOREN(b

(b) Thanks for the info. Can we get a map and listing of OBP's baseline of both primary and vehicle fencing? fencing? Please advise. Thanks

(b)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, Sent:  Friday, January 18, 2008 3:22 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6)

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W

Subject: RE: Subject:  RE: Change Order Request Request for J1 at the POE (b) We checked with the GIS office on Wednes Wednesday day and the chain link fencing around around the Santa Teresa (STN) POE is not included in the OBP baseline baseline of primary fencing. fencing. The only fencing fencing in the STN area that we have included in the pedestrian fencing fencing baseline baseline is the BP-erected fencing in the Anapra Anapra,, NM area. (b) (6)  Assistant Chief  Office of Border Patrol Tactical Infrastructure Branch (b) (6)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, Sent:  Friday, January 18, 2008 11:06 AM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6)

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W

Subject: RE: Subject:  RE: Change Order Request Request for J1 at the POE (b) (6) There are 2 different chain link fence issues in EPT. The IBWC fence, installed by IBWC, paid for and aintained aintai ned by BP ( approx 14 miles) and then this fence near the Santa Teresa POE (1,900 feet) which was built by the county county and is not maintained by the BP. Maybe someone someone “assumed” “assumed” it was the same but that was a mistake. (b)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, Sent:  Friday, January 18, 2008 10:53 AM To:(  FLOSSMAN, LOREN W Cc ( b ) Request for J1 at the POE Subject: RE: Subject:  RE: Change Order Request (b)  – there was chain link fence in EPT added into the primary fence inventory last year that was originally built my my IBWC. This fence, however, however, is maintained and utilized operational operational by OBP. At least this is what sector told us, and the joint decision was made last year by OBP, and concurred by SBI, to bring it into the primary fence inventory. (b) (6) Business Manager, Operations SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (b) (6)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, Sent:  Friday, January 18, 2008 10:49 AM To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: Subject:  RE: Change Order Request Request for J1 at the POE  All, This brings brings me to the question of who keeps adding adding chain link fence as primary primary fencing. It is not operational operat ional fencing. fencing. Before anyone anyone says the BP added that to the 370 miles needs to do research. research. For many of the reason reasons s listed below and other places….it places….it gets noted over and over… over…WE WE DO NOT OWN THAT FENCE…so FENCE…so Why Why do people keep tallying it as part of our fence totals? totals? What if the owner  decided decide d to take it down? down? What would would your totals totals be then? This has to be revisited revisited.. (b)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, Sent:  Friday, January 18, 2008 10:43 AM To: FLOSSMAN, To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W Cc: (b) (6)

Request for J1 at the POE Subject: FW: Subject:  FW: Change Order Request Loren  Attached is a change request for segment J1 to replace existing chain link pedestrian fencing associated associ ated with the Santa Teresa Teresa Port of Entry. The core members of the FEIT have reviewed the change request request and recomm recommend end that it be DENIED prima primarily rily for the following reasons. reasons.

The existing fence proposed to be replaced with PF225 fence is legacy fencing currently being counted towards the 370 mile goal. Replacing this fence would result in no additional miles relative to the 370 mile goal. The existing NEPA docum documents ents do not cover the replacement replacement of the fence. A suppl supplementa ementall environmental assessment would need to be prepared. The existing chain link fence is not the proper property ty of OBP/or OFAM and would require require the approval of GSA. Please let me know if you have any questions and how you would like to proceed. Thanks

(b)

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

From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, Sent:  Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:20 PM To: (b) (6) Cc ( b ) Subject: Change Subject:  Change Order Request 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 conveyed to the CBP that this is not an automatic approval, approval, but subject to the approval of Loren based upon their needs and availability of funding.

(b) (2) 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: To: Cc: Subject: Date:

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) Re: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format Friday, January 18, 2008 3:36:17 PM

Still collecting. collecting. Will probably probably be Tuesday with with the Holiday. Have a couple couple more that I will will forward to you when I am back. ----- Original Message Message ---- (b) (6) From: To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Sent: Fri Jan 18 15:34:13 2008 2008 Subject: FW: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format Happy Friday Everyone! I was just following following up on the appropriati appropriations ons tasker to see if anyone anyone could start sending sending me their portion portion so that I can begin to compile. compile. Please let me know when you have a chance. Thanks!

(b) (6)

 ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 4:28 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: FW: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format Importance: High

This tasker has has been official assigned TI for action. Please provide response to SBIEXECSEC mailbox by 1/21/08. Thanks!!

 ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From: (b) (6) J Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 10:19 AM To: (b) (6) Subject: FW: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format Importance: High

(b) (6)

This is the tasking that that I wanted to speak with you about yesterda yesterday. y. A deadline deadline of 1/21 would work  great.

This tasking addresses requirement #13 in the section titled Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology in the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Appropriations Bill, as follows: follows:

(Please provide) (A)n analysis by the Secretary, for each segment, defined as no more than 15 miles, of  fencing or tactical infrastructure, of the selected approach compared to other, alternative means of  achieving operational control; such analysis should include cost, level of operational control, possible unintended unintended effects on communities, communities, and other factors critical to the decision-making decision-making process;

I’ve attached attached a copy of the Bill’s 15 requirement requirementss as well as the general provisions. provisions.

Thanks!

(b) (6)

Program Management Analyst CBP/SBI (b) (6)  ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, January January 07, 2008 6:54 PM (b) (6) To: 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 Please let us know if you think it needs further further tweaks. tweaks. This only includes includes primary fence right now, should should have a firmed firmed up laydown for vehicle vehicle fence tomorrow. tomorrow. Of the primary fence fence segments, only 1 is greater than 15 miles in length – will need advice on how to break that down, possibly 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 release our FY 08 funding to us. Requirement 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 effects on communities, and other factors factors critical to the decision-making process;” process;” (b) (6)

 – do you by chance have an electronic copy of the appropriations requirements?) requirements? )

In the meeting, we came to the conclusion conclusion that it made the most sense to respond respond by following following the framework framework of the “4 factors” factors” of the fence decision-making process, process, consistent with the external messaging developed by (b) team and being used in our public meetings: (b) (6) · – we will need input from OBP on operational operational requirements requirements analysis analysis for each segment; segment; I will call you tomorrow to explain explain if you’re in the office. (b) · the response. response. ·

& his team are going to handle the stakeholder stakeholder input factor factor & the introduction introduction for

(b) (6)

& his team are going to look at the environmental factors/assessments.

(b) is going to provide · provide a couple paragraphs paragraphs on engineering engineering criteria criteria (b) , this could possible possible be used or boiled down for the intro), and then we’ll need to decide how best to respond on a segment-by-segment segment-by-segment basis for that factor. factor.

I believe believe (b) (6) is going to be sending sending out an official official tasker. tasker. We agreed 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)

From: To:

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

Cc: Subject: Date:

GIDDENS, GREGOR  ( ;  ADAMS, ROWDY ( ; (b) RE: Requests Sunday, September 09, 2007 9:39:55 PM

FLOSSMAN, LOREN ( ; (b)

(6)

(6)

The deciusions deciusions may not be completely completely final but they are the working decisions decisions at this time. No getting getting around it. They also have a basis in need, operations operations requirements requirements,, and risk. -----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, September September 07, 2007 4:10 PM ( b ) ( 6 ) To: FLOSSMAN, FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GIDDENS, GREGORY; GREGORY; ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6) Subject: Re: Requests  (b)(5),(b)(6)

----- Original Message Message ---- (b) (6) From: To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 15:31:35 2007 2007 Subject: RE: Requests My comments are regarding the approach approach in general, general, and not specific specific to the language language in the document:

(b ) (5 )

(b) (5)

(b) (6) Office of Congressional Affairs U.S. Customs and Border Protection (b) (6)  ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, Thursday, September September 06, 2007 7:45 PM To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GIDDENS, GREGORY; 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, m aps, (2) notify Congress of our intent intent to seek RoE for C, and (3) provide landowners landowners with the DOT brochure that addresses condemnation and relocation.

Please review review and comment on the text by 4:00 pm EST tomorrow. tomorrow. The revised version 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: To: Cc:

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

Subject: Date:

Re: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:26:08 PM

Than Thanks ks(b) (b)

Flossman, Loren (

That That is is ext extre reme mely ly help helpfful to know now for for this this issu issue e.

----- Original Message Message ---- From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN W (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Tue Jan 22 22:24:02 2008 Subject: Subject: RE: Change Change Order Request Request for J1 at the POE (b) Thanks for the info. Can we get a map and listing of OBP's baseline of both primary and vehicle fencing? Please advise. Thanks (b)

 ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 3:22 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6)

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W

Subject: Subject: RE: Change Change Order Request Request for J1 at the POE

(b) We checked with the GIS office on Wednesday and the chain link fencing around around the Santa Teresa (STN) POE is not included included in the OBP baseline of primary fencing. fencing. The only fencing fencing in the STN area that we have included in the pedestrian fencing baseline is the BP-erected fencing in the Anapra, NM area.

(b) (6)  Assistant Chief  Office of Border Patrol Tactical Infrastructure Branch (b) (6)

 ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, January January 18, 2008 11:06 AM (b) (6) To: Cc:(b) (6)

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W

Subject: Subject: RE: Change Change Order Request Request for J1 at the POE

(b) (6) There are 2 different chain chain link fence issues in EPT. The IBWC fence, installed installed by IBWC, paid paid for and aintained aintained by BP ( approx approx 14 miles) and then this fence near the Santa Teresa POE (1,900 feet) which was built by the county and is not maintained by the BP. Maybe Maybe someone “assumed” “assumed” it was the same but that was a mistake. (b)

 ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, January January 18, 2008 10:53 AM To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W (b) (6) Cc:

Subject: Subject: RE: Change Change Order Request Request for J1 at the POE

(b)  – there was chain link li nk fence in EPT E PT added into the primary prim ary fence inventory last year that was originally originally built my IBWC. This fence, fence, however, is maintained maintained and utilized utilized operational operational by OBP. At least this is what sector told us, and the joint decision was made last year year by OBP, and concurred by SBI, to bring it into the primary fence inventory.

(b) (6)

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

 ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, January January 18, 2008 10:49 AM To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W (b) (6) Cc:

Subject: Subject: RE: Change Change Order Request Request for J1 at the POE

 All, This brings me to the question of who keeps adding chain link fence fence as primary primary fencing. It is not operational operational fencing. fencing. Before anyone anyone says the the BP added that to the 370 miles needs needs to do research. research. For many of the reasons listed below and other places….it gets noted over and over…WE over…WE DO NOT OWN THAT FENCE…so FENCE…so Why do people keep tallying tallying it as part of our fence totals? What if the owner decided to take it down? What would your your totals totals be then? This has has to be be revisited. revisited. (b)

 ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, January January 18, 2008 10:43 AM To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W Cc: (b) (6)

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

Loren

 Attached is a change request for segment J1 to replace existing chain link pedestrian fencing associated with the Santa Teresa Teresa Port of Entry. The The core members of the FEIT have reviewed the change request and recommend that it be DENIED primarily for the following reasons.

* The existing existing fence proposed proposed to be replaced replaced with PF225 PF225 fence is legacy legacy fencing fencing currently currently being counted counted towards the 370 mile goal. Replacing Replacing this fence would result in no additional additional miles relative to the 370 mile goal. * The existing existing NEPA documents documents do not not cover the replacement replacement of the the fence. fence. A supplemental supplemental environmenta environmentall assessment assessment would need to be prepared. prepared. * The existing existing chain link fence is not the propert property y of OBP/or OBP/or OFAM OFAM and would would require require the approval approval of GSA.

Please let me know if you have any questions questions and how you would like to proceed.

Thanks

(b)

 ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, January January 11, 2008 6:19 AM To (b) (6) Subject: 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: Subject: Change Order Request 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 Project regarding the existin existing g chain link fence that the CBP would like removed removed and replaced to meet their operational operational needs. I have conveyed to the CBP that this is not an automatic automatic approval, approval, but subject to the approval approval of Loren based upon their needs and availability of funding. (b) (2) Please advise ASAP for me to proceed accordingly. Thanks, (b )

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

From: To: Subject: Date:

(b) (6) (b) (6) RE: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format Friday, January 18, 2008 3:48:39 PM

Ok - thanks! (b) (6)

-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 3:36 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: Re: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format Still collecting. collecting. Will probably probably be Tuesday with with the Holiday. Have a couple couple more that I will will forward to you when I am back. ----- Original Message Message ---- (b) (6) From: To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Sent: Fri Jan 18 15:34:13 2008 2008 Subject: FW: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format Happy Friday Everyone! I was just following following up on the appropriati appropriations ons tasker to see if anyone anyone could start sending sending me their portion portion so that I can begin to compile. compile. Please let me know when you have a chance. Thanks!

(b) (6)

 ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 4:28 PM To: Oxendine, Jacqueline M (CTR) Subject: FW: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format Importance: High

This tasker has has been official assigned TI for action. Please provide response to SBIEXECSEC mailbox by 1/21/08. Thanks!!

 ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From: (b) (6) Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 10:19 AM To: (b) (6) Subject: FW: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format Importance: High

(b) (6)

This is the tasking that that I wanted to speak with you about yesterda yesterday. y. A deadline deadline of 1/21 would work  great.

This tasking addresses requirement #13 in the section titled Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology in the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Appropriations Bill, as follows: follows:

(Please provide) (A)n analysis by the Secretary, for each segment, defined as no more than 15 miles, of  fencing or tactical infrastructure, of the selected approach compared to other, alternative means of  achieving operational control; such analysis should include cost, level of operational control, possible unintended unintended effects on communities, communities, and other factors critical to the decision-making decision-making process;

I’ve attached attached a copy of the Bill’s 15 requirement requirementss as well as the general provisions. provisions.

Thanks!

(b) (6)

Program Management Analyst CBP/SBI (b) (6)  ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, January January 07, 2008 6:54 PM (b) (6) To: 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 Please let us know if you think it needs further further tweaks. tweaks. This only includes includes primary fence right now, should should have a firmed firmed up laydown for vehicle vehicle fence tomorrow. tomorrow. Of the primary fence fence segments, only 1 is greater than 15 miles in length – will need advice on how to break that down, possibly 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 release our FY 08 funding to us. Requirement 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 effects on communities, and other factors factors critical to the decision-making process;” process;” (b) (6)

 – do you by chance have an electronic copy of the appropriations requirements?) requirements? )

In the meeting, we came to the conclusion conclusion that it made the most sense to respond respond by following following the framework framework of the “4 factors” factors” of the fence decision-making process, process, consistent with the external mess me ssag agin ing g dev devel elop oped ed by(b) (6) team team and and bei being ng used used in in our our publ public ic me meet etin ings gs:: (b) (6) · – we will need input from OBP on operational operational requirements requirements analysis analysis for each segment; segment; I will call you tomorrow to explain explain if you’re in the office. (b) · the response. response. ·

& his team are going to handle the stakeholder stakeholder input factor factor & the introduction introduction for

(b) (6)

& his team are going to look at the environmental factors/assessments.

(b) · s going to provide provide a couple paragraphs paragraphs on engineering engineering criteria criteria (b) , this could possible possible be used or boiled down for the intro), and then we’ll need to decide how best to respond on a segment-by-segment segment-by-segment basis for that factor. factor.

I believe believe (b) (6) is going to be sending sending out an official official tasker. tasker. We agreed 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)

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date:

(b) (6) Flossman, Loren(b)

(b) (6)

(b) (6) Re: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:27:47 AM

I will be at the funeral funeral but (b) (b)

will be here. We should have answers answers for the K-2b by then. Thanks. Thanks.

----- Original Message Message ---- From: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W(b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent: Wed Jan 23 01:52:57 2008 Subject: Subject: Re: Change Order Request Request for J1 at the POE (b)

cna we address the change orders on monday? I would like to resolve then loren loren

----- Original Message Message ---- From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Flossman, Flossman, Loren W (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Tue Jan 22 22:26:06 2008 Subject: Subject: Re: Change Order Request Request for J1 at the POE Than Thanks ks(b) (b)

That That is is ext extre reme mely ly help helpfful to know now for for this this issu issue e.

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

> FLOSSMAN, LOREN W

v>

Sent: Tue Jan 22 22:24:02 2008 Subject: Subject: RE: Change Change Order Request Request for J1 at the POE (b) Thanks for the info. Can we get a map and listing of OBP's baseline of both primary and vehicle fencing? Please advise.

Thanks (b)

 ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 3:22 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6)

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W

Subject: Subject: RE: Change Change Order Request Request for J1 at the POE

(b) We checked with the GIS office on Wednesday and the chain link fencing around around the Santa Teresa (STN) POE is not included included in the OBP baseline of primary fencing. fencing. The only fencing fencing in the STN area that we have included in the pedestrian fencing baseline is the BP-erected fencing in the Anapra, NM area.

(b) (6)  Assistant Chief  Office of Border Patrol Tactical Infrastructure Branch ((b) (6)

 ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, January January 18, 2008 11:06 AM (b) (6) To: Cc: (b) (6)

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W

Subject: Subject: RE: Change Change Order Request Request for J1 at the POE

(b) (6) There are 2 different chain chain link fence issues in EPT. The IBWC fence, installed installed by IBWC, paid paid for and aintained aintained by BP ( approx approx 14 miles) and then this fence near the Santa Teresa POE (1,900 feet) which was built by the county and is not maintained by the BP. Maybe Maybe someone “assumed” “assumed” it was the same

but that was a mistake. (b)

 ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From:(b) (6) Sent: Friday, Sent:  Friday, January 18, 2008 10:53 AM To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Subject: RE: Change Change Order Request Request for J1 at the POE

(b)  – there was chain link li nk fence in EPT E PT added into the primary prim ary fence inventory last year that was originally originally built my IBWC. This fence, fence, however, is maintained maintained and utilized utilized operational operational by OBP. At least this is what sector told us, and the joint decision was made last year year by OBP, and concurred by SBI, to bring it into the primary fence inventory.

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

 ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, January January 18, 2008 10:49 AM (b) (6) To: ; FLOSSMAN, FLOSSMAN, LOREN W Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Subject: RE: Change Change Order Request Request for J1 at the POE

 All, This brings me to the question of who keeps adding chain link fence fence as primary primary fencing. It is not operational operational fencing. fencing. Before anyone anyone says the the BP added that to the 370 miles needs needs to do research. research. For many of the reasons listed below and other places….it gets noted over and over…WE over…WE DO NOT OWN THAT FENCE…so FENCE…so Why do people keep tallying tallying it as part of our fence totals? What if the owner decided to take it down? What would your your totals totals be then? This has has to be be revisited. revisited. (b)

 ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From:(b) (6) Sent: Friday, January January 18, 2008 10:43 AM To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W Cc: (b) (6)

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

Loren

 Attached is a change request for segment J1 to replace existing chain link pedestrian fencing associated with the Santa Teresa Teresa Port of Entry. The The core members of the FEIT have reviewed the change request and recommend that it be DENIED primarily for the following reasons.

* The existing existing fence proposed proposed to be replaced replaced with PF225 PF225 fence is legacy legacy fencing fencing currently currently being counted counted towards the 370 mile goal. Replacing Replacing this fence would result in no additional additional miles relative to the 370 mile goal. * The existing existing NEPA documents documents do not not cover the replacement replacement of the the fence. fence. A supplemental supplemental environmenta environmentall assessment assessment would need to be prepared. prepared. * The existing existing chain link fence is not the propert property y of OBP/or OBP/or OFAM OFAM and would require require the approval approval of GSA.

Please let me know if you have any questions questions and how you would like to proceed.

Thanks

(b)

 ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, January January 11, 2008 6:19 AM To: (b) (6) Subject: 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: Subject: Change Order Request 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 Project regarding the existin existing g chain link fence that the CBP would like removed removed and replaced to meet their operational operational needs. I have conveyed to the CBP that this is not an automatic automatic approval, approval, but subject to the approval approval of Loren based upon their needs and availability of funding. (b) (2) 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: To: Cc:

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

Subject: Date:

RE: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:21:13 AM

FLOSSMAN, LOREN (

(b) 10-4, we can coordinate coordinate that through through the OBP GIS office. I’ll need to get the details of what information you would like displayed on these maps. I’m currently working working with the GIS shop to ensure that we can identify any overlaps in our baseline baseline and planned planne d PF-225 and VF-300 fenci fencing. ng. As I make progre progress ss on this, I’ll keep(b) up to speed on any possible conflicts. Thanks, (b)

(b) (6)  Assistant Chief  Office of Border Patrol Tactical Infrastructure Branch (b) (6)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Tuesday, Sent:  Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:24 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6)

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W

Subject: RE: Subject:  RE: Change Order Request Request for J1 at the POE (b) Thanks for the info. Can we get a map and listing of OBP's baseline of both primary and vehicle fencing? fencing? Please advise. Thanks

(b)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, Sent:  Friday, January 18, 2008 3:22 PM (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6)

Request for J1 at the POE Subject: RE: Subject:  RE: Change Order Request

]  FLOSSMAN, LOREN W

(b) We checked with the GIS office on Wednes Wednesday day and the chain link fencing around around the Santa Teresa (STN) POE is not included in the OBP baseline baseline of primary fencing. fencing. The only fencing fencing in the STN area that we have included in the pedestrian fencing fencing baseline baseline is the BP-erected fencing in the Anapra Anapra,, NM area. (b) (6)  Assistant Chief  Office of Border Patrol Tactical Infrastructure Branch (b) (6)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, Sent:  Friday, January 18, 2008 11:06 AM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6)

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W

Subject: RE: Subject:  RE: Change Order Request Request for J1 at the POE (b) (6) There are 2 different chain link fence issues in EPT. The IBWC fence, installed by IBWC, paid for and aintained aintai ned by BP ( approx 14 miles) and then this fence near the Santa Teresa POE (1,900 feet) which was built by the county county and is not maintained by the BP. Maybe someone someone “assumed” “assumed” it was the same but that was a mistake. (b)

From:( b Sent: Friday, Sent:  Friday, January 18, 2008 10:53 AM (b) (6) To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W Cc: (b) (6)

Request for J1 at the POE Subject: RE: Subject:  RE: Change Order Request (b)  – there was chain link fence in EPT added into the primary fence inventory last year that was originally built my my IBWC. This fence, however, however, is maintained and utilized operational operational by OBP. At least this is what sector told us, and the joint decision was made last year by OBP, and concurred by SBI, to bring it into the primary fence inventory. (b) (6) Business Manager, Operations SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300) U.S. Customs and Border Protection Desk: 202-344-1594 Blackb Blackberry: erry: 202-320-7995 (b) (6)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, Sent:  Friday, January 18, 2008 10:49 AM To:( ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN W (b) (6) b Cc:

]

(b) (6) Request for J1 at the POE Subject: RE: Subject:  RE: Change Order Request  All, This brings brings me to the question of who keeps adding adding chain link fence as primary primary fencing. It is not operational operat ional fencing. fencing. Before anyone anyone says the BP added that to the 370 miles needs to do research. research. For many of the reason reasons s listed below and other places….it places….it gets noted over and over… over…WE WE DO NOT OWN THAT FENCE…so FENCE…so Why Why do people keep tallying it as part of our fence totals? totals? What if the owner  decided decide d to take it down? down? What would would your totals totals be then? This has to be revisited revisited.. (b)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, Sent:  Friday, January 18, 2008 10:43 AM To: FLOSSMAN, To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W Cc:( b ) ( Subject: FW: Subject:  FW: Change Order Request Request for J1 at the POE Loren  Attached is a change request for segment J1 to replace existing chain link pedestrian fencing associated associ ated with the Santa Teresa Teresa Port of Entry. The core members of the FEIT have reviewed the change request request and recomm recommend end that it be DENIED prima primarily rily for the following reasons. reasons.

The existing fence proposed to be replaced with PF225 fence is legacy fencing currently being counted towards the 370 mile goal. Replacing this fence would result in no additional miles relative to the 370 mile goal. The existing NEPA docum documents ents do not cover the replacement replacement of the fence. A suppl supplementa ementall environmental assessment would need to be prepared. The existing chain link fence is not the proper property ty of OBP/or OFAM and would require require the approval of GSA. Please let me know if you have any questions and how you would like to proceed. Thanks

(b)

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

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

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Change Subject:  Change Order Request 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 conveyed to the CBP that this is not an automatic approval, approval, but subject to the approval of Loren based upon their needs and availability of funding.

(b) (2) 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: To: Cc:

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

Subject: Date:

RE: El Paso Sector- Upcoming Community Meetings Monday, July 02, 2007 5:43:24 PM

 All, The Fort Hancock community meeting for July 10, 2007, has been cancelled due to the Texas Mobile Scoping meeting on on July 11, 2007. It will be rescheduled rescheduled for a later  date. Thanks, (b) (6)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, Sent:  Friday, June 29, 2007 11:19 AM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: El Subject:  El Paso Sector- Upcoming Community Meetings

 All, The El El Paso Sector Sector has sc heduled two c ommunity mee meetings tings in t he area area of th e Texas Te xas Mobile Project. Project. The first meeting is scheduled to be held at at the Fort Hancock Ha ncock High School, 10 100 0 School Drive, Fort Ha Hancock ncock , Texas Texas 79839 79839 on July 10, 200 2007, 7, at at 7:00 p.m. This meeting will be in t he Texas Texas 23 rd  congressional distri ct- Congressman Ciro Rodriguez.

The second meeting is tentatively tentatively scheduled to be held at the Fabens Community Center, 201 Camp St Street, reet, Fabens, Texas 79838 79838 on July July 26, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. This meeting is in the 16 th congressional district- Congressman Congressman Sylvestre Reyes. Both meetings are community meetings that have been set- up by the respective respective stations to address any local local border patrol issues. We will use this oppo opportunity rtunity to disseminate disseminate information in regards to SBInet projects (PF-225, Texas Mobile, El Paso Sector SBInet). We will solicit attendance by using printed flyers flyers and word of  mouth.

Take Care, (b) (6)

Special Operations Supervisor  Supervisor  El Paso Sector  8901 Montana Avenue El Paso, Texas 79925 79925 (b) (6)

From: To:

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

Subject: Date:

Re: A-1 Friday, November 09, 2007 2:26:10 PM

One One smal smalll ste step p for for(b)

and and one one gian giantt lea leap p for for San San Dieg Diego o Sec Secto tor. r... ....

----- Original Message Message --- -From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent: Fri Nov 09 14:24:39 2007 Subject: Subject: Re: A-1 10-4 -----Original Message----From:(b) (6) To (b) (6) Sent: Fri Nov 09 13:22:43 2007 Subject: Subject: Re: A-1  Apperantly it had something to do with adjusting the alignment to minimize the earth work quantities. -----Original Message----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) To: (b) (6)

>

Sent: 11/9/2007 11/9/2007 2:13:47 PM Subject: Subject: Re: A-1 (b)

Is the estimated estimated cost $48M??? ? Seems a lot lower than abticpated... -----Original Message----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent: Fri Nov 09 13:10:01 2007 Subject: Subject: Re: A-1 (b) (6)

This schedule is considered very aggressive. Coupled with the limited access and rough terrain there are substantial schedule risks associated with this project. Design must begin on or around December 1, 2007. Mobilization on both proposed spreads should begin on or around January 1, 2008. Construction can be phased so the fence is complete by December 1, 2008, with

final road and site cleanup and stabilization continuing into 2009. I know this schedule overlaps with the EA schedule. Estimated cost: $48 million. Full report will be sent electronically today. Please send me the distribution list for hard copy. (b)

 - feel free to give me a call if you have any questions.

Thank you, (b) (6) Engineering Manager (b) (6) 2929 North Central Ave Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85012

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

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

11/9/2007 11/9/2007 9:14 AM >>>

Please Please shoot back an e-mail with with a projected projected cost and schedule. OBP has a meeting today and needs that info. Thanks. (b)

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Importance:

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

FLOSSMAN, LOREN ( ; (b)

(6)

RE: Appropriations Q#13 Monday, February 04, 2008 3:08:54 PM High

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

(b) as requested, I highlighted highlighted in yellow several sections that appeared duplicative. I would 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. ( - I know the termin terminology ology for “primary pedestria pedestrian n fence” has changed, changed, at least in the fence tool box; I bwasn’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, Sent: Friday, February 01, February  01, 2008 10:15 AM To: (b) (6) R) ( Cc:  FLOSSMAN, LOREN W b Subject: RE: 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 (b)

(2)

or contact us at (b)

(2)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 10:10 AM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W Subject: Appropriations Subject: Appropriations Q#13 (b)  – Loren has requested a copy of the document that you are compiling for the response to 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 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) (b) (6)

From: To: Subject: Date:

Re: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE Monday, January 14, 2008 7:39:40 AM

I'm sure some people would like to count any and all fence. I can forward forward (b)

he Chief's weekly snapshot snapshot report which the Deputy Deputy should have access to.

----- Original Message Message ---- From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent: Mon Jan 14 07:36:37 2008 2008 Subject: Subject: FW: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE FYI. It appears that this segment segment wasn’t communicated communicated properly properly early on and will have to be added. added.

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

- Did we ever find out if the chain link was being counted as as existing primary primary fence? fence? Also, is looking for some updated updated fencing fencing miles for a Deputy Brief, can you guys hook up with him ?

(b)

 ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From: (b) (6) Sent: Sunday, January January 13, 2008 9:19 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: Flossman, Loren W;(b) (6) Subject: 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 related to your area of expertise expertise (e.g. (e.g. (b) (6) -is this covered covered by the existing existing FONSI?) One BIG question I have is whether or not the existing fencing proposed to be replaced is currently being count unted towards ou our 370 mile ile go goal-(b) (6) can yo you plea lease ad advise ise th the gr group as to to yo your understanding. Please provide me your feedback by COB Tuesday. Would like to provide Loren a recommendation on Wednesday.

Thanks all

(b)

 ________________________________   _______________________ _________  From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, January Friday, January 11, 2008 6:19 AM To: (b) (6) Subject: 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: Subject: Change Order Request 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 Project regarding the existin existing g chain link fence that the CBP would like removed removed and replaced to meet their operational operational needs. I have conveyed to the CBP that this is not an automatic automatic approval, approval, but subject to the approval approval of Loren based upon their needs and availability of funding. (b) (2) 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: To: Subject: Date:

SELF, JEFFREY (

(b) (6) RE: Condemnation for Eagle Pass Tuesday, January 08, 2008 6:40:49 AM

Get with me on this. Jeff 

From: (b) (6) Sent: Tuesday, Sent:  Tuesday, January 08, 2008 6:05 AM To: Self, To: Self, Jeffrey D Cc: (b) (6) Subject: Condemnation Subject:  Condemnation for Eagle Pass

Jeff, (b) (6)  called and told me that their U.S. Attorney Attorney asked the Del Rio Sector to serve the condemnation condemnation paperwo paperwork rk to the City of Eagle Pass. I told him that Chief absolutely did not want tha BP face on the condemnation condemnation side of the PF225 project. project. I asked him to tell the U.S. Attorney's Attorney's Office to deliver in normal legal correspondence methods. Just a heads up. (b)

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date:

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

FLOSSMAN, LOREN ( ; (b) (6) RE: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:59:48 PM

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

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

From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, Sent:  Monday, January 07, 2008 6:54 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: FLOSSMAN, Cc:  FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6) Subject: Congressional Subject:  Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format Importance: High 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 should have a firmed firmed up laydown for vehicle fence fence tomorrow. tomorrow. Of the primary fence fence segments, segments, only 1 is greater greater than 15 miles in length – will need advice advice on how to break that down, possibly 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 funding to us. Requirement 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;”  process;” (b) (6)  – do you by chance have an electronic copy of the appropriations requirements? ) In the meeting, meeting, we came to the conclusion that it made the most sense to respond by following 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; segment; I will call you tomorrow to explain if you’re in the office. (b) & his team are going to handle the stakeholder stakeholder input factor & the introductio introduction n for  the 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 possible possible be used or boiled down for the intro), and then we’ll need to decide decide how best to respond respond on a segment-by-segment segment-by-segment basis for that factor. factor.

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

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

Primary Fence Segment Segment Analys is Map Pr o j ec t ID Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r

St at e

Se c t o r

St at i o n

L o c at i o n

Ho r i zo n t al L en g t h (m i )

CA

SDC

BRF

Pack Truck Trail Trail

3.58

CA

SDC

ECJ

Ceti's Hill

0.57

CA

SDC

ECJ

W. Horseshoe Canyon

0.89

CA

SDC

ECJ

East Bell Valley Valley

0.12

CA

SDC

ECJ

Ag Loop

1.02

CA

SDC

CAO

Soutwest Rim of Smith Canyon

0.17

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering  A-2

CA

SDC

CAO

Rattlesnake Ridge to Larry Pierce Road

1.06

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering  A-2

CA

SDC

CAO

West edge of Boundary Boundary Peak

0.09

 A-1 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering  A-2 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering  A-2 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering  A-2 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering  A-2 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering  A-2

Border Patrol Assessment

Primary Fence Segment Segment Analys is Map Pr o j ec t ID      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment

Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering  A-2 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering  A-2 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering  A-2 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering  A-2 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering B-2 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering B-4 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering B-5A Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering B-5B

St at e

Se c t o r

St at i o n

L o c at i o n

Ho r i zo n t al L en g t h (m i )

CA

SDC

BLV

Willows Access #1

1.63

CA

SDC

BLV

Willows Access #2

2.01

CA

SDC

BLV

Airport Mesa

0.05

CA

SDC

BLV

O'Neil Valley

1.47

CA

ELC

ELS

Mon 224 to ELS West Checks

2.36

CA

ELC

CAX

CAX East Checks

8.59

CA

ELC

CAX

19.16

CA

ELC

CAX

2.85

Primary Fence Segment Segment Analys is Map Pr o j ec t ID      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment

     r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment

St at e

Se c t o r

St at i o n

L o c at i o n

Ho r i zo n t al L en g t h (m i )

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering C-1

CA

YUM

CAX/YUS

Andrade POE: Imperial sand dunes to CA-AZ line

10.28

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering C-2B

AZ

YUM

YUS

From end of PF70 project to County 18

3.70

AZ

TCA

AJO

AJO 2mi east of POE

3.10

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering D-2 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering D-2 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering D-5A

AZ

TCA

AJO

AJO 2mi west of POE

2.10

AZ

TCA

NGL

1mi W to 3mi W of Mariposa POE

2.00

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering D-5B

AZ

TCA

NGL

NGL 1mi E to 6mi E of POE

5.16

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering D-6

AZ

TCA

NGL

E Deconcini POE

2.23

Primary Fence Segment Segment Analys is Map Pr o j ec t ID      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment

     r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

St at e

Se c t o r

St at i o n

L o c at i o n

Ho r i zo n t al L en g t h (m i )

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering E-2A

AZ

TCA

NCO

NCO 17.75mi W to San Pedro River 

6.44

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering E-2B

AZ

TCA

NCO

Monument 97 to 4.75mi W of POE

6.94

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering E-3

AZ

TCA

NCO

NCO 3.4mi E to 12.4mi E of POE

5.07

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering F-1

AZ

TCA

NCO

From existing fence to Kings Ranch

0.97

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering H-2A

NM

EPT

DNM

17 miles West of COL POE beginning 3 miles West of COL POE

14.11

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering I-1A

NM

EPT

DNM

DNM 1.5mi E to 3mi E of POE

2.56

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental

Primary Fence Segment Segment Analys is Map Pr o j ec t ID

St at e

Se c t o r

St at i o n

L o c at i o n

Ho r i zo n t al L en g t h (m i )

NM

EPT

DNM/STN

3mi E of POE to Luna County Line

9.89

NM

EPT

STN

STN 1mi W of POE

1.15

NM

EPT

STN

STN 1mi E of POE

1.15

NM

EPT

STN

West side of blackie’s gate to west side of the cattlepens

3.49

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering J-3

NM

EPT

STN

STN Blackie's Gate to W end Sunland

1.08

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-1

TX

EPT

EPS

EPS Pumphouse to end of fence at Roadside Park

1.07

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-1

TX

EPT

EPS

EPS End of fence at Roadside Park to Headgates

0.65

Engineering Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment

     r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment

     r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment

I-1B Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering J-1 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering J-1 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering J2

Primary Fence Segment Segment Analys is Map Pr o j ec t ID      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

St at e

Se c t o r

St at i o n

L o c at i o n

Ho r i zo n t al L en g t h (m i )

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-1

TX

EPT

EPS

EPS Headgates to West RR bridge

1.26

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-2A

TX

EPT

YST

1mi E of US 54 to Socorro Headgates

9.60

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-2B&C

TX

EPT

YST

Socorro Headgates to 1 mi W of FAB POE

19.42

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-3

TX

EPT

FBN

FAB 1mi W to 3mi E of POE

9.03

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-4

TX

EPT

FBN

3 mi E of Fabens to 1.5mi W of Fort Hancock

13.48

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-5

TX

EPT

FHT

FHT 1.5mi W to 1.5mi E of POE

5.21

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering

Primary Fence Segment Segment Analys is Map Pr o j ec t ID Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment

     r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

St at e

Se c t o r

St at i o n

L o c at i o n

Ho r i zo n t al L en g t h (m i )

L-1 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering L-1A

TX

MAR

SBT

Neely's Crossing

4.63

TX

MAR

PRS

Presidio POE to 3.2mi E of POE

3.28

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering L-1B

TX

MAR

PRS

Presidio POE to 3.2mi W of POE

2.87

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering M-1

TX

DRT

DRS

DRS San Felipe & Rio Grande to Cienegas Creek & Rio Grande

2.36

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering M-2A

TX

DRT

EGT

EGT 2.3mi upstream to 1mi No of POE

0.75

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering M-2B

TX

DRT

EGT

EGT POE to North of POE

1.06

TX

RGV

RGC

Near Roma POE

3.76

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-1 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental

Primary Fence Segment Segment Analys is Map Pr o j ec t ID

St at e

Se c t o r

St at i o n

L o c at i o n

Ho r i zo n t al L en g t h (m i )

TX

RGV

RGC

Near RGC POE

8.75

TX

RGV

MCS

Los Ebanos POE

1.85

TX

RGV

MCS

From Penitas to Abram

4.35

TX

RGV

MCS

Future Anzalduas POE

1.73

TX

RGV

MCS

Hidalgo POE

3.86

TX

RGV

MER

Proposed Donna POE

0.90

TX

RGV

MER

Retamal Dam

3.24

TX

RGV

MER

Progresso POE

3.86

Engineering Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

O-2 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-3 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-4 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-5 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-6 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-7 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-8 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-9 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental

Primary Fence Segment Segment Analys is Map Pr o j ec t ID

St at e

Se c t o r

St at i o n

L o c at i o n

Ho r i zo n t al L en g t h (m i )

TX

RGV

MER

Progresso POE

2.33

TX

RGV

HRL

Joe's Bar-Nemo Road

2.33

TX

RGV

HRL

Weaver's Mountain

0.96

TX

RGV

HRL

W Los Indios POE

1.59

TX

RGV

HRL

E Los Indios POE

3.59

TX

RGV

HRL

Triangle - La Paloma

1.93

TX

RGV

HRL

Ho Chi Minh - Estero

2.45

TX

RGV

BRP

Proposed Carmen Road Feight Train Bridge

1.63

Engineering Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t

O-10 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-11 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-12 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-13 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-14 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-15 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-16 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-17 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input

Primary Fence Segment Segment Analys is Map Pr o j ec t ID      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

Segment      r      o        t      c      a        F

St at e

Se c t o r

St at i o n

L o c at i o n

Ho r i zo n t al L en g t h (m i )

Environmental Engineering O-18

TX

RGV

BRP

Proposed Flor De Mayo POE to Garden Park

3.58

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-19

TX

RGV

BRP

B&M POE to Los Tomates

3.37

TX

RGV

BRP

Tomates Y

0.91

TX

RGV

FT B

International POE to Sea Shell Inn

12.98

Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-20 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-21 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering

PAGAN, DAVID G(

From: To:

(b) (6)

Subject: Date:

RE: Draft EA Handouts Thursday, January 03, 2008 6:18:35 PM

Based on the information information I saw this morning, morning, I identified identified the following following counties: Marfa Sector Presidio County, Hudspeth County Del Rio Sector Maverick Maverick County, Val Verde County

Please let me know if that is not correct. 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) G.; (b) (6)

PAGAN, PAGAN, DAVID

Subject: Subject: Draft EA Handouts 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 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 counties these include. include.

Looking Looking for your input as soon as possible. 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 < http://www.cbp.gov/sbi> > or contact contact us us at [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >.

DRAFT

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DEL RIO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT  AVAIL  A VAIL A BL E FOR PUBL IC 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, a nd 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 identified in this Draft EA. However, CBP is required to evaluate all all lands that have the potential to meet the purpose and need of the proposed action. Although the Secretary of the Department De partment of Homeland Security may, in the interest of national security, waive certain environmental laws, DHS and CBP are committed to making every e very 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 p articipation 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 [email protected]. (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 T aylor 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 through the following: (a) Via the Internet at www.BorderFenceNEPA.com and https://ecso.swf.usace.army.mil/Pages/Publicreview.cfm (b) By emailing [email protected] (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., Ro om 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) 7732516 - 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 ENVIRONM ENVIRONMENTAL ENTAL ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT  AVAIL  A VAIL A BL E FOR PUBL IC 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, a nd 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, 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 identified in this Draft EA. However, CBP is required to evaluate all all lands that have the potential to meet the purpose and need of the proposed action. Although the Secretary of the Department De partment of Homeland Security may, in the interest of national security, waive certain environmental laws, DHS and CBP are committed to making every e very 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 p articipation 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 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 [email protected]. (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. 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 T aylor 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 through the following: (a) Via the Internet at www.BorderFenceNEPA.com and https://ecso.swf.usace.army.mil/Pages/Publicreview.cfm (b) By emailing [email protected] (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., Ro om 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, Presidio, Texas 79845, (432) 2293317 - 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  AVAIL  A VAIL A BL E FOR PUBL IC 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, a nd 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 identified in this Draft EA. However, CBP is required to evaluate all all lands that have the potential to meet the purpose and need of the proposed action. Although the Secretary of the Department De partment of Homeland Security may, in the interest of national security, waive certain environmental laws, DHS and CBP are committed to making every e very 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 p articipation 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, Inn, 1251 Tavern Road, Road, Alpine, Alpine, California 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 California 91901. (b) Electronically through the Web site at www.BorderFenceNEPA.com. (c) By email to [email protected]. (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 T aylor 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 through the following: (a) Via the Internet at www.BorderFenceNEPA.com and https://ecso.swf.usace.army.mil/Pages/Publicreview.cfm (b) By emailing [email protected] (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., Ro om 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: To: Subject: Date:

(b) (6) (b) (6) Re: DRAFT schedule Monday, July 23, 2007 6:37:30 PM

Hey! Thanks for contradicting my "not impossible" with an "impossible". You Californians, always with the one upmanship! Good response though. ----- Original Message Message ---- (b) (6) From: To: ADAMS, ROWDY D; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6) Sent: Mon Jul 23 18:13:39 2007 2007 Subject: Subject: Fw: DRAFT schedule schedule The K1 Project is the Texas project that is closest closest to a construction construction date. That being said, it will be impossible impossible to begin before the end of the FY due to all the necessary contractual contractual procedure procedures. s. The best case scenario 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) ----- Original Message Message ---- (b) (6) From: To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Sent: Mon Jul 23 17:58:10 2007 2007 Subject: Subject: DRAFT schedule (b) (6) Here is the DRAFT schedule. schedule. The current current baseline baseline in our system system had contract awards awards in OCT for El Paso K-1. Our draft schedule attached attached is trying to "push schedule schedule to the left" and as you can see, the K1 schedule schedule has the NTP 28 Sept. As I previously previously stated, stated, on that award date, dependent dependent upon the design, the Contractor Contractor can begin clearing clearing and grubbing. grubbing. The design will dictate dictate how soon the fence construction construction will begin. (b) (b) (6) Project Manager USACE-PM-ECSO (b) (6) (b)(2),(b)(6)

From: To: Cc:

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

Subject: Date:

RE: El Paso Sector- Upcoming Community Meetings Monday, July 02, 2007 11:43:31 AM

(b)  I would recommend that El Paso Sector give a general SBInet/BP-101 briefing at the July 10th meeting meetin g in Fort Hancock and not include include anything on Texas Mobile. The reason being….is being….is that that we have planned a scopin scoping g meeting in Faben Fabens s the follow following ing night With the scoping planned for Wednesday, we belive that it would be beneficial to go into that meeting not having addressed addressed the technology portion portion of the Texas Mobile Mobile System. That allows us to

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

Subject: El Subject:  El Paso Sector- Upcoming Community Meetings

 All, The El Paso Sector has scheduled scheduled two community meetings in the area of the Texas Mobile Project. The first meeting meeting is scheduled scheduled to be held at the Fort Hancock Hancock High School, 100 School Drive, Drive, Fort Hancock, Texas 79839 on July July 10, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting will be in the the Texas 23 23 rd congressional district- Congressman Congressman Ciro Rodriguez. The second meeting is tentatively tentatively scheduled to be held at the Fabens Community Center, 201 Camp St Street, reet, Fabens, Texas 79838 79838 on July July 26, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. This meeting is in the 16 th congressional district- Congressman Congressman Sylvestre Reyes. Both meetings are community meetings that have been set- up by the respective respective stations to address any local local border patrol issues. We will use this oppo opportunity rtunity to disseminate disseminate information in regards to SBInet projects (PF-225, Texas Mobile, El Paso Sector SBInet). We will solicit attendance by using printed flyers flyers and word of  mouth.

Take Care, (b) (6)

Special Operations Supervisor  Supervisor  El Paso Sector  8901 Montana Avenue El Paso, Texas 79925 79925 (b) (6)

(b) (6)

From: To: Subject: Date: Importance:

(b) (6) (b) (6) Read: RE: Fence thoughts Monday, July 23, 2007 12:23:58 PM High

 Your message   To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: RE: Fence thoughts Sent: 7/23/2007 12:20 PM was read on 7/23/2007 7/23/2007 12:23 PM.

Sponsor Documents

Recommended


View All
Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close