From: To: Subject: Date

:

(b) (6) (b) (6)
RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:12:46 PM

All the forms should be signed by (b) (6) . Check the template – there should be a section in the middle where they write there name and address so we know where to send the form. I don’t know if I sent you that.

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

(b) (6)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:28 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: Re: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet

Did we get an answer on the Spanish ROE question? Will it be signed up here if it is in Spanish? There are several Spanish only speakers out in Texas. Thanks. ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent: Thu Jul 26 10:23:01 2007 Subject: FW: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet All, we are good to go with the letterhead from Sector . Could you let (b) (6) know and use the latest template from(b) (6) please forward the template to me. I want to put it under configuration control. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions or concerns. Sincerely,

(b) (6)

-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:18 AM To: (b) (6) Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet

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

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

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

-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:05 AM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: FW: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet Importance: High Please make this change to the template. (b) (b) (5)

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

(b) (6)

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

From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:51 AM To: (b) (6) Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet

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

Thanks-

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

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

-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 4:22 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet To all addressees:

Please see attached REVISED ROE Form, and provide your comments regarding any necessary, additional changes or clarifications in the wording. Your expeditious review and response would be greatly appreciated! THANKS!

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

-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 3:49 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: FW: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet Add changes and please send for review. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions or concerns. Sincerely,

(b) (6)

-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 3:31 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet Can you send it? And we can quickly review. Then it should be good for vetting if necessary.

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

(b) (6)
-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 3:30 PM To: (b) (6) Cc (b) (6) Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet I just wanted to add a few words and (b) (6) made a suggestion.

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

(b) (6)

-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 3:29 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet Did you create one for vetting with your specifications changed?

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

-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 3:28 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet Good. We are set to finish this up. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions or concerns. Sincerely,

(b) (6)

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

Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 12:10 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet I didn't wait for an updated version for RGV because it is a fencing project right now. I really wanted to get the discussion of the Corps fulfilling their role of "real estate specialists" started. After hearing some of the concerns with an ROE that does not require a GOV signature....I though it best to continue forward with the vetted version. We have a big meeting at 1:00 until whenever about fencing in FY '07. When we get out we will call you and check your availability. Thanks. (b) (6) Assistant Chief OPA Division Office of Border Patrol 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6.5E Washington, D.C. 20229 (b) (6)

-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:56 AM To: (b) (6) Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet

(b) (5)

Sincerely,

(b) (6)

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

(b) (6)
Did we figure out a time and place to meet this morning? (b) (5)

(b) (5)

If there are any discrepancies, let me know.

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

-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 7:01 AM To: (b) (6) Subject: Fw: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet Please attend with me. I think we need a pre meeting to finalize what we want to do.

(b) (6)

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

Sent: Fri Jul 20 19:30:41 2007 Subject: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet When: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:30 AM-9:30 AM (GMT-07:00) Arizona. Where: virtual, info below *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

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

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

TOPIC: Framework of Realty/ROE process DATE: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 TIME: 8:30 am, Pacific Daylight Time (GMT -07:00, San Francisco ) .

(b) (2)

Join meeting as Attendee: (b) (2) Start meeting as Host (b) (2) 3. Host Key for Alternate Hosting

(b) (2)

From: To:

GIDDENS, GREGOR(

(b) (6)

; FLOSSMAN, LOREN(b)

(b) (6)

Cc: Subject: Date:

(b) (6)

ADAMS, ROWDY ( (b) (6) RE: Requests Friday, September 07, 2007 4:46:19 PM

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 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 with notifying the Hill, or get started with pursuing ROEs?

'

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

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

Cc: (b) (6)

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:39:26 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 07, 2007 4:10 PM To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

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

(b) (5)

----- Original Message ----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 Subject: RE: Requests My comments are regarding the approach in general, and not specific to the language in the document:

(b ) (5 )

(b) (6)
Office of Congressional Affairs

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

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

Good afternoon.

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

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

Thank you.

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

(b) (6)

From: To: Subject: Date:

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

RE: SFA language Monday, August 13, 2007 6:02:05 PM

Good. Swamped. This P-70 reporting thing has taken on a life of it's own. It is all time consuming and growing. You couldn't find a reason to visit today? I still haven't had a (b) fix. Glad to be back in (6) the hole...I mean mix of things? -----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:59 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: Re: SFA language I don't know that I'd take that position if I were you!! How are you? ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent: Mon Aug 13 17:57:56 2007 Subject: RE: SFA language If your good with it then I am good with it! -----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:57 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: Re: SFA language I'm good with it. ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent: Mon Aug 13 17:54:25 2007 Subject: RE: SFA language Per(b) (6) suggestion, I propose the following:

E

(b) (5)

What do you think?

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

(b) (6)
________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:39 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: RE: SFA language

(b) (5)

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

(b) (6)

________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 12:28 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: SFA language Good morning.

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

(b) (6)

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date:

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

FLOSSMAN, LOREN (b)

(6)

RE: Appropriations Q#13 Tuesday, February 05, 2008 7:27:44 PM

We may want to combine, just for this paper exercise.

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

From: (b) (6) Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 7:19 PM To: (b) (6) Cc:( b Subject: RE: Appropriations Q#13 Good afternoon (b) (6) Thanks again for your review and input.

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

In the case of J-1, we separated the fence segment around the STN POE into two separate segments. Do we want to combine them back into a single segment?

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

For more information about the Secure Border Initiative, visit www.cbp.gov/sbi or contact us at SBI info@dhs.gov.

From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 3:09 PM To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) ) Subject: RE: Appropriations Q#13 Importance: High

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

(b) as requested, I highlighted in yellow several sections that appeared duplicative. I would (6) recommend shortening & referencing the previous section, if it’s the correct text (not mistakenly inserted twice). I can make that revision if you want, if we end up doing that. (b) (6)
-- I know the terminology for “primary pedestrian fence” has changed, at least in the fence

tool box; I wasn’t sure whether the term “primary pedestrian fence” needed to be updated to “personnel fence”, “personnel/vehicle fence”, etc in this documented. I highlighted in green a several instances of that term. Please let me know what else you

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

From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 10:15 AM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W Subject: RE: Appropriations Q#13 Here’s the version I sent out last night. I thought I copied Loren, but must have missed him. I welcome all your comments, please make any suggested additions or edits directly to the document with Track Changes on. Also, I’ve heard from OFAM that they will be able to provide detailed environmental information, but not until Monday. Thanks.

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

For more information about the Secure Border Initiative, visit www.cbp.gov/sbi or contact us at SBI info@dhs.gov.

From: (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 U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office: 202-344-2997 (b) (6)

From: To: Subject: Date:

(b) (6) (b) (6)
RE: UT-Brownsville Friday, December 07, 2007 6:13:17 PM

Perfect, just a minor point but I didn’t want to say that there “were” plans for fence bordering the property if there still “are.” Thank you. From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 6:13 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: Fw: UT-Brownsville

Here is his answer. Does this work for you?! ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent: Fri Dec 07 18:11:38 2007 Subject: FW: UT-Brownsville

(b) (6) The fence will border the UTB property, but will not intersect their campus. Simple answer is no.

(b) (6)

________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 6:08 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: RE: UT-Brownsville

Sorry, my original email was probably poorly phrased. Our response at the time of this Aug. 10 USA Today article (re: CBP proposing fence that would cut through the UT-Brownsville campus) was that there were proposed projects that would border the property, but not cut through it. Are there still projects that are planned for the area that will border the campus?

Thank you!

________________________________ From (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 6:05 PM (b) To: (b) (6) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: Fw: UT-Brownsville

(b) (6) does the fence laydown affect UT- Brownsville? How (b) (6) ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) > To: (b) (6) > Sent: Fri Dec 07 17:50:36 2007 Subject: UT-Brownsville
Back to that article – do you remember if there are there proposed fence projects that border the property? Want to make sure I send out the right info.

From: To: Subject: Date:

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

RE: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE Tuesday, January 15, 2008 4:06:16 PM

Loren doesn't think this can be left out either. It is a dead issue. He knows it needs to move forward. The corps screwed up. -----Original Message----From:(b) (6) Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 4:05 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: Fw: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE Importance: High Something that will need to be addressed. ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To (b) (6)

Cc: Flossman, Loren W (b) (6) Sent: Tue Jan 15 15:40:07 2008 Subject: RE: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE OFAM recommendation is NOT to recommend this Change in Scope. This recommendation is offered for the following reasons: * The existing chain link fence is not the property of OBP/or OFAM. Seeking permission for its removal and replacement may delay the entire project. * The Santa Teresa POE is located some distance north of the International Border with camera monitored gates. Additional camera monitoring or other intrusion surveillance may be a more cost effective means to address the security concern. * An industrial park is planned just west of the POE. This development may warrant 24 hour POE operation in the near future.

(b) (6)
Architect / Program Manager OF-AM, Tactical Infrastructure DHS/Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6) Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 9:19 PM To (b) (6) Cc: Flossman, Loren W;(b) (6) Subject: FW: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE Importance: High

All

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

Thanks all

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

________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:20 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE

(b) (6) Please find the attached Change Order Request for Loren Flossman's approval/rejection for the J1

Project regarding the existing chain link fence that the CBP would like removed and replaced to meet their operational needs. I have conveyed to the CBP that this is not an automatic approval, but subject to the approval of Loren based upon their needs and availability of funding. <<PF225 Change Request (J1).doc>> Please advise ASAP for me to proceed accordingly. Thanks, (b ) (6 Project Manager US Army Corps of Engineers-Albuquerque District 4101 Jefferson Plaza NE Albuquerque, NM, 87109 (b) (6)

From: To: Subject: Date:

(b) (6) (b) (6)
RE: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format Thursday, January 10, 2008 5:49:13 PM

Ok, good. Glad we're on the same page. I have been pushing (b) (6) to respond with high-level statements, but they don't think t satisfy Congress.

just

Here's where it says we have to respond by segment: ">>>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;” If that’s still not clear, I’m hoping (b) can chime in to help clarify. (6) (b) (6) perations SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (b) (6)

-----O From: (b) (6) Sent To: (b) (6) Subj format

----5:46 PM priations Response to #13 -- draft response

I understand it...I just haven't seen where they are requesting it by segment. That is my point. ----From (b) (6) To: (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (b (6)

; 2008 l Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response

format

(b)(4),(b)(5),(b)(6)

Thanks,

(b) (6)

perations SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300) Cu rd (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) -----O From: (b) (6) Sent To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) W; (b) (6) Sub format ----2008 4:08 PM FLOSSMAN, LOREN nal Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response

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

(b) (6) (b) (6)
-----O From: (b) (6) Sent To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subj format rder Patrol

008 3:49 PM -- draft response

(b) , (6) ve broken the segments down by sector so all that needs to be populated are the BP section of each segment. The other 3 factors/lines will be filled in by OFAM and SBI. Thank you for your help! (b) (6)

-----O From: (b) (6) Sent To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subj format

----2008 3:18 PM -- draft response

I never received the tasker request or the segments broken down by sector. I had asked to see where it said we needed it broken down in this manner instead of stating that "these" are the factors used to determine all fencing l We haven't moved on it since I stopped by that day and e to (b) (6) Let me know. (b) (6)

----From (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent :13:40 2008 Subject: FW: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format

(b) , (6) I was just following up to see what the status of this response was. Do we have an estimate of when we can expect a response? This isn’t a rush just a status check. Thank you! (b) (6)

________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent To: (b) (6) Subj format FYI :38 PM Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response

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

(b) (6)

________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subj format 17 PM FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6) Appropriations Respon aft response

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

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

Thanks,

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

(b) (6)

________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subj format 3:00 PM AN, LOREN W; (b) (6) l Appropriations Resp draft response

(b) (6)

(b) (5)

(b) (6)

Assistant Chief Headquarters U.S. Border Patrol

(b) (6)

________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent (b) (6)

(b) (6)
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. onse to #13 -- draft response

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 s?)

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 d making process, consistent with the external messaging developed by (b) (6) team and being used in our public meetings:

n-

(b) (6) · – we will need input from OBP on operational requiremen r each segment; I will call you tomorrow to explain if you’re in the office. (b) · input factor & the int(6)
& his team are going to handle the stakeholder ction for the response. & his team are going to look at the ts.

(b) (6) · environmental factors/
· engineering criteria the intro), and then by-segment basis for

(b) (6) is going to provide a couple paragraphs on ((b) this could possible be used or boiled down for w need to decide how best to respond on a segment(6) that factor.

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

Map Project ID Segment Factor 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 Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering A-2 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering A-2 Border Patrol Assessment

Primary Fence Segment Analysis
State CA Sector SDC Station BRF

Location

Horizontal Length (mi) 3.58

Pack Truck Trail

Segment Factor

CA

SDC

ECJ

Ceti's Hill

0.57

Segment Factor

CA

SDC

ECJ

W. Horseshoe Canyon

0.89

Segment Factor

CA

SDC

ECJ

East Bell Valley

0.12

Segment Factor

CA

SDC

ECJ

Ag Loop

1.02

Segment Factor

CA

SDC

CAO

Soutwest Rim of Smith Canyon

0.17

Segment Factor

CA

SDC

CAO

Rattlesnake Ridge to Larry Pierce Road

1.06

Segment r

CA

SDC

CAO

West edge of Boundary Peak

0.09

Map Project ID 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 CA 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 Facto

Primary Fence Segment Analysis
State Sector Station

Location

Horizontal Length (mi)

Segment Factor

CA

SDC

BLV

Willows Access #1

1.63

Segment Factor

CA

SDC

BLV

Willows Access #2

2.01

Segment Factor

CA

SDC

BLV

Airport Mesa

0.05

Segment Factor

SDC

BLV

O'Neil Valley

1.47

Segment Factor

CA

ELC

ELS

Mon 224 to ELS West Checks

2.36

Segment Factor

CA

ELC

CAX

CAX East Checks

8.59

Segment Factor

CA

ELC

CAX

19.16

Segment

CA

ELC

CAX

2.85

Map Project ID Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering C-1 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering C-2B 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 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering D-5B Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering D-6 Factor

Primary Fence Segment Analysis
State Sector Station

Location

Horizontal Length (mi)

Segment

CA

YUM

CAX/YUS

Andrade POE: Imperial sand dunes to CA-AZ line

10.28

Factor

Segment Factor

AZ

YUM

YUS

From end of PF70 project to County 18

3.70

Segment Factor

AZ

TCA

AJO

AJO 2mi east of POE

3.10

Segment Factor

AZ

TCA

AJO

AJO 2mi west of POE

2.10

Segment Factor

AZ

TCA

NGL

1mi W to 3mi W of Mariposa POE

2.00

Segment Factor

AZ

TCA

NGL

NGL 1mi E to 6mi E of POE

5.16

Segment

AZ

TCA

NGL

E Deconcini POE

2.23

Map Project ID Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering E-2A Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering E-2B Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering E-3 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering F-1 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering H-2A Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering I-1A Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Factor

Primary Fence Segment Analysis
State Sector Station

Location

Horizontal Length (mi)

Segment Factor

AZ

TCA

NCO

NCO 17.75mi W to San Pedro River

6.44

Segment Factor

AZ

TCA

NCO

Monument 97 to 4.75mi W of POE

6.94

Segment Factor

AZ

TCA

NCO

NCO 3.4mi E to 12.4mi E of POE

5.07

Segment Factor

AZ

TCA

NCO

From existing fence to Kings Ranch

0.97

Segment

NM

EPT

DNM

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

14.11

Factor

Segment Factor

NM

EPT

DNM

DNM 1.5mi E to 3mi E of POE

2.56

Map Project ID F Engineering

Primary Fence Segment Analysis
State Sector Station NM EPT DNM/STN

Location

Horizontal Length (mi)

Segment Factor

I-1B

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment

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 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering J-3 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-1 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-1

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

Factor

Segment Factor

NM

EPT

STN

STN Blackie's Gate to W end Sunland

1.08

Segment

TX

EPT

EPS

EPS Pumphouse to end of fence at Roadside Park

1.07

Factor

Segment

TX

EPT

EPS

EPS End of fence at Roadside Park to Headgates

0.65

Map Project ID Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-1 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-2A Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-2B&C Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-3 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-4 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-5 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering Factor

Primary Fence Segment Analysis
State Sector Station

Location

Horizontal Length (mi)

Segment Factor

TX

EPT

EPS

EPS Headgates to West RR bridge

1.26

Segment Factor

TX

EPT

YST

1mi E of US 54 to Socorro Headgates

9.60

Segment Factor

TX

EPT

YST

Socorro Headgates to 1 mi W of FAB POE

19.42

Segment Factor

TX

EPT

FBN

FAB 1mi W to 3mi E of POE

9.03

Segment Factor

TX

EPT

FBN

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

13.48

Segment Factor

TX

EPT

FHT

FHT 1.5mi W to 1.5mi E of POE

5.21

Map Project ID Segment Factor L-1 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering L-1A Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering L-1B Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering M-1 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering M-2A Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering M-2B Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-1 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental

Primary Fence Segment Analysis
State TX Sector MAR Station SBT

Location

Horizontal Length (mi) 4.63

Neely's Crossing

Segment Factor

TX

MAR

PRS

Presidio POE to 3.2mi E of POE

3.28

Segment Factor

TX

MAR

PRS

Presidio POE to 3.2mi W of POE

2.87

Segment

TX

DRT

DRS

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

2.36

Factor

Segment Factor

TX

DRT

EGT

EGT 2.3mi upstream to 1mi No of POE

0.75

Segment Factor

TX

DRT

EGT

EGT POE to North of POE

1.06

Segment Factor

TX

RGV

RGC

Near Roma POE

3.76

Map Project ID F Engineering

Primary Fence Segment Analysis
State Sector Station TX RGV RGC

Location

Horizontal Length (mi)

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

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

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

Map Project ID F Engineering

Primary Fence Segment Analysis
State Sector Station TX RGV MER

Location

Horizontal Length (mi)

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment ctor

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

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

Map Project ID Fac Environmental Engineering O-18 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-19 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

Primary Fence Segment Analysis
State Sector Station

Location

Horizontal Length (mi)

Segment Factor

TX

RGV

BRP

Proposed Flor De Mayo POE to Garden Park

3.58

Segment Factor

TX

RGV

BRP

B&M POE to Los Tomates

3.37

Segment Factor

TX

RGV

BRP

Tomates Y

0.91

Segment Factor

TX

RGV

FTB

International POE to Sea Shell Inn

12.98

From: Subject: Date:

(b) (6)

MARTIN, JERRY B b Re: Planned fence miles Thursday, December 20, 2007 5:43:16 PM

(

Can't read it on bb. Go with it! ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: SCUDDER, RYAN J Sent: Thu Dec 20 17:38:52 2007 Subject: Fw: Planned fence miles Do agree with this? It looks good to me after a quick read. ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Sent: Thu Dec 20 16:50:30 2007 Subject: RE: Planned fence miles I also think this is a good layout (incl (b) (6) edits) and captures what we discussed yesterday.

ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)

(b) (6)
Director, Management, Planning and Analysis Secure Border Initiative U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:14 PM To: (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: RE: Planned fence miles

Great job on the decision paper, (b) . Attached is a revised draft with just a few suggested edits from (b) (6) & I. Question: do we also need to propose a policy on the release of maps & what they (6) depict?? We are still reconciling the option 3 table. Aim to have that out by 5pm.

Thanks,

(b) (6) Business Manager - Operations & Reporting SBI, Tactical Infrastructure Program (b) (6)

________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent: Thu 12/20/2007 8:58 AM To: (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6) Subject: RE: Planned fence miles Good morning. As we discussed yesterday, I drafted a decision paper on this. <<Decision Paper.doc>> I did this last night pretty late, and have not had time to review it, so it may be rough. Please make any changes to this with Track Changes on, and provide any feedback by this afternoon at 2:00 pm. Thanks.

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

(b) (6)
For more information about the Secure Border Initiative, visit www.cbp.gov/sbi <http://www.cbp.gov/sbi> or contact us at SBI_info@dhs.gov <mailto:SBI_info@dhs.gov> . -----Original Appointment----From: (b) (6) Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 2:25 PM To: ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6) Subject: Planned fence miles When: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:15 PM-3:45 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: XD's Conference Room When: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:15 PM-3:45 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: XD's Conference Room *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Rowdy requested that we meet this afternoon to discuss planned fence miles. (b) (6) on behalf of(b) (6) and there will be a hard stop at 3:45 p.m.

will attend

From: To:

GIDDENS, GREGOR(

(b) (6)

; FLOSSMAN, LOREN ( ; (b)

(6)

Cc: Subject: Date:

(b) (6)

; ADAMS, ROWDY (b (b) (6) RE: Requests Friday, September 07, 2007 4:46:19 PM

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 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 with notifying the Hill, or get started with pursuing ROEs?

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

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)

Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:39:26 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 07, 2007 4:10 PM To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

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

(b) (5)

----- Original Message ----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 Subject: RE: Requests My comments are regarding the approach in general, and not specific to the language in the document:

(b ) (5 )

(b) (6)
Office of Congressional Affairs

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

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

Good afternoon.

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

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

Thank you.

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

(b) (6)

From: To: Subject: Date:

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

Re: SFA language Monday, August 13, 2007 6:18:00 PM

I don't think I left my office once today. Trying to catch up on the trillion emails from last week and also a lot of staring into space following very little sleep last night. Looking forward to a much needed grocery store trip (I love the grocery store), and hopefully getting to bed real early tonight! ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent: Mon Aug 13 18:02:04 2007 Subject: RE: SFA language

Good. Swamped. This P-70 reporting thing has taken on a life of it's own. It is all time consuming and growing. You couldn't find a reason to visit today? I still haven't had a (b) fix. Glad to be back in (6) the hole...I mean mix of things? -----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:59 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: Re: SFA language I don't know that I'd take that position if I were you!! How are you? ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To (b) (6) Sent: Mon Aug 13 17:57:56 2007 Subject: RE: SFA language If your good with it then I am good with it! -----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:57 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: Re: SFA language I'm good with it. ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent: Mon Aug 13 17:54:25 2007

Subject: RE: SFA language Per (b) (6) suggestion, I propose the following:

(b) (5)

What do you think?

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

(b) (6)
________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:39 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: RE: SFA language

(b) (5)

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

(b) (6)

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

(b) (6) Subject: SFA language
Good morning.

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

(b) (6)

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date:

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

RE: Appropriations Q#13 Wednesday, February 06, 2008 7:03:27 AM

Good morning (b) (6) We are moving farther past the deadline on the expenditure plan, and need to wrap up the issue with the two segments greater than 15 miles. Have you already contacted the Sectors about this? If not, would you like us to? Thanks.

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

For more information about the Secure Border Initiative, visit www.cbp.gov/sbi or contact us at SBI_info@dhs.gov.

From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 3:09 PM To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6) ) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: RE: Appropriations Q#13 Importance: High

(b) (6)
Attached is a revised version of the appropriations response, per our discussion on Friday, (b) . (6) There are several comments inserted with questions for (b) (6) and (b) ; for example, there are (6) 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 b wasn’t sure whether the term “primary pedestrian fence” needed to be updated to “personnel fence”, “personnel/vehicle fence”, etc in this documented. I highlighted in green a several instances of that term.
Please let me know what else you

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

From:( Sent: b Friday, February 01, 2008 10:15 AM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W Subject: RE: Appropriations Q#13 Here’s the version I sent out last night. I thought I copied Loren, but must have missed him. I welcome all your comments, please make any suggested additions or edits directly to the document with Track Changes on. Also, I’ve heard from OFAM that they will be able to provide detailed environmental information, but not until Monday. Thanks.

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

For more information about the Secure Border Initiative, visit www.cbp.gov/sbi or contact us at SBI_info@dhs.gov.

From: (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 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (b) (6)

From: To: Subject: Date:

(b) (6)

FLOSSMAN, LOREN ( Re: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:26:58 PM

SBI TI relies on BP for operational assessment - everyone intitled to an opinion but the only opinion SBI TI considers seriously is OBP/BP. - loren ----- Original Message ----From:(b) (6) To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W (b) (6) Sent: Wed Jan 16 18:48:29 2008 Subject: FW: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE Gentlemen,

Please review attached correspondence relative to the PF-225, Phase I, J-1 (STN POE) project.

El Paso Sector passionately supports Santa Teresa (STN) (b) (6) rebuttal. We MUST replace the fencing as requested. We are the border security experts who focus on operational needs and mission requirements. Leaving a hug “gap” on both sides of the STN POE will be a fatal error. I respectfully request that you revisit this conundrum and resolve based upon our factual rebuttal. Please advise.

Regards,

(b) (6)
Assistant Chief Patrol Agent El Paso Sector

(b) (6)

________________________________ From:(b) (6) Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:17 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: FW: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE Importance: High

(b) (6)

The Santa Teresa Station respectfully requests that this change order be reconsidered. I cannot stress enough the importance of fencing through the footprint of the Santa Teresa Port of Entry (STR POE). The area in question is approximately 1900 feet which is over a quarter of a mile and less than a half of a mile. With significant P-225 fencing on either side of the STR POE, this will be our weakest link if you will and I can almost guarantee you that this existing chain link fence will be breached and will cause significant operational challenges for the Santa Teresa Border Patrol Station as well as the STR POE.

As this e-mail works its way through the chain, I know that any Border Patrol Agent who reads it can testify to the operational headaches they have experienced through out their careers when working in and around POE’s. If this chain link fence is not replaced, I know it will be breached and aliens or other items will be smuggled through it. Those aliens and/or contraband will blend in with legitimate and illegitimate traffic in and around the POE which will make our job much more challenging.

Should the additional fencing be approved, this will enable me to push this cross border traffic further west into an area where I have more time to respond and resolve it rather than dealing with it in and around the STR POE where I have only seconds or minutes to deal with the traffic.

The following are our responses to the basis for denial.

* The existing chain link fence is not the property of OBP/or OFAM. Seeking permission for its removal and replacement may delay the entire project.

In conversations with GSA, STR POE and the Verde Group when plans were being made for P-225, the Santa Teresa Station received unanimous approval from all parties to remove the existing chain link fence which was installed in 1992. All parties were under the assumption that the existing chain link fencing would be replaced under P-225/J-1. In addition, the current chain link fencing is located within the sixty foot Roosevelt Easement.

* The Santa Teresa POE is located some distance north of the International Border with camera monitored gates. Additional camera monitoring or other intrusion surveillance may be a more cost effective means to address the security concern.

The STR POE is located just on the north side of the border and does not have cameras that monitor the chain link fencing. What the STR POE does have are compound security cameras and primary inspection cameras for officer safety. These cameras do not maintain a visual of the border.

* An industrial park is planned just west of the POE. This development may warrant 24 hour POE operation in the near future.

There are long term plans for commercial, retail and residential development in and around the STR POE. At this time, there is no ongoing construction around the STR POE and in consultation with the

STR POE; they advise that there are no plans in the foreseeable future to make the STR POE a 24 hour operation. However, this reason is all the more “reason” to fence through the STR POE now, before the development comes and when we have the chance to do things the right way. For example, look at the POE’s in and around El Paso, I am sure agents working there will tell you the horror stories of aliens jumping off the bridges, jumping the chain link fences into the POE compounds, etc. Now is the time to get out in front of this and seal up the border BEFORE the development comes.

We maintain open communication with the Port Director(b) (6) at the STR POE and advised them of this project from the beginning. They are in agreement with us that the fence is critical.

Respectfully,

(b) (6)

Patrol Agent in Charge Santa Teresa Border Patrol Station

(b) (6)

________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:52 AM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: FW: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE Importance: High

ALCON; It appears that the Change Order Request that I generated on behalf of the El Paso Sector (Santa Teresa Station) has been rejected for the removal and replacement of the chain link fencing at/near the POE and based upon the information as outlined below. Thanks,

(b )

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

________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:07 AM To: (b) (6) Subject: FW: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE Importance: High Please keep this in your records.

________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 2:40 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: Flossman, Loren W; (b) (6) Subject: RE: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE Importance: High OFAM recommendation is NOT to recommend this Change in Scope. This recommendation is offered for the following reasons: * The existing chain link fence is not the property of OBP/or OFAM. Seeking permission for its removal and replacement may delay the entire project. * The Santa Teresa POE is located some distance north of the International Border with camera monitored gates. Additional camera monitoring or other intrusion surveillance may be a more cost effective means to address the security concern. * An industrial park is planned just west of the POE. This development may warrant 24 hour POE operation in the near future.

(b) (6)
Architect / Program Manager

OF-AM, Tactical Infrastructure DHS/Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 9:19 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: Flossman, Loren W; (b) (6) Subject: FW: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE Importance: High

All

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

Thanks all

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

________________________________ From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:20 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE

(b) (6) Please find the attached Change Order Request for Loren Flossman's approval/rejection for the J1 Project regarding the existing chain link fence that the CBP would like removed and replaced to meet their operational needs.
I have conveyed to the CBP that this is not an automatic approval, but subject to the approval of Loren based upon their needs and availability of funding. <<PF225 Change Request (J1).doc>> Please advise ASAP for me to proceed accordingly. Thanks, (b ) (6 Project Manager US Army Corps of Engineers-Albuquerque District 4101 Jefferson Plaza NE Albuquerque, NM, 87109 (b) (6)

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date:

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

FLOSSMAN, LOREN ( Re: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format Thursday, January 10, 2008 6:00:51 PM

It will need to come through CBP taskings because SBI exec sec doesn't assign OBP taskings. I will brief (b) (6) on what might be coming in the morning. Thanks for the follow-up. (b) (6) ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent: Thu Jan 10 17:49:08 2008 Subject: RE: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format Ok, good. Glad we're on the same page. I have been pushing (b) (6) level statements, but they don't think that will satisfy Congress. just to respond with high-

Here's where it says we have to respond by segment: ">>>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;”

If that’s still not clear, I’m hoping (b) (6)

can chime in to help clarify.

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

(b) (6)

-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 5:46 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: Re: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format

I understand it...I just haven't seen where they are requesting it by segment. That is my point.

----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Sent: Thu Jan 10 17:44:02 2008 Subject: RE: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

(b)(4),(b)(5),(b)(6)

Thanks,

(b) (6)
Business Manager, Operations SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

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

( b Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 4:08 PM
To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

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

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

(b) (6)

Assistant Chief Headquarters U.S. Border Patrol

(b) (6)

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

From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:49 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: RE: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format

(b) (6) I have broken the segments down by sector so all that needs to be populated are the BP section of each segment. The other 3 factors/lines will be filled in by OFAM and SBI. Thank you for your help!

(b) (6)

-----Original Message----From:(b) (6) Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:18 PM To: (b) (6) Cc:(b) (6) Subject: Re: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format

I never received the tasker request or the segments broken down by sector. I had asked to see where it said we needed it broken down in this manner instead of stating that "these" are the factors used to determine all fencing locations. We haven't moved on it since I stopped by that day and spoke to (b) (6) Let me know.

(b) (6)
----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: (b)(b) (6) (6) Sent: Thu Jan 10 15:13:40 2008

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

(b) (6)
I was just following up to see what the status of this response was. Do we have an estimate of when we can expect a response? This isn’t a rush just a status check. Thank you!

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:38 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: FW: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format

FYI

(b) (6)

Business Manager, Operations

SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

________________________________

From:(b) (6) Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 4:17 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

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

(b) (6)

(b) (5)

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

Thanks,

(b) (6)

Business Manager, Operations

SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6) Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 3:00 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;(b) (6)

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

(b) (6)

(b) (5)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

Assistant Chief

Headquarters U.S. Border Patrol

(b) (6)

________________________________

From:(b) (6) Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 6:54 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;(b) (6) Subject: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format Importance: High

All,

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

To recap for those who weren’t there, Congress is requiring us to fulfill certain requirements before they

will release our FY 08 funding to us. Requirement # 13 applies to TI and states:

“An analysis by the Secretary, for each segment, defined as no more than 14 miles, of fencing or tactical infrastructure, of the selected approach compared to other, alternative means of achieving operation control; such analysis should include cost, level of operational control, possible unintended effects on communities, and other factors critical to the decision-making process;”

(b) (6)

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

In the meeting, we came to the conclusion that it made the most sense to respond by following the framework of the “4 factors” of the fence decision-making process, consistent with the external messaging developed by (b) 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) · the response. (6)

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

·

(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) (6) 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 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)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

Map Project ID Segment Factor 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 Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering A-2 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering A-2 Border Patrol Assessment

Primary Fence Segment Analysis
State CA Sector SDC Station BRF

Location

Horizontal Length (mi) 3.58

Pack Truck Trail

Segment Factor

CA

SDC

ECJ

Ceti's Hill

0.57

Segment Factor

CA

SDC

ECJ

W. Horseshoe Canyon

0.89

Segment Factor

CA

SDC

ECJ

East Bell Valley

0.12

Segment Factor

CA

SDC

ECJ

Ag Loop

1.02

Segment Factor

CA

SDC

CAO

Soutwest Rim of Smith Canyon

0.17

Segment Factor

CA

SDC

CAO

Rattlesnake Ridge to Larry Pierce Road

1.06

Segment r

CA

SDC

CAO

West edge of Boundary Peak

0.09

Map Project ID 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 CA 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 Facto

Primary Fence Segment Analysis
State Sector Station

Location

Horizontal Length (mi)

Segment Factor

CA

SDC

BLV

Willows Access #1

1.63

Segment Factor

CA

SDC

BLV

Willows Access #2

2.01

Segment Factor

CA

SDC

BLV

Airport Mesa

0.05

Segment Factor

SDC

BLV

O'Neil Valley

1.47

Segment Factor

CA

ELC

ELS

Mon 224 to ELS West Checks

2.36

Segment Factor

CA

ELC

CAX

CAX East Checks

8.59

Segment Factor

CA

ELC

CAX

19.16

Segment

CA

ELC

CAX

2.85

Map Project ID Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering C-1 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering C-2B 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 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering D-5B Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering D-6 Factor

Primary Fence Segment Analysis
State Sector Station

Location

Horizontal Length (mi)

Segment

CA

YUM

CAX/YUS

Andrade POE: Imperial sand dunes to CA-AZ line

10.28

Factor

Segment Factor

AZ

YUM

YUS

From end of PF70 project to County 18

3.70

Segment Factor

AZ

TCA

AJO

AJO 2mi east of POE

3.10

Segment Factor

AZ

TCA

AJO

AJO 2mi west of POE

2.10

Segment Factor

AZ

TCA

NGL

1mi W to 3mi W of Mariposa POE

2.00

Segment Factor

AZ

TCA

NGL

NGL 1mi E to 6mi E of POE

5.16

Segment

AZ

TCA

NGL

E Deconcini POE

2.23

Map Project ID Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering E-2A Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering E-2B Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering E-3 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering F-1 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering H-2A Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering I-1A Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Factor

Primary Fence Segment Analysis
State Sector Station

Location

Horizontal Length (mi)

Segment Factor

AZ

TCA

NCO

NCO 17.75mi W to San Pedro River

6.44

Segment Factor

AZ

TCA

NCO

Monument 97 to 4.75mi W of POE

6.94

Segment Factor

AZ

TCA

NCO

NCO 3.4mi E to 12.4mi E of POE

5.07

Segment Factor

AZ

TCA

NCO

From existing fence to Kings Ranch

0.97

Segment

NM

EPT

DNM

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

14.11

Factor

Segment Factor

NM

EPT

DNM

DNM 1.5mi E to 3mi E of POE

2.56

Map Project ID F Engineering

Primary Fence Segment Analysis
State Sector Station NM EPT DNM/STN

Location

Horizontal Length (mi)

Segment Factor

I-1B

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment

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 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering J-3 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-1 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-1

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

Factor

Segment Factor

NM

EPT

STN

STN Blackie's Gate to W end Sunland

1.08

Segment

TX

EPT

EPS

EPS Pumphouse to end of fence at Roadside Park

1.07

Factor

Segment

TX

EPT

EPS

EPS End of fence at Roadside Park to Headgates

0.65

Map Project ID Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-1 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-2A Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-2B&C Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-3 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-4 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering K-5 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering Factor

Primary Fence Segment Analysis
State Sector Station

Location

Horizontal Length (mi)

Segment Factor

TX

EPT

EPS

EPS Headgates to West RR bridge

1.26

Segment Factor

TX

EPT

YST

1mi E of US 54 to Socorro Headgates

9.60

Segment Factor

TX

EPT

YST

Socorro Headgates to 1 mi W of FAB POE

19.42

Segment Factor

TX

EPT

FBN

FAB 1mi W to 3mi E of POE

9.03

Segment Factor

TX

EPT

FBN

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

13.48

Segment Factor

TX

EPT

FHT

FHT 1.5mi W to 1.5mi E of POE

5.21

Map Project ID Segment Factor L-1 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering L-1A Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering L-1B Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering M-1 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering M-2A Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering M-2B Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-1 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental

Primary Fence Segment Analysis
State TX Sector MAR Station SBT

Location

Horizontal Length (mi) 4.63

Neely's Crossing

Segment Factor

TX

MAR

PRS

Presidio POE to 3.2mi E of POE

3.28

Segment Factor

TX

MAR

PRS

Presidio POE to 3.2mi W of POE

2.87

Segment

TX

DRT

DRS

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

2.36

Factor

Segment Factor

TX

DRT

EGT

EGT 2.3mi upstream to 1mi No of POE

0.75

Segment Factor

TX

DRT

EGT

EGT POE to North of POE

1.06

Segment Factor

TX

RGV

RGC

Near Roma POE

3.76

Map Project ID F Engineering

Primary Fence Segment Analysis
State Sector Station TX RGV RGC

Location

Horizontal Length (mi)

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

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

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

Map Project ID F Engineering

Primary Fence Segment Analysis
State Sector Station TX RGV MER

Location

Horizontal Length (mi)

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment Factor

Segment ctor

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

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

Map Project ID Fac Environmental Engineering O-18 Border Patrol Assessment Stakeholder Input Environmental Engineering O-19 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

Primary Fence Segment Analysis
State Sector Station

Location

Horizontal Length (mi)

Segment Factor

TX

RGV

BRP

Proposed Flor De Mayo POE to Garden Park

3.58

Segment Factor

TX

RGV

BRP

B&M POE to Los Tomates

3.37

Segment Factor

TX

RGV

BRP

Tomates Y

0.91

Segment Factor

TX

RGV

FTB

International POE to Sea Shell Inn

12.98

From: To:

(b) (6)
GIDDENS, GREGOR( ; (b)

(6)

FLOSSMAN, LOREN ( ; (b)

(6)

Cc: Subject: Date:

(b) (6)

ADAMS, ROWDY ( (b) (6) Re: Requests Friday, September 07, 2007 4:54:45 PM

(b) (5)

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

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

Cc: (b) (6)

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:46:18 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 07, 2007 4:45 PM To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6) Subject: Re: Requests Get started with notifying the Hill, or get started with pursuing ROEs?

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

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

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:39:26 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 07, 2007 4:10 PM To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

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

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

----- Original Message ----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 Subject: RE: Requests 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 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

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

Good afternoon.

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

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

Thank you.

(b) (6)

Secure Border Initiative U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

From: To: Subject: Date:

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

Re: SFA language Monday, August 13, 2007 6:40:47 PM

You love the grocery store? You should buy some food!!!! Oh yeah and EAT the food! ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent: Mon Aug 13 18:17:59 2007 Subject: Re: SFA language I don't think I left my office once today. Trying to catch up on the trillion emails from last week and also a lot of staring into space following very little sleep last night. Looking forward to a much needed grocery store trip (I love the grocery store), and hopefully getting to bed real early tonight! ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent: Mon Aug 13 18:02:04 2007 Subject: RE: SFA language

Good. Swamped. This P-70 reporting thing has taken on a life of it's own. It is all time consuming and growing. You couldn't find a reason to visit today? I still haven't had a (b) fix. Glad to be back in (6) the hole...I mean mix of things? -----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:59 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: Re: SFA language I don't know that I'd take that position if I were you!! How are you? ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent: Mon Aug 13 17:57:56 2007 Subject: RE: SFA language If your good with it then I am good with it! -----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:57 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: Re: SFA language

I'm good with it. ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent: Mon Aug 13 17:54:25 2007 Subject: RE: SFA language Per (b) (6) suggestion, I propose the following:

(b) (5)

What do you think?

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

(b) (6)
________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:39 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: RE: SFA language

(b) (5)

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

(b) (6)

________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 12:28 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: SFA language Good morning.

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

(b) (6)

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date:

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

RE: Appropriations Q#13 Wednesday, February 06, 2008 7:06:52 AM

I spoke with (b) (6) about this and she was gonna get with (b) (6) We didn’t break up the segments originally. SBI TI personnel did. It makes no difference to us as long as the entire project is built. (b) (6) From:( Sent: b Wednesday, February 06, 2008 7:03 AM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: RE: Appropriations Q#13 Good morning (b) (6) We are moving farther past the deadline on the expenditure plan, and need to wrap up the issue with the two segments greater than 15 miles. Have you already contacted the Sectors about this? If not, would you like us to? Thanks.

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

For more information about the Secure Border Initiative, visit www.cbp.gov/sbi or contact us at SBI_info@dhs.gov.

From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 3:09 PM To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: RE: Appropriations Q#13 Importance: High

(b) (6)
Attached is a revised version of the appropriations response, per our discussion on Friday (b) (6) There are several comments inserted with questions 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 b wasn’t sure whether the term “primary pedestrian fence” needed to be updated to “personnel fence”, “personnel/vehicle fence”, etc in this documented. I highlighted in green a several instances of that term.

Please let me know what else you

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

From:( Sent: b Friday, February 01, 2008 10:15 AM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W Subject: RE: Appropriations Q#13 Here’s the version I sent out last night. I thought I copied Loren, but must have missed him. I welcome all your comments, please make any suggested additions or edits directly to the document with Track Changes on. Also, I’ve heard from OFAM that they will be able to provide detailed environmental information, but not until Monday. Thanks.

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

For more information about the Secure Border Initiative, visit www.cbp.gov/sbi or contact us at SBI info@dhs.gov.

From: (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 U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office: 202-344-2997 (b) (6)

From: To: Cc:

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

; FLOSSMAN, LOREN (

Subject: Date:

RE: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE Friday, January 18, 2008 10:48:59 AM

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) Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:43 AM 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) Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 6:19 AM To: (b) (6) Subject: FW: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE

From: (b) (6) Sent: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE

(b) (6) Please find the attached Change Order Request for Loren Flossman's approval/rejection for the J1 Project regarding the existing chain link fence that the CBP would like removed and replaced to meet their operational needs.
I have conveyed to the CBP that this is not an automatic approval, but subject to the approval of Loren based upon their needs and availability of funding. <<PF225 Change Request (J1).doc>> Please advise ASAP for me to proceed accordingly. Thanks, (b ) (6 )Project Manager US Army Corps of Engineers-Albuquerque District 4101 Jefferson Plaza NE Albuquerque, NM, 87109 (b) (6)

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date:

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

; FLOSSMAN, LOREN (b) RE: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format Thursday, January 10, 2008 6:06:13 PM

(6)

Great. Thanks. SBIExecSec told me that CBP Taskings said they did not want to coordinate any more taskings for us; however, I agree with you that they are the right party to do so in cases like this. SBIExecSec will be seeking clarification from them tomorrow.

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

-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 6:01 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W Subject: Re: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format It will need to come through CBP taskings because SBI exec sec doesn't assign OBP taskings. I will brief Jeff Self on what might be coming in the morning. Thanks for the follow-up. (b) (6) ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) ) To (b) (6) Sent: Thu Jan 10 17:49:08 2008 Subject: RE: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format Ok, good. Glad we're on the same page. I have been pushing(b) (6) level statements, but they don't think that will satisfy Congress. just to respond with high-

Here's where it says we have to respond by segment: ">>>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;”

If that’s still not clear, I’m hoping (b) (6)

can chime in to help clarify.

(b) (6)
Business Manager, Operations SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 5:46 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: Re: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format

I understand it...I just haven't seen where they are requesting it by segment. That is my point.

----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Sent: Thu Jan 10 17:44:02 2008 Subject: RE: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

(b)(4),(b)(5),(b)(6)

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

Thanks,

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

(b) (6)

-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 4:08 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: RE: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format

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

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

Assistant Chief Headquarters U.S. Border Patrol

(b) (6)

-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:49 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: RE: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format

(b) (6) I have broken the segments down by sector so all that needs to be populated are the BP section of each segment. The other 3 factors/lines will be filled in by OFAM and SBI. Thank you for your help!

(b) (6)

-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:18 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: Re: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format

I never received the tasker request or the segments broken down by sector. I had asked to see where it said we needed it broken down in this manner instead of stating that "these" are the factors used to determine all fencing locations. We haven't moved on it since I stopped by that day and spoke to (b) (6) Let me know.

(b) (6)
----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent: Thu Jan 10 15:13:40 2008 Subject: FW: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format

(b) (6)
I was just following up to see what the status of this response was. Do we have an estimate of when we can expect a response? This isn’t a rush just a status check. Thank you!

(b) (6)

________________________________

From:(b) (6) Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:38 PM

To (b) (6) Subject: FW: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format

FYI

(b) (6)

Operations

SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6) Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 4:17 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: RE: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format

(b) (6)

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

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

Thanks,

(b) (6)

Business Manager, Operations

SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6) Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 3:00 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

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

(b) (6)

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

Assistant Chief

Headquarters U.S. Border Patrol

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 6:54 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6) Subject: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format Importance: High

All,

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

To recap for those who weren’t there, Congress is requiring us to fulfill certain requirements before they will release our FY 08 funding to us. Requirement # 13 applies to TI and states:

“An analysis by the Secretary, for each segment, defined as no more than 14 miles, of fencing or tactical infrastructure, of the selected approach compared to other, alternative means of achieving operation control; such analysis should include cost, level of operational control, possible unintended effects on communities, and other factors critical to the decision-making process;”

(b) (6)

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

In the meeting, we came to the conclusion that it made the most sense to respond by following the framework of the “4 factors” of the fence decision-making process, consistent with the external messaging developed by(b) (6) team and being used in our public meetings:

(b) (6) · – we will need input from OBP on operational requirements analysis for each segment; I will call you tomorrow to explain if you’re in the office.

(b) · the response. (6)

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

·

(b) (6)

Oh & 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) (6) 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 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)

e

Business Manager, Operations

SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

From: To:

GIDDENS, GREGOR(

(b) (6)

; FLOSSMAN, LOREN ( ; (b)

(6)

Cc: Subject: Date:

(b) (6)

ADAMS, ROWDY ( (b) (6) RE: Requests Friday, September 07, 2007 4:58:19 PM

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

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;

Cc: (b) (6) Subject: Re: Requests

(b) (5)

(b) (6) ----- Original Message ----From: GIDDENS, GREGORY To: CYLKE, LAURA R; (b) (6)

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:46:18 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 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 with notifying the Hill, or get started with pursuing ROEs?

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

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)

Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:39:26 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 07, 2007 4:10 PM To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

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

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

----- Original Message ----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

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

(b ) (5 )

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

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

Good afternoon.

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

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

Thank you.

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

(b) (6)

From: To: Subject: Date:

(b) (6) (b) (6)
Re: SFA language Monday, August 13, 2007 6:50:07 PM

What a comedian you are. ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent: Mon Aug 13 18:40:46 2007 Subject: Re: SFA language You love the grocery store? You should buy some food!!!! Oh yeah and EAT the food! ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent: Mon Aug 13 18:17:59 2007 Subject: Re: SFA language I don't think I left my office once today. Trying to catch up on the trillion emails from last week and also a lot of staring into space following very little sleep last night. Looking forward to a much needed grocery store trip (I love the grocery store), and hopefully getting to bed real early tonight! ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent: Mon Aug 13 18:02:04 2007 Subject: RE: SFA language

Good. Swamped. This P-70 reporting thing has taken on a life of it's own. It is all time consuming and growing. You couldn't find a reason to visit today? I still haven't had a (b) fix. Glad to be back in (6) the hole...I mean mix of things? -----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:59 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: Re: SFA language I don't know that I'd take that position if I were you!! How are you? ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To (b) (6) Sent: Mon Aug 13 17:57:56 2007 Subject: RE: SFA language If your good with it then I am good with it!

-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:57 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: Re: SFA language I'm good with it. ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Sent: Mon Aug 13 17:54:25 2007 Subject: RE: SFA language Per (b) (6) suggestion, I propose the following:

(b) (5)

What do you think?

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

(b) (6)
________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:39 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: RE: SFA language

(b) (5)

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

(b) (6)

________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 12:28 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: SFA language Good morning.

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

(b) (6)

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful