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

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

Cc: FLOSSMAN, LOREN ( ; (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format
Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 8:47:45 PM
Good evening.
Attached for your review is a first draft of the introduction, using (mostly) previously approved text.
We’ll need to add in(b) (6) language on engineering 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, January 07, 2008 6:54 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
Subject: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format

Importance: High
All,
Here’s the draft template for response to #13 of the appropriations requirements, based on our meeting
today. Please let us know if you think it needs further tweaks. This only includes primary fence right
now, should have a firmed up laydown for vehicle fence tomorrow. Of the primary fence segments,
only 1 is greater than 15 miles in length – will need advice on how to break that down, possibly by
terrain or other location attributes.
To recap for those who weren’t there, Congress is requiring us to fulfill certain requirements before they
will release our FY 08 funding to us. Requirement # 13 applies to TI and states:
“An analysis by the Secretary, for each segment, defined as no more than 14 miles, of fencing
or tactical infrastructure, of the selected approach compared to other, alternative means of
achieving operation control; such analysis should include cost, level of operational control,
possible unintended effects on communities, and other factors critical to the decision-making
process;”
(b) (6) – do you by chance have an electronic copy of the appropriations requirements?)
In the meeting, we came to the conclusion that it made the most sense to respond by following the
framework of the “4 factors” of the fence decision-making process, consistent with the external
messaging developed by (b) (6) team and being used in our public meetings:
• (b) (6) – we will need input from OBP on operational requirements analysis
for each segment; I will call you tomorrow to explain if you’re in the office.
• (b) & his team are going to handle the stakeholder input factor & the introduction for
the (6)
response.
• (b) (6) & his team are going to look at the environmental factors/assessments.
• (b) is going to provide a couple paragraphs on engineering criteria (b) this could
(6) be used or boiled down for the intro), and then we’ll need to decide
possible (6) how best to
respond on a segment-by-segment basis for that factor.
I believe (b) (6) is going to be sending out an official tasker. We agreed today to have all parts done
by next Wed so we can review as a team & firm up.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
Business Manager, Operations
SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300)
(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: GIDDENS, GREGOR(
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN (b
(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY( D (b) (6)

Subject: Re: Requests
Date: 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 be honing it over the weekend. I ask that we turn the
energy into
(6)helping hone the message needed to go to the Hill and the one needed to support
OBP/COE as they begin to engage landowners on the ROE-C.
Greg G
----- Original Message -----

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN,
(b) (6)
Sent: Fri Sep 07 18:08:07 2007

Subject: RE: Requests
(b) (6)
-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 5:51 PM
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;
(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)

(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (6)
Congressional Liaison Officer
(b) (6)
From: GIDDENS, GREGORY
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN,
LOREN W; (b) (6)

What are you hearing?
Greg G

From: (b) (6)
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY;(b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;
(b) (6)
Sent: Fri Sep 07 17:18:27 2007

(b) (5)
(b) (6)
Congressional Liaison Officer
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ; ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)
Noted, but incorrect. We just have to be clear on the messaging.
Greg G

From: (b) (6)
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6) ; ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Sep 07 17:05:22 2007

(b) (5)
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ; ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:58:19 2007

We are not changing message, we are continuing to move forward in our process...
I assume you have been working with the messaging aspect. If not, I ask that you help us craft it. It is
not rocket science. We can notify on Mon.
The message is that we are continuing the process of gathering info. A ROE-C is not a final decision.
Please create the list of folks we need to reach out and who should do it.
Greg G
From: (b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (5)
(b)
(6)
Cc:(b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:46:18 2007

Notify Hill on Mon and pursue ROEs on Tues would be great.
The clock is ticking.
Greg G
From: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)

Get started with notifying the Hill, or get started with pursuing ROEs?
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:39:26 2007

Agree we have to let everyone know, but we have to get started.
Greg G
From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ; GIDDENS, GREGORY; ADAMS, ROWDY D;(b) (6)

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

From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY; ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Sep 07 15:31:35 2007

My comments are regarding the approach in general, and not specific to the language in the document:
(b
)
(5
)
(b) (5)
(b) (6)
Office of Congressional Affairs
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 7:45 PM
To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6) ; GIDDENS, GREGORY; ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)

Subject: Requests
Good afternoon.
As we discussed at this afternoon’s brief-out, attached is a file with requests to (1) release fence maps,
(2) notify Congress of our intent to seek RoE for C, and (3) provide landowners with the DOT brochure
that addresses condemnation and relocation.
Please review and comment on the text by 4:00 pm EST tomorrow. The revised version will be provided
to Mr. Giddens to forward for approval.
Thank you.
(b) (6)

(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN (
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE

Date: Friday, January 18, 2008 3:22:01 PM
(b)
(6)
We checked with the GIS office on Wednesday and the chain link fencing around the Santa Teresa
(STN) POE is not included in the OBP baseline of primary fencing. The only 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 18, 2008 11:06 AM
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
There are 2 different chain link fence issues in EPT. The IBWC fence, installed by IBWC, paid for and
aintained by BP ( 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 someone “assumed” it was the same
but that was a mistake.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

Cc (
b
)
(b) (6) – there was chain link fence in EPT added into the primary fence inventory last year that was
originally built my IBWC. This fence, however, is maintained and utilized 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)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

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

To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Cc: (b) (6)
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 Port of Entry. The core members of the FEIT have reviewed the
change request and recommend that it be DENIED primarily for the following 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 documents do not cover the replacement of the fence. A supplemental
environmental assessment would need to be prepared.
The existing chain link fence is not the property of OBP/or OFAM and would require the
approval of GSA.
Please let me know if you have any questions and how you would like to proceed.
Thanks
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

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

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:20 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE
(b) (6)
Please find the attached Change Order Request for Loren Flossman's approval/rejection for the J1
Project regarding the existing chain link fence that the CBP would like removed and replaced to meet
their operational needs.
I have conveyed to the CBP that this is not an automatic approval, but subject to the approval of Loren
based upon their needs and availability of funding.
(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: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN(b
Cc: (b) (6)

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

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

Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To:( FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Cc (
b
)
(b) – there was chain link fence in EPT added into the primary fence inventory last year that was
(6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)
All,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)
Loren
approval of GSA.
Thanks
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

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

To: (b) (6)
Cc (
b
)
(b) (6)
(b) (2)
Thanks,
(b
)
(6
)Project Manager
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format
Still collecting. Will probably be Tuesday with the Holiday. Have a couple more that I will forward to
you when I am back.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jan 18 15:34:13 2008
Subject: FW: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format
Happy Friday Everyone!
I was just following up on the appropriations tasker to see if anyone could start sending me their
portion so that I can begin to compile. Please let me know when you have a chance. Thanks!
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Importance: High
This tasker 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)
Importance: High
(b) (6)
This is the tasking that I wanted to speak with you about yesterday. A 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 Bill, as 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 effects on communities, and other factors critical to the decision-making process;
I’ve attached a copy of the Bill’s 15 requirements as well as the general provisions.
Thanks!
(b)
(6)
Program Management Analyst
CBP/SBI
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)

Importance: High
All,
“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;”
messaging developed by (b) team and being used in our public meetings:
(6)
· (b) (6) – we will need input from OBP on operational requirements analysis for
each segment; I will call you tomorrow to explain if you’re in the office.
· (b) & his team are going to handle the stakeholder input factor & the introduction for
the response. (6)
· (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 be used
(6)or boiled down for the intro), and then we’ll need to decide how best
(6) to respond on a
segment-by-segment basis for that factor.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN ( ; (b) (6)
Cc: GIDDENS, GREGOR( ; ADAMS, ROWDY ( ; (b) (6)

Date: Sunday, September 09, 2007 9:39:55 PM
The deciusions may not be completely final but they are the working decisions at this time. No getting
around it.
They also have a basis in need, operations requirements, and risk.
From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY; ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)

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

From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ; GIDDENS, GREGORY; ADAMS, ROWDY D;(b) (6)
Sent: Fri Sep 07 15:31:35 2007

My comments are regarding the approach in general, and not specific to the language in the document:
(b
)
(5
)
(b) (5)
(b) (6)
Office of Congressional Affairs
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 7:45 PM
To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY; ADAMS, ROWDY D;(b) (6)

Subject: Requests
Good afternoon.
As we discussed at this afternoon’s brief-out, attached is a file with requests to (1) release fence maps,
(2) notify Congress of our intent to seek RoE for C, and (3) provide landowners with the DOT brochure
that addresses condemnation and relocation.
Please review and comment on the text by 4:00 pm EST tomorrow. The revised version will be provided
to Mr. Giddens to forward for approval.
Thank you.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) Flossman, Loren (
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE

Thanks(b) That is extremely helpful to know for this issue.

(b) (6)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
; FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jan 22 22:24:02 2008

(b)
(6)
Thanks
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
area.
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Cc:(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)
(6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)
All,
operational fencing. Before anyone says the BP added that to the 370 miles needs to do research. For
many of the reasons listed below and other places….it gets noted over and over…WE DO NOT OWN
THAT FENCE…so Why do people keep tallying it as part of our fence totals? What if the owner decided
to take it down? What would your totals be then? This has to be revisited.
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)
Loren
Attached is a change request for segment J1 to replace existing chain link pedestrian fencing associated
with the Santa Teresa Port of Entry. The core members of the FEIT have reviewed the change request
and recommend that it be DENIED primarily for the following 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 documents do not cover the replacement of the fence. A supplemental
* The existing chain link fence is not the property of OBP/or OFAM and would require the approval
of GSA.
Thanks
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

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

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (2)
Thanks,
(b
)
(b) (6)
Project Manager
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Ok - thanks!
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format
Still collecting. Will probably be Tuesday with the Holiday. Have a couple more that I will forward to
you when I am back.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jan 18 15:34:13 2008
Happy Friday Everyone!
I was just following up on the appropriations tasker to see if anyone could start sending me their
portion so that I can begin to compile. Please let me know when you have a chance. Thanks!
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: Oxendine, Jacqueline M (CTR)
Importance: High
This tasker has been official assigned TI for action. Please provide response to SBIEXECSEC mailbox by
1/21/08. Thanks!!
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Importance: High
(b) (6)
This is the tasking that I wanted to speak with you about yesterday. A 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 Bill, as 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 effects on communities, and other factors critical to the decision-making process;
I’ve attached a copy of the Bill’s 15 requirements as well as the general provisions.
Thanks!
(b)
(6)
Program Management Analyst
CBP/SBI
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)

Importance: High
All,
“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;”
messaging developed by(b) (6) team and being used in our public meetings:
· (b) (6) – we will need input from OBP on operational requirements analysis for
each segment; I will call you tomorrow to explain if you’re in the office.
· (b) & his team are going to handle the stakeholder input factor & the introduction for
the response. (6)
· (b) (6) & his team are going to look at the environmental factors/assessments.
· (b) s going to provide a couple paragraphs on engineering criteria (b) , this could
possible be used or boiled down for the intro), and then we’ll need to decide how best
(6) (6) to respond on a
segment-by-segment basis for that factor.
Thanks,
(b) (6)

(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: Flossman, Loren(b) (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Date: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:27:47 AM
I will be at the funeral but (b) will be here. We should have answers for the K-2b by then. Thanks.
(b) (6)
(6)
From: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jan 23 01:52:57 2008
(b) cna we address the change orders on monday? I would like to resolve then loren
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Flossman, Loren W (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jan 22 22:26:06 2008

Thanks(b) That is extremely helpful to know for this issue.

(b) (6)
(6)
From: (b) (6) >
To: (b) (6)
FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
(b) (6) v>
Cc:(b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jan 22 22:24:02 2008

(b)
(6)
Thanks
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
area.
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
((b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Cc: (b) (6)
All,
operational fencing. Before anyone says the BP added that to the 370 miles needs to do research. For
many of the reasons listed below and other places….it gets noted over and over…WE DO NOT OWN
THAT FENCE…so Why do people keep tallying it as part of our fence totals? What if the owner decided
to take it down? What would your totals be then? This has to be revisited.
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From:(b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)
Loren
Attached is a change request for segment J1 to replace existing chain link pedestrian fencing associated
with the Santa Teresa Port of Entry. The core members of the FEIT have reviewed the change request
and recommend that it be DENIED primarily for the following 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 documents do not cover the replacement of the fence. A supplemental
* The existing chain link fence is not the property of OBP/or OFAM and would require the approval
of GSA.
Thanks
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

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

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6) ,
(b) (2)
Thanks,
(b
)
(6
Project Manager
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN (
Cc: (b) (6)

Date: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:21:13 AM
(b)
(6)
10-4, we can coordinate that 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 with the GIS shop to ensure that we can identify any overlaps in our baseline and
planned PF-225 and VF-300 fencing. As I make progress on this, I’ll keep (b) up to speed on any
possible conflicts. (6)
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:24 PM

Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Thanks
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6) ]

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

(b)
(6)
area.
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b)
(6)
From:(
Sent: bFriday, January 18, 2008 10:53 AM
Cc: (b) (6)
(6)
(b) (6)
Desk: 202-344-1594 Blackberry: 202-320-7995
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6) ]

To:( ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Cc:b(b) (6)
(b) (6)
All,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

Cc:(
b
)
(
Loren
approval of GSA.
Thanks
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

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

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (2)
Thanks,
(b
)
(6
)Project Manager
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: El Paso Sector- Upcoming Community Meetings

Date: 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 July 11, 2007. It will be rescheduled for a later
date.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 11:19 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: El Paso Sector- Upcoming Community Meetings
All,
The El Paso Sector has scheduled two community meetings in the area of the
Texas Mobile Project. The first meeting is scheduled to be held at the Fort
Hancock High School, 100 School Drive, Fort Hancock, Texas 79839 on July
10, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting will be in the Texas 23rd congressional
district- Congressman Ciro Rodriguez.
The second meeting is tentatively scheduled to be held at the Fabens Community

Center, 201 Camp Street, Fabens, Texas 79838 on July 26, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. This
meeting is in the 16th congressional district- Congressman Sylvestre Reyes.
Both meetings are community meetings that have been set-up by the respective
stations to address any local border patrol issues. We will use this opportunity to
disseminate information in regards to SBInet projects (PF-225, Texas Mobile, El
Paso Sector SBInet). We will solicit attendance by using printed flyers and word of
mouth.
Take Care,
(b) (6)
Special Operations Supervisor
El Paso Sector
8901 Montana Avenue
El Paso, Texas 79925
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: A-1
Date: Friday, November 09, 2007 2:26:10 PM
One small step for(b) and one giant leap for San Diego Sector....
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Nov 09 14:24:39 2007

Subject: Re: A-1
10-4
From:(b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Nov 09 13:22:43 2007

Subject: Re: A-1
Apperantly it had something to do with adjusting the alignment to minimize the earth work quantities.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) >
To: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: 11/9/2007 2:13:47 PM

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

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.

(6)
Thank you,
(b) (6)
Engineering Manager
(b) (6)
2929 North Central Ave (b) (6)
Suite 800 (b) (6)
Phoenix, AZ 85012 (b) (6)
>>> (b) (6) 11/9/2007 9:14 AM >>>

(b)
(6)
Please shoot back an e-mail with a projected cost and schedule. OBP has a
meeting today and needs that info. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN ( ; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Appropriations Q#13
Date: Monday, February 04, 2008 3:08:54 PM
Importance: High
(b) (6)
Attached is a revised version of the appropriations response, per our discussion on Friday, (b)
(6)
There are several comments inserted with questions fo (b) (6) ; for example, there are
two segments greater than 14 miles in length that we need to divide (on paper) logically (perhaps
geographic barrier).
(b) as requested, I highlighted in yellow several sections that appeared duplicative. I would
(6)
recommend shortening & referencing the previous section, if it’s the correct text (not mistakenly
inserted twice). I can make that revision if you want, if we end up doing that.
( - I know the terminology for “primary pedestrian fence” has 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)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 10:15 AM
To: (b) (6) R)
Cc:( FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Subject:
b 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)
(b) (6)
For more information about the Secure Border Initiative, visit (b) (2) or contact us at (b) (2)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 10:10 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Subject: Appropriations Q#13
(b) – Loren has requested a copy of the document that you are compiling for the response to
(6)
question #13. Do you have the most up to date copy? Or do you need some help from us to clean it
up. Please let me know whenever you have a chance. Thanks!
(b) (6)
Metrics and Reporting Analyst, SBI Tactical Infrastructure PMO
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Date: Monday, January 14, 2008 7:39:40 AM
I'm sure some people would like to count any and all fence.
I can forward (b) he Chief's weekly snapshot report which the Deputy should have access to.
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jan 14 07:36:37 2008
FYI. It appears that this segment wasn’t communicated properly early on and will have to be added.
(b) (6) - Did we ever find out if the chain link was being counted as existing primary fence? Also,
(b) (6) is looking for some updated fencing miles for a Deputy Brief, can you guys hook up with him?
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 9:19 PM

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

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

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

To (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (2)
Thanks,
(b
)
(6
Project Manager
(b) (6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY (
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Condemnation for Eagle Pass
Date: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 6:40:49 AM
Get with me on this.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

To: Self, Jeffrey D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Condemnation for Eagle Pass
Jeff,
(b) (6) called and told me that their U.S. Attorney asked the Del Rio Sector to serve the
condemnation paperwork to the City of Eagle Pass. I told him that Chief absolutely did not want tha BP
face on the condemnation side of the PF225 project. I asked him to tell the U.S. Attorney's Office to
deliver in normal legal correspondence methods. Just a heads up.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN ( ; (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (5)
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
Headquarters U.S. Border Patrol
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)

Importance: High
All,
“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;”
messaging developed by (b) (6) team and being used in our public meetings:
• (b) (6) – we will need input from OBP on operational requirements analysis
for each segment; I will call you tomorrow to explain if you’re in the office.
• (b) & his team are going to handle the stakeholder input factor & the introduction for
the (6)
response.
• (b) (6) & his team are going to look at the environmental factors/assessments.
• (b) is going to provide a couple paragraphs on engineering criteria (b) this could
(6)
possible be used or boiled down for the intro), and then we’ll need to decide(6) how best to
respond on a segment-by-segment basis for that factor.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Primary Fence Segment Analysis
Map Project ID State Sector Station Location Horizontal Length (mi)
Segment A-1 CA SDC BRF Pack Truck Trail 3.58

Border Patrol Assessment
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC ECJ Ceti's Hill 0.57
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC ECJ W. Horseshoe Canyon 0.89
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC ECJ East Bell Valley 0.12
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC ECJ Ag Loop 1.02
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC CAO Soutwest Rim of Smith 0.17
Canyon
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC CAO Rattlesnake Ridge to Larry 1.06
Pierce Road
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC CAO West edge of Boundary 0.09
Peak
r
Facto
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC BLV Willows Access #1 1.63
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC BLV Willows Access #2 2.01
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC BLV Airport Mesa 0.05
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment A-2 CA SDC BLV O'Neil Valley 1.47
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment B-2 CA ELC ELS Mon 224 to ELS West 2.36
Checks
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment B-4 CA ELC CAX CAX East Checks 8.59
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment B-5A CA ELC CAX 19.16
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment B-5B CA ELC CAX 2.85

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

Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment C-2B AZ YUM YUS From end of PF70 project 3.70
to County 18
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment D-2 AZ TCA AJO AJO 2mi east of POE 3.10
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment D-2 AZ TCA AJO AJO 2mi west of POE 2.10
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment D-5A AZ TCA NGL 1mi W to 3mi W of 2.00
Mariposa POE
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment D-5B AZ TCA NGL NGL 1mi E to 6mi E of 5.16
POE
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment D-6 AZ TCA NGL E Deconcini POE 2.23

Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment E-2A AZ TCA NCO NCO 17.75mi W to San 6.44
Pedro River
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment E-2B AZ TCA NCO Monument 97 to 4.75mi W 6.94
of POE
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment E-3 AZ TCA NCO NCO 3.4mi E to 12.4mi E 5.07
of POE
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment F-1 AZ TCA NCO From existing fence to 0.97
Kings Ranch
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment H-2A NM EPT DNM 17 miles West of COL 14.11
POE beginning 3 miles
West of COL POE
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment I-1A NM EPT DNM DNM 1.5mi E to 3mi E of 2.56
POE
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
F
Engineering
Segment I-1B NM EPT DNM/STN 3mi E of POE to Luna 9.89
County Line
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment J-1 NM EPT STN STN 1mi W of POE 1.15
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment J-1 NM EPT STN STN 1mi E of POE 1.15
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment J2 NM EPT STN West side of blackie’s gate 3.49
to west side of the
cattlepens
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment J-3 NM EPT STN STN Blackie's Gate to W 1.08
end Sunland
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment K-1 TX EPT EPS EPS Pumphouse to end of 1.07
fence at Roadside Park

Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment K-1 TX EPT EPS EPS End of fence at 0.65
Roadside Park to
Headgates

Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment K-1 TX EPT EPS EPS Headgates to West 1.26
RR bridge
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment K-2A TX EPT YST 1mi E of US 54 to Socorro 9.60
Headgates
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment K-2B&C TX EPT YST Socorro Headgates to 1 mi 19.42
W of FAB POE
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment K-3 TX EPT FBN FAB 1mi W to 3mi E of 9.03
POE
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment K-4 TX EPT FBN 3 mi E of Fabens to 1.5mi 13.48
W of Fort Hancock
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment K-5 TX EPT FHT FHT 1.5mi W to 1.5mi E of 5.21
POE
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment L-1 TX MAR SBT Neely's Crossing 4.63

Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment L-1A TX MAR PRS Presidio POE to 3.2mi E of 3.28
POE
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment L-1B TX MAR PRS Presidio POE to 3.2mi W 2.87
of POE
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment M-1 TX DRT DRS DRS San Felipe & Rio 2.36
Grande to Cienegas Creek
& Rio Grande
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment M-2A TX DRT EGT EGT 2.3mi upstream to 0.75
1mi No of POE
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment M-2B TX DRT EGT EGT POE to North of POE 1.06

Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-1 TX RGV RGC Near Roma POE 3.76
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
F
Engineering
Segment O-2 TX RGV RGC Near RGC POE 8.75
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-3 TX RGV MCS Los Ebanos POE 1.85
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-4 TX RGV MCS From Penitas to Abram 4.35
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-5 TX RGV MCS Future Anzalduas POE 1.73
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-6 TX RGV MCS Hidalgo POE 3.86
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-7 TX RGV MER Proposed Donna POE 0.90
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-8 TX RGV MER Retamal Dam 3.24
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-9 TX RGV MER Progresso POE 3.86
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
F
Engineering
Segment O-10 TX RGV MER Progresso POE 2.33
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-11 TX RGV HRL Joe's Bar-Nemo Road 2.33
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-12 TX RGV HRL Weaver's Mountain 0.96
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-13 TX RGV HRL W Los Indios POE 1.59
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-14 TX RGV HRL E Los Indios POE 3.59
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-15 TX RGV HRL Triangle - La Paloma 1.93
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-16 TX RGV HRL Ho Chi Minh - Estero 2.45
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-17 TX RGV BRP Proposed Carmen Road 1.63
Feight Train Bridge
ctor
Stakeholder Input
Fac
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-18 TX RGV BRP Proposed Flor De Mayo 3.58
POE to Garden Park
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-19 TX RGV BRP B&M POE to Los Tomates 3.37

Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-20 TX RGV BRP Tomates Y 0.91
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-21 TX RGV FTB International POE to Sea 12.98
Shell Inn
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
From: PAGAN, DAVID G(
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Draft EA Handouts

Date: Thursday, January 03, 2008 6:18:35 PM
Based on the information I saw this morning, I identified the following

counties:
Marfa Sector -
Presidio County, Hudspeth County
Del Rio Sector -
Maverick County, Val Verde County
Please let me know if that is not correct.
Thanks,
David
David G. Pagan
Advisor to the Commissioner and State & Local Liaison
Department of Homeland Security
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) PAGAN, DAVID
G.; (b) (6)
Subject: Draft EA Handouts
Good afternoon.
Attached for your review are the draft handouts for the next round of
PF225 Draft EAs.
These will be issued on Monday and Tuesday of next week.
We have used previously approved versions as a template, and only

changed the details.
(b) (6) I'm hoping you can provide which counties these include.
Looking for your input as soon as possible.
Thanks.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
For more information about the Secure Border Initiative, visit

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

AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
On January 7, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) and Environmental Protection Agency will publish a Notice of Availability (NOA) and
Public Open House Announcement in the local newspapers inviting public comment on a Draft
Environmental Assessment (EA) for possible fence construction proposed for the U.S. Border
Patrol (USBP) Del Rio Sector in Texas.
The purpose of the proposed action is to aid CBP in controlling and deterring illegal cross-border
incursions into the United States. The proposed action is part of a broader strategy to secure our
nation’s borders through the development and deployment of the most effective mix of tactical
infrastructure (including pedestrian fence, vehicle fence and access roads), personnel and
technology.
As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the completed EA provides an
opportunity to identify, assess and make available to the public potential activities and effects
associated with the proposed construction, maintenance, and operation of tactical infrastructure
(including pedestrian fence, access roads, and patrol roads) along approximately 4 miles of the
U.S.-Mexico international border within the Del Rio Sector. At this time, no final decisions on
projected fencing locations have been made.
The Del Rio Sector includes the area along the international border between the United States and
Mexico in the XXX counties of Texas. Fence construction proposals under consideration at this
time include the construction of tactical infrastructure in 2 site locations, approximately 1 mile and
3 miles in length.
The EA is only one part of the decision-making process and gives the public further opportunity to
provide input to CBP on the proposed project. In fact, fencing may not necessarily be constructed
in all locations identified in this Draft EA. However, CBP is required to evaluate all lands that have
the potential to meet the purpose and need of the proposed action.
Although the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security may, in the interest of national
security, waive certain environmental laws, DHS and CBP are committed to making every effort to
comply with federal environmental laws and be good stewards of the environment.
Public notices will also be published in the Del Rio News-Herald, Eagle Pass News Guide, and the
News Gram.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:
CBP continues to invite public participation and comment as part of this ongoing process to
determine proposed action within the El Centro Sector. A public open house will be held on
January 24, 2008, at the City of Del Rio Civic Center, 1915 Veterans Boulevard, Del Rio, Texas
78840. The public open house will be held from 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.
FOF OFFICIAL USE ONLY As of January 3, 2008 DRAFT

The public comment period for the Draft EA officially begins on January 7, 2008 when the NOA is
published in the local newspapers. The public is invited to use one of the following methods to
comment on the Draft EA by February 5, 2008:
(a) Attendance and submission of comments at the Public Open House meeting to be held
January 24, 2008, at the City of Del Rio Civic Center, 1915 Veterans Boulevard, Del Rio,
Texas 78840.
(b) Electronically through the Web site at www.BorderFenceNEPA.com.
(c) By email to DRcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com.
(d) By mail to: Del Rio Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o e²M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue,
Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031.
(e) By fax to (757) 299-4101.
Public questions should be forwarded to Mr. Charles McGregor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Fort Worth District, Engineering and Construction Support Office, 819 Taylor St., Room 3B10,
Fort Worth, Texas 76102; and fax (757) 299-4101.
COPIES OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
Copies of the Draft EA have been mailed to local public libraries and members of the public who
have previously requested copies. Copies of the Draft EA are available to the public through the
following:
(a) Via the Internet at www.BorderFenceNEPA.com and
https://ecso.swf.usace.army.mil/Pages/Publicreview.cfm
(b) By emailing information@BorderFenceNEPA.com
(c) By toll-free phone request (877) 752-0420
(d) By writing to Mr. Charles McGregor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering and
Construction Support Office, 819 Taylor St., Room 3B10, Fort Worth, Texas 76102; fax:
(757) 299-4101
(e) By reading the Draft EA in the following local libraries:
- Eagle Pass Public Library - 589 East Main Street Eagle Pass, Texas 78852, (830) 773-
2516
- Val Verde County Library - 300 Spring Street, Del Rio, Texas 78840, (830) 774-7595

MARFA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Public Open House Announcement in the local newspapers inviting public comment on a Draft
Patrol (USBP) Marfa Sector in Texas.
technology.
U.S.-Mexico international border within the Marfa Sector. At this time, no final decisions on
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.
Public notices will be published in the Big Bend Advocate, Hudspeth Herald, Alpine Avalanche and
the Van Horn Sentinel.
January 23, 2008, at the Hotel Paisano, 207 North Highland Avenue, Marfa, Texas 79843. The
public open house will be held from 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.

January 23, 2008, at the Hotel Paisano, 207 North Highland Avenue, Marfa, Texas 79843.
(c) By email to MScomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com.
(d) By mail to: Marfa Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o e²M, 2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite
200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031.
(e) By fax to (757) 299-8444.
following:
(757) 299-8444
- Marfa Public Library - 115 East Oak Street, Marfa, Texas 79843, (432) 729-4631
- Alpine Public Library - 203 North 7th Street, Alpine, Texas 79830, (432) 837-2621
- City of Presidio Library - 1203 East O'Rielly Street, Presidio, Texas 79845, (432) 229-
3317
- Van Horn City and County Library - 410 Crockett Street Van Horn, TX 79855, (432)
283-2855

SAN DIEGO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Public Open House Announcement in the local newspaper inviting public comment on a Draft
Patrol (USBP) San Diego Sector in California.
technology.
U.S.-Mexico international border within the San Diego Sector. At this time, no final decisions on
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.
Public notices will also be published in the San Diego Tribune.
January 16, 2008, at the Ayres Inn, 1251 Tavern Road, Alpine, California 91901. The public open
house will be held from 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.

January 16, 2008, at the Ayres Inn, 1251 Tavern Road, Alpine, California 91901.
(c) By email to SDEAcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com.
(d) By mail to: San Diego Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o Gulf South Research
Corporation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70820.
(e) By fax to (225) 761-8077.
following:
(225) 761-8077
- 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

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: DRAFT schedule
Hey! Thanks for contradicting my "not impossible" with an "impossible". You Californians, always with
the one upmanship! Good response though.

From: (b) (6)
To: ADAMS, ROWDY D; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jul 23 18:13:39 2007
Subject: Fw: DRAFT schedule
The K1 Project is the Texas project that is closest to a construction date. That being said, it will be
impossible to begin before the end of the FY due to all the necessary contractual procedures. The best
case scenario would have them starting to grub the site but no real construction will begin until Oct..
I'll see if design bid build would save time but if not, that is pretty much the scoop per the Corps.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jul 23 17:58:10 2007

Subject: DRAFT schedule
(b) (6)
Here is the DRAFT schedule. The current baseline in our system had contract awards in OCT for El Paso
K-1. Our draft schedule attached is trying to "push schedule to the left" and as you can see, the K1
schedule has the NTP 28 Sept. As I previously stated, on that award date, dependent upon the design,
the Contractor can begin clearing and grubbing. The design will dictate how soon the fence construction
will begin.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Project Manager
USACE-PM-ECSO
(b) (6)
(b)(2),(b)(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: El Paso Sector- Upcoming Community Meetings

Date: Monday, July 02, 2007 11:43:31 AM
(b) I would recommend that El Paso Sector give a general SBInet/BP-101 briefing at the July 10 th
(6)
meeting in Fort Hancock and not include anything on Texas Mobile. The reason being….is that we
have planned a scoping meeting in Fabens the following night
With the scoping planned for Wednesday, we belive that it would be beneficial to go into that meeting
not having addressed the technology portion of the Texas Mobile System. That allows us to
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 1:19 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: El Paso Sector- Upcoming Community Meetings
All,
The El Paso Sector has scheduled two community meetings in the area of the Texas
Mobile Project. The first meeting is scheduled to be held at the Fort Hancock High
School, 100 School Drive, Fort Hancock, Texas 79839 on July 10, 2007, at 7:00
p.m. This meeting will be in the Texas 23rd congressional district- Congressman Ciro
Rodriguez.
The second meeting is tentatively scheduled to be held at the Fabens Community

Center, 201 Camp Street, Fabens, Texas 79838 on July 26, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. This
meeting is in the 16th congressional district- Congressman Sylvestre Reyes.
Both meetings are community meetings that have been set-up by the respective
stations to address any local border patrol issues. We will use this opportunity to
disseminate information in regards to SBInet projects (PF-225, Texas Mobile, El
Paso Sector SBInet). We will solicit attendance by using printed flyers and word of
mouth.
Take Care,
(b) (6)
Special Operations Supervisor
El Paso Sector
8901 Montana Avenue
El Paso, Texas 79925
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Read: RE: Fence thoughts
Importance: 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 12:23 PM.

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

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

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

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

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

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

DRAFT As of January 15, 2008 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT As of January 15, 2008 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Cc: (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY( D (b) (6)

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 18:08:07 2007

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

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

What are you hearing?

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

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 17:18:27 2007

Subject: Re: Requests

Noted, but incorrect. We just have to be clear on the messaging.

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

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 17:05:22 2007

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:58:19 2007

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

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:46:18 2007

Notify Hill on Mon and pursue ROEs on Tues would be great.

The clock is ticking.

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:39:26 2007

Agree we have to let everyone know, but we have to get started.

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

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

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 15:31:35 2007

Office of Congressional Affairs

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

From: (b) (6)

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

Secure Border Initiative

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

From: (b) (6)

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

From: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

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

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:43 AM

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

From: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Subject: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE

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

From: (b) (6)

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

From: (b) (6)

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

From: (b) (6)

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

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:43 AM

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

From: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)