This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Page 1 of 6
Sunday, June 22, 2008 5:47 PM (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
FW: document addressing community concerns
FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;
Attachments: Local fencing concerns by sector.doc; Court Orders Eminent Domain Actions.doc; Effective Control and Agents.doc; Environmental Concerns & Responses.doc
Please respond to the tasker listed below regarding community concerns. If you have any questions or feel I have tasked you in error, please let me know ASAP so I can redirect. Thanks, (b) (6)
From: SBIEXECSEC Sent: Fri 6/20/2008 10:00 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: Fw: document addressing community concerns Hi (b) (6)
FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
We have received the following tasker from Greg. Please forward your response to me NLT 2:00 Monday, June 23. Thanks much, (b) (6) ----- Original Message ----From: GIDDENS, GREGORY To: SBIEXECSEC; (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6)
FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Sent: Fri Jun 20 17:39:45 2008 Subject: Fw: document addressing community concerns We need a para specifically covering the public input/community concerns for M2-A to better address the concern in (b) (6) Would like to have it Mon by 1600. Greg G ----- Original Message ----From (b) (6) To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) PAGAN, DAVID G.- HQ; (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6) Sent: Fri Jun 20 17:13:01 2008 Subject: RE: document addressing community concerns last letter.
Responses to Environmental Concerns
1. What are we doing to avoid fragmenting the already stressed animal habitat between the two “sky islands” of Otay Mountain and Cerro San Isidro in Mexico? For A-1, the primary species of conservation concern (including transborder conservation strategies) are endemic plants, invertebrates (e.g., Thorne’s hairstreak, Quino checkerspot butterfly), herpetofauna (e.g., arroyo southwestern toad), birds (e.g., California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo), and mammals (e.g., Bighorn sheep, mountain lion, and American badger). Plant propagules capable of long-distance dispersal (e.g. windblown seeds) would not be impacted by the bollard style fence. Invertebrates would be able to pass between or over the bollards. Birds would be able to fly through or over the fence. Herps would be able to pass through the fence – between the bollards. Big-horn sheep and mountain lion are not known from the A-1 vicinity. American badger may occur in the area although no signs of this species were observed during multiple field sessions. If badgers do occupy the area, they would be able to move through the bollard fence. The Tijuana River and Mexican highway just south of A-1 would pose much more substantial barriers to badger movement. Construction of the pedestrian fence in A-1 would allow habitat north of the fence to recover from years of abuse due to transborder trespass grazing and movement of illegal aliens through the area. Finally, it should be noted that the additional protection from accidental wildfires provided by the Project, and the improved access for control when these events occur, will be extremely beneficial to the fragile ecosystem and also human life and property. 2. How are we securing wildlife migratory corridors without closing them off? The J2 reach of the El Paso Sector’s TI program is a 3-mile long segment located south of Sunland Park, New Mexico. It should be noted that the pedestrian fence for the J2 segment was planned to be an aesthetically pleasing fence, which would allow the passage of most animals, with the exception of larger mammals. Only minor impacts ass ociated wi th restriction of transb order movement of wildlife wo uld occur. Alt hough, the aesthetic fence would preclu de transbo rder mig ration of large r mammals ( e.g., mule d eer), a nd t hus frag menting ha bitat within t he p roject corrid or, these impacts would be consid ered minimal. Many a reas alo ng t he proj ect co rridor area, s uch a s the Santa Teresa POE, a re dis turbed or developed a nd pro vide a li mited transbo rder migratory co rridor to wildlife speci es. The d esign of the a esthetic f ence woul d most likel y allow migration of s maller ani mals, particularly l izards, s nakes, toa ds a nd ro dents. Habi tat fragmentation typically affects species with small population sizes or that are dependent upon migration to obtain spatially or temporally limited resources. The pedestrian fence would not be expected to affect the genetic variability of such species, especially since they are regionally common. Therefore, no significant adverse effects are anticipated.
Responses to Environmental Concerns
3. Provide specific mitigation plans or an evaluation of the impact of the project on migratory paths, particularly in the B-5A.2 sub-segment. For B-5A, the primary species of conservation concern with a potential for being observed in the project area, are endemic plants (Algodones dunes sunflower and Peirson’s milk-vetch), birds (Southwestern willow flycatcher and possibly the Yuma clapper rail), and a reptile (Flat-tailed horned lizard ). Plant propagules capable of long-distance dispersal (e.g. windblown seeds) will not be impacted by the bollard style fence. Birds will be able to fly through or over the fence. Reptiles will be able to pass through the fence between the bollards. Planned mitigations include compensation for the permanently disturbed flat-tailed horned lizard habitat. In addition, an independently contracted biological monitor will be on-site during construction to help ensure planned Best Management Practices are implemented to minimize any impacts and provide training to construction contractors on sensitive species in the project corridor. 4. Provide specific mitigation plans or an evaluation of the impact on Fish and Wildlife land and historical sites around Los Ebanos, TX. [O-segments] a. For Sections O-1 through O-3, and O-11 through O-21, the primary species of conservation concern are three species of plants (Texas ayenia, Walker’s manioc, and Zapata bladderpod); and two mammals, the ocelot and the jaguarundi. Plant propagules which are capable of long-distance dispersal (e.g. wind blown seeds) will not be impacted by the fence styles planned for these sections. Cat openings, designed to allow passage of the ocelot and jaguarundi have been incorporated into the fence design and specific placement of such coordinated with USFWS. Other wildlife in the area, including deer, coyotes, and other species with large enough dispersal distances for the fence to be a potential factor, will be capable of either going through the cat openings, or around the ends of the fence sections. CBP has coordinated with USFWS and the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge (actually a system of Refuge units) from the beginning of the environmental analysis process and made changes to reduce and avoid impacts to Refuge lands where possible, without compromising the mission. Examples include shortening of O-1 so it would not extend onto Refuge lands at the western end of the section, shifting of fence alignments to skirt rather than transect Refuge units, and the incorporation, to the extent practicable, of wildlife friendly versus relatively impermeable fence types where each was recommended by USFWS. b. The Los Ebanos Ferry is the only cable-anchored, hand-drawn international ferry service on the border of the continental United States. To ensure the preservation of this significant historic resource, CBP and USACE have developed a two-step preservation program. The first step was redesigning the fence in the vicinity of the ferry to minimize impacts. The redesigned fence alignment will avoid the landmark ebony
Responses to Environmental Concerns tree and the cable system for the ferry that is anchored by the tree. This will enable the ferry to continue service as it has for nearly 60 years. The second step is to document the view shed impacts to the ferry. As part of this process, CBP will complete the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) and Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS) documentations for the Los Ebanos ferry and crossing. This will include historical research; preparation of an historical resource description report of the ferry and ferry crossing; a topographic site plan showing ferry approaches, banks, the ebony tree and surrounding landscape; large-format photographs of the ferry approaches, banks, ferry boat and cabling system; and historic photos prepared for archive storage. A brochure summarizing the history of the ferry and ferry crossing will also be prepared for the public.
FENCING PROPOSED IN AREAS UNDER EFFECTIVE CONTROL
Background The analysis of alternatives for the PF225 fence segments was completed in order to analyze any viable alternatives to border fencing. Any alternative or combination of alternatives must meet or exceed the necessary requirement of “persistent impedance”. This requirement was determined by the Border Patrol to be a necessary factor in increasing the distance-to-time ratio for areas that allow the illegal entrant to gain access to urban infrastructures such as roads, private residences, businesses, or blend in with legitimate commerce and citizenry in such a time that the illegal entrant was unlikely to be interdicted. By increasing the time that an agent can respond to border incursions, the Border Patrol can more efficiently deploy available personnel along the border without negatively impacting the agent’s response time or relinquishing control of a section of border. Border fencing is a component of the proper mix of technology, tactical infrastructure, and personnel methodology to gaining and maintaining control of the border that has proven to provide that “persistent impedance” requirement. Fence Proposed in Areas Under Effective Control Some of the PF225 fence segments are within operational zones that are currently designated either partially or fully under “effective control”. That analysis is updated on a regular basis by the local Border Patrol Stations and the Sector Chief Patrol Agents. The status of an operational zone is formulated by analyzing current trends of illegal entries, apprehensions, threat levels, etc. in comparison to current available personnel, existing tactical infrastructure and technology, and other assets available to assist in border security of that segment. The segments that are not currently at their required deployment levels of personnel, tactical infrastructure, and technology are in a state of control that at the onset is fragile, as the Border Patrol continues to complete the proper mix to sustain “effective control” when the smugglers shift back to the area. Over the years, the Border Patrol has seen dramatic fluctuations of illegal cross-border activity in all of the Southwest Border Sectors. Historically, the Border Patrol was only able to apply personnel resources to counter those spikes of illegal entrant activity and only for relatively short periods of time. These personnel deployments were at high costs both monetarily and to the areas that the personnel had to leave in order to respond to this activity spike in another sector. An example of this type of deployment was to San Diego Sector (SDC) in the early 1990’s. The application of personnel reduced the criminal activity in that area to manageable levels, but a secondary effect was the displacement of the smuggling organizations on the Mexican side of the border. The smuggling organizations moved their operations to the next desirable and available location that did not have adequate impedance or deterrence to their operations, South Texas. Although the smuggling organizations had shifted their focus to South Texas and then to Southern Arizona, the Border Patrol began construction of fences and technology in the San Diego Sector during the 1990’s while redeploying personnel and assets to Southern Arizona. Agents alone were enough to cause smugglers to shift out of San Diego to South Texas and Agents were enough to shift smugglers out of South Texas to Arizona. As smugglers ran out of options, however, Agents alone haven’t done the job in Arizona because smugglers are discovering fewer vulnerable areas where they can exploit the lack of tactical infrastructure and technology, so we are layering on these components as we continue to battle criminal organizations for control of that area.
The increased funding and support from Congress has allowed the Border Patrol to continue the application of needed tactical infrastructure, technology and most importantly personnel since the mid 1990’s. The application of those resources across the Southwest Border has enabled the Border Patrol to establish unprecedented levels of border control but even those increased levels do not meet the strategic goal of sustainable effective control of the entire Southwest Border. The smuggling organizations have become increasingly frustrated in their efforts in Southern Arizona as is evidenced by the dramatic decrease in illegal activity and increase in border violence against agents. The anticipated shift of smuggling organization traffic from Southern Arizona to an urban area such as San Diego, California, has been less dramatic due to the tactical infrastructure and technology already in place. These enhancements have allowed for fewer Border Patrol Agents in the San Diego Sector to effectively maintain control of essential segments of border. When smugglers shift back to South Texas we will not be able to adequately confront the activity if we are still trying to hold the ground with agents, so we are working to layer on the other components, starting with tactical infrastructure, in preparation for the shift. Each fence segment was analyzed by the respective Border Patrol Sector and Station that is responsible for that segment. Each of the viable alternatives were analyzed and “weighted” for the “persistent impedance” requirement as an individual alternative and in the case of technology, best combinations of technology alternatives were considered. The vulnerabilities of each segment are considered and compared with current staffing levels and available technology to address illegal activity before that vulnerability can be exploited by the criminal organizations. The B-2 and B-5A fence segments have been deemed to be under a strategic level of “effective control” by the El Centro Sector Chief Patrol Agent because the current illegal activity levels are low enough that current personnel and technology resources are able to provide a meaningful law enforcement response within the immediate border zones. A significant increase in illegal cross-border activity would diminish this ability to effectively respond to all of the activity before the illegal entrants could, within minutes, access infrastructure such as Interstate 8 and blend in with legitimate traffic or place the illegal entrants and agents in danger by attempting to cross the All American Canal. The pedestrian fencing along these segments is needed in order to provide an increased time for agents to respond to illegal activity and sustain the level of “effective control” across these segments in the future. The El Paso Sector Chief Patrol Agent has determined that the K-1 fence segment area is currently “effectively controlled” due to present illegal activity levels and available law enforcement resources to successfully respond to border incursions within the shallow enforcement area. The vulnerability of this area is that it is located between two large metropolitan areas with almost immediate access to urban infrastructure upon an illegal entry into El Paso, Texas. This dynamic creates an extremely small response time requirement by agents. A considerable increase in illegal cross-border activity would cause an inordinate amount of agents to be deployed to the area to counter this spike in activity, which would cause staffing deficiencies in other segments. Tactical infrastructure such as pedestrian fencing would provide the “persistent impedance” and deterrence to provide adequate time for available agents to effectively respond to or even prevent the illegal entries.
Each of the Del Rio Sector project (M-1, M-2A, and M-2B) segments are currently listed as being under "Effective Control". This designation was bestowed based on the present volume of illegal cross-border traffic. The lack of infrastructure and necessary persistence impedance in each of these areas makes this designation unsustainable should traffic levels increase. Operations such as Streamline have been a major factor in reducing the illegal cross-border traffic in the Del Rio Sector to manageable levels, but when we win the fight in the other areas of operation through the deployment of the proper mix of personnel, technology and tactical infrastructure, to include “Streamlinelike” programs, the deterrence effect of Streamline alone will no longer be as effective. Therefore, we intend to sustain Streamline in Del Rio Sector as a critical component, but we must still “layer on” the other components in preparation for the operational shift by the smuggling organizations when they have found no place else to go. The M-1 segment is located in the city of Del Rio, Texas, due north of Ciudad Acuna, Coahuila, Mexico. Both of these cities have substantial population centers that provide ample infrastructure such as access and staging areas near the immediate border that facilitates alien and narcotic smuggling. The Rio Grande River provides a natural barrier that is easily breached by swimmers and rafts. Once north of the river, smugglers and illegal entrants use high growth vegetation to conceal themselves until they approach the southern fringe of warehouses, private residences, and road infrastructure giving agents seconds to minutes to respond to each entry. Removal of this high growth vegetation, construction of tactical infrastructure and application of technologies will provide agents with the needed tools for sustaining “effective control” levels in this segment. The M-2A and M-2B segments are located in Eagle Pass, Texas and due north of Piedras Negras, Coahuila, Mexico. Similar to the M-1 segment in Del Rio, Texas, these cities both have significant infrastructure in place to facilitate alien smuggling operations such as access roads, staging areas and high growth vegetation concealment along the immediate border. Illegal entrants and smuggling organizations are able to get across the Rio Grande River by swimming, wading and rafting to points of concealment on the north bank. High growth vegetation limits detection capabilities and provides cover between the river and the southern edge of Eagle Pass where illegal entrants and smugglers are able to assimilate into the local population. Formidable persistence impedance will increase time in which illegal border crossers are vulnerable to detection and arrest and will result in the enhancement of operational effectiveness. Removal of this high growth vegetation, construction of tactical infrastructure, and application of technologies will provide the agents with the needed tools for sustaining “effective control” levels in this segment. The Rio Grande Valley Sector Chief has determined that operational areas that contain the PF225 fence segments such as O-1 to O-2, O-12 through O-14, and O-17 through O-21 to be in “effectively controlled” level at the current time. Although the aforementioned fence segments span across approximately 100 miles of South Texas, they have several unique challenges and common vulnerabilities that can be exploited by criminal organizations that choose to conduct illegal cross-border activities in these areas. The Rio Grande River was historically believed to be an impediment to illegal cross-border activity. This belief was countered in the mid to late 1990s when smuggling organizations shifted their criminal efforts from the San Diego Sector to the Rio Grande Valley Sector (RGV) area of operations. Apprehension levels were at all-time highs and the Border Patrol instituted yet another deployment of agents from other sectors to counter the spike in activity levels in South Texas.
Again, the deployment was effective at displacing the criminal activity, but the activity again returned to Tucson Sector and into Yuma Sector. We have learned that applying an impediment to crossing the borders illegally, such as agents lined up along the border, is an effective tool for the amount of time that we can sustain the deployment. We have also learned that the financial costs, negative impact on the community (due to the large numbers of deployed agents), and the impact to the local environment intensified the longer the deployment operation continued. In addition, the criminal organizations have learned that they can simply wait for us to pull our deployment out of that area to resume activities, if we don’t construct permanent impedance structures to supplement the remaining personnel and technology. This reality is the looming vulnerability to the Rio Grande Valley Sector. All of the elements that a criminal organization needs to thrive in this area and have been used in the past. Unless the effective border control methodology of the proper mix of personnel, tactical infrastructure, and technology is realized in the RGV Sector, it will continue to be vulnerable and exploited by these criminal organizations. In summary, should any of these project areas experience a significant increase in the volume of traffic, current infrastructure and staffing levels would not be able to maintain "effective control" status without the persistent impedance that a pedestrian fence can provide. This impedance adds valuable time to agent response and affords agents a more sustainable level of effectiveness. Why Border Patrol lists an Increase in Staffing as a Fencing Alternative In determining which alternatives should be evaluated for the Analysis of Alternatives, the Border Patrol first determined that the necessary requirement was the “persistent impedance” factor for all of the alternatives to be analyzed. The Border Patrol then outlined all current available operational assets used in border security such as underground sensors, camera systems, mobile surveillance systems (radar), fencing, and personnel. The non-standard and stakeholder suggestions such as a weir dam, brush clearing, technology only combinations, and “deployment of agents only” alternatives were also considered for analysis. Again, each fence segment was analyzed by the respective Border Patrol Sector and Station that is responsible for that segment. Each of the viable alternatives were analyzed and “weighted” for the “persistent impedance” requirement as an individual alternative and in the case of technology, best combinations of technology alternatives were considered. The vulnerabilities of each segment are considered and compared with current staffing levels and available technology to address illegal activity before that vulnerability can be exploited by the criminal organizations. The “deployment of agents only” alternative was suggested by several stakeholders in lieu of fence construction and as previously stated has been used by the Border Patrol in the past to gain control of sections of border such as downtown Nogales, Arizona and areas of San Diego, California. These past experiences have shown the Border Patrol that large deployments of personnel can gain control of an area of border; but it is very manpower intensive and extremely costly. The ability to sustain a large deployment over an extended period of time proved to be very difficult even with financial support. The smuggling organizations began to send groups of illegal entrants to be intentionally apprehended by agents so that subsequent groups could evade apprehension due to
overwhelming the capacity of the agents. The number of agents that were calculated as necessary to providing “persistent impedance” in a specific segment was determined by the Border Patrol sectors and stations. Often this equation was an agent every 50 to 70 yards for the entire segment mileage, times the number of shifts and days in the week in order to provide constant “persistent impedance”. The strategic goal of identifying and deploying the best alternative is to provide the necessary “persistent impedance” that will provide an adequate amount of time for an agent to respond to illegal cross-border activity even when activity levels are significantly higher than normal in an area. The miles of border that are under “effective control” currently are determined using current levels of activity not with historic or possible future levels of illegal cross-border activity.
SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE – EMINENT DOMAIN ACTIONS
Background U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), through the Department of Justice (DOJ), initiated 88 condemnations actions as part of the agency’s expeditious construction of tactical infrastructure to secure the Southwest Border. DOJ filed these lawsuits in federal district courts in California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico seeking the Government’s temporary right of entry (ROE) to conduct surveying and investigative work. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) obtained judicial possession orders or signed ROEs in all of these cases. In these temporary takings cases, DHS offered $100 to each landowner in exchange for the ROE. Additionally, DHS agreed to compensate the landowners for any damage that might occur during the Government’s field work. In all but one case, there were no special terms or conditions which required DHS’s compliance. University of Texas/Brownsville and Texas Southmost College One of the temporary ROE actions involved land owned by the University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College (UTB). The United States filed its complaint on February 8, 2008 seeking a temporary ROE onto the college’s land for surveying purposes only. On the same day, DOJ filed an ex-parte motion with the Court for immediate possession of the property. On March 19, UTB and DHS agreed to the terms of an order subsequently entered by the Court on the same date. The March 19 order: a. Granted DHS access to the property for six months; b. Granted DHS the authority to conduct studies as needed for consulting with college and also which are “necessary and incidental to” DHS’s assessment of methods of securing operational control of the border through the use of tactical infrastructure; c. Required DHS to give the college prior notice of all activities on the property and to coordinate entry to property with college and the college’s police department; d. Prohibited DHS from “clearing land, mow grass, or otherwise alter the physical landscape of the property without Defendants’ consent;” e. Required the parties to “jointly assess…alternatives to a physical barrier;” and f. Dismissed the case, but retained jurisdiction to resolve interpretations of the order, or to adjudicate any damage claim that might arise from the US’s possession of the property. On April 4, 2008, UTB’s counsel sent DHS a letter asking us to initiate discussion regarding the duty to “jointly assess. . .alternatives to a physical barrier.” DHS responded to the letter on April 14, and requested a meeting with UTB on April 23. UTB was unable to meet during the week of April 23, but agreed to a meeting on April 29 in Brownsville, Texas. At DHS’s request, the parties had a teleconference on April 23 to discuss an agenda for the meeting. At that time, DHS encouraged UTB to present alternatives to a physical barrier for DHS’s consideration.
SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE – EMINENT DOMAIN ACTIONS
On April 29, at UTB’s instigation, the discussion centered more on alternative locations to the fence rather than alternatives to a fence itself. DHS briefly discussed other alternatives that it had considered, such as technology and additional manpower, and explained why those alternatives were not adequate without a physical barrier in place. DHS also proposed that it could use a temporary removable fence that could be relocated to a different site if impediments involving flood plain restrictions could be overcome. DHS emphasized that any alternative to a physical barrier must meet both Border Patrol’s operational requirements and the mandate given to it by Congress. On May 6, DHS had a teleconference with UTB. At that time, UTB said that they did not have any response to our May 3 letter memorializing our meeting. The parties scheduled a tentative next meeting date of May 21, 2008. On May 9, UTB responded to DHS’s May 3 letter, and raised the fact that they were in the process of “assembling a team that will include security consultants, hydrologists, biologists, and archeologists” to assist with the joint assessment. In the same letter, UTB’s counsel stated that UTB was unable to meet on May 21. The parties subsequently agreed to a June 2nd meeting date. Prior to the meeting, UTB’s counsel informed DHS that UTB was in the process of hiring security consultants to assist with the joint assessment. On May 27, 2008, DHS sent UTB a letter reiterating that its operational requirements were not subject to a joint assessment, and also reiterated the need to meet Congress’s mandate. UTB responded on May 29 that their assembled security team “includes highly trained subject matter experts that possess a unique understanding of the Border Security mission.” The June 2 meeting established that the parties were at an impasse in negotiations. Specifically, UTB and DHS do not agree on the importance of the Congressional mandate, or whether DHS’s security requirements are the subject of the Court ordered joint assessment. Notably, at no time did UTB ever offer an alternative to a physical barrier for DHS’s consideration. On June 19, UTB filed a “Motion For Relief Under Order of Dismissal” asking the Court to find that DHS has not complied with the March 19 order with respect to the joint assessment issue. DHS’s written response is due on June 26, and a hearing is scheduled for June 30, 2008 in Brownsville, Texas.
Community Fencing Issues Encountered By Sector
Background While fencing is an important component of our effort to gain control of our borders, CBP also recognizes the potential impact that fencing may have on local communities and landowners. We have worked diligently to provide opportunities for interested stakeholders to express concerns and provide feedback regarding our project plans. We are committed to maintaining an open dialogue with effected communities and landowners, and in conjunction with our outreach efforts, intend to make investments that effectively manage border security with the diverse needs of those who live in border communities. Input from stakeholders, including community leaders and local landowners, is one of the standard factors that contributes to CBP’s border fence location decisions; the other factors are: (1) initial operational assessments based on illegal cross-border activity and the Border Patrol’s extensive field experience; (2) environmental assessments; and (3) engineering assessments, which include the cost to construct. Each of these steps is a standard element of the planning process that enables us to make informed decisions in deploying the right mix of tactical infrastructure. Since May 2007, CBP has been actively engaged with local stakeholders through a variety of forums – town hall meetings, briefings, and contacts with landowners. During these forums, the majority of concerns with the proposed fencing project have centered on general opposition to any border security barriers. For example, during the public comment period on the Rio Grande Valley Sector project, of the approximately 1,100 comments received, 700 were considered to be “non-substantive” including 400 form letters and a petition with 4,600 signatures. Through our consultations, we have identified, and will continue to identify, areas where we can make accommodations that balance operational needs with the other elements in our decision-making process. As detailed below, in many cases where communities have identified specific issues, we have worked to address those concerns: San Diego Sector Changed the alignment of a segment to significantly reduce the impacts to the Otay Mountain Wilderness area.
El Centro Sector Utilized the Public Open House to educate the public on border security needs and how fencing is utilized as part of the personnel, technology and infrastructure methodology.
Yuma Sector CBP continues to consult with the Quechan and Cocopah Tribes to minimize impacts to tribal lands (Fence alignment was adjusted to accommodate ceremonial needs).
Community Fencing Issues Encountered By Sector
Tucson Sector CBP continues to consult with environmental groups and organizations to minimize impacts to areas such as the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area and the Coronado National Forest (Utilizing vehicle fencing when possible to allow easier migration of larger mammals).
El Paso Sector CBP is continuing to work to ensure that access to irrigation water is not impaired and that operations along canals are enhanced for CBP and farmers.
Marfa Sector A levee/barrier design was developed with the IBWC that minimizes the impact on local communities.
Del Rio Sector Aesthetic fence design, unique to this sector, was developed through discussions with local officials in the cities of Del Rio and Eagle Pass. A levee/barrier design will also be used to minimize impacts on the community in Eagle Pass. In addition, M2A segment was adjusted to be incorporated along a bluff to minimize private landowner impact.
Laredo Sector The current operational priority is clearing of Carrizo cane. CBP met with the Mayor of Laredo and other local leaders in Washington, D.C. to discuss their concerns related to potential future fencing and their interest in pursuing a riverwalk project, to be partially funded by DHS.
Rio Grande Valley Sector CBP has entered into an agreement with Hidalgo County to construct a joint levee/barrier project. This proposal was brought forward by the local community to reduce the impact of the fence project on local landowners. CBP has engaged in extensive discussions with local community leaders in Cameron County regarding the potential feasibility of a joint levee/barrier project Consultations with city staff lead CBP to evaluate relocation of fence and use of a "jersey barrier" design to minimize impacts near downtown Brownsville. Input from the local community lead to relocation of the fence around the UT Brownsville (UTB) ITEC center. CBP has met with UTB on several occasions to discuss their concerns related to historical sites, aesthetics, access to the golf course, encroachment on campus
Community Fencing Issues Encountered By Sector
facilities, and campus safety. Pursuant to the settlement agreement order by the court, CBP and UTB have conducted a series of telephone conference calls and meetings in Brownsville to jointly assess alternatives to the proposed fence.
CBP has met with City of Brownsville officials and staff in Brownsville and in Washington, D.C. to listen to their concerns regarding the potential impact of the fence on the local economy and to receive briefings on the proposed weir dam alternative to the fence. CBP has conducted phone conference calls and meetings with local nature preserves to listen to their concerns related to environmental impacts and safety on the river side of the fence and to discuss options for accessing their properties. CBP has met with Members of the Texas State Legislature to listen to their concerns related to the perceived impact of the fence on the environment and local economy. CBP made numerous alignment changes to limit impacts to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) National Wildlife Refuge areas, a bird watching observation facility in the City of Roma, and negate the need to relocate approximately 30 residences. USFWS doesn't have any property around the Roma POE, but support placing the fence at the base of the bluff with the condition that brush removal will be minimal on both sides of the fence
Fw: document addressing community concerns
Page 2 of 6
Thank you everyone and I appreciate the quick turn-around today. I am going to send these 4 documents to the Hill now. If we have any 140055 additional info, we can send it on Monday along with the Tus-1/Ajo-1 award notice. Regards, (b ) -----Original Message----From: GIDDENS, GREGORY Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 5:09 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6) Subject: RE: document addressing community concerns Done. Added a sentence to the Del Rio section. Greg G -----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 4:55 PM To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6) Subject: RE: document addressing community concerns Greg: Attached is the one-pager on local fencing concerns. Please edit as necessary. Thank you(b ) _____________________________________________ From: GIDDENS, GREGORY Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 4:53 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6) Subject: RE: document addressing community concerns We will send the environmental input in just a few minutes. On the document that contains the local concerns, should we make a specific reference to M-2A since it was one of the three called out in (b) (6) latest letter. We did make changes that were referred to in the Del Rio section of the document based on local input. The fence was realigned to be along the bluff. The risk in this is that it could nurture an expectation that we should have a specific reference for each segment. Greg G _____________________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 10:38 AM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY; FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Fw: document addressing community concerns
Subject: RE: document addressing community concerns 140056 Importance: High
Page 3 of 6
Attached are 3 of the 4 documents listed in the path forward. The fourth is being compiled by SBI-TI and will be sent to you this afternoon from SBI.
Thanks, (b) (6) _____ __________________ From (b) (6) Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 8:08 AM To (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY; FLOSSMAN, LOREN W Subject: RE: document addressing community concerns Importance: High
We are tightening up and consolidating the 4 documents outlined below and should have them to you this morning for your drafting of the response to the June 16 (b) (6) letter.
_____________________________________________ From (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 6:43 PM To: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY (b) (6) Cc: ; PAGAN, DAVID G.- (b) (6) Subject: RE: document addressing community concerns Correct. _____ __________________ From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 6:40 PM To: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY Cc: (b) (6) PAGAN, DAVID G.- HQ; (b) (6) Subject: RE: document addressing community concerns Chief, For clarifying direction and after reading the "Reaction and Response to June 16 (b) (6) responsible for consolidating 4 deliverables: 1 - "Explain why additional investment is needed in location already under effective control • Primary: OBP • Format: Separate document 2 - "More clearly address particular environmental issues raised" • Primary: SBI Letter", I'd like to confirm that we’re now
Fw: document addressing community concerns
• Format: Separate document 140057 3 - "More clearly detail community concerns about the deployment of fence" • Primary: Commissioner’s Office / Pagan • Format: Separate document 4 – “Address actions required by a court order, such as…UTB” • Primary: OCC (?) • Format: Separate document Please advise if I’m missing something.
Page 4 of 6
-----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 6:05 PM To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6) Cc (b) (6) Subject: RE: document addressing community concerns Thanks Greg. -----Original Message----From: GIDDENS, GREGORY Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 6:04 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: Re: document addressing community concerns
(b) is our POC... (6)
Greg G ----- Original Message ----From: (b) (6) To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Sent: Thu Jun 19 18:02:04 2008 Subject: RE: document addressing community concerns
We have the lead, please coordinate with SBI.
-----Original Message----From: GIDDENS, GREGORY Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 5:29 PM To(b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: RE: document addressing community concerns Am OK if you have lead and stand ready to engage as you may desire.
Fw: document addressing community concerns
Greg G 140058 -----Original Message----From (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 5:26 PM To: GIDDENS, GREGORY Cc: (b) (6) Subject: RE: document addressing community concerns Greg,
Page 5 of 6
(b) did have the lead and I didn't want it, as a matter of fact he left me off the e mail string. If we need to take we will, are you OK with this? (6) (b) (6)
-----Original Message----From: GIDDENS, GREGORY Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:39 PM To (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: FW: document addressing community concerns
(b) (6) not sure what happened here. I thought (b) had the lead for this and was going to get a group together to craft the response. I am (6) Did I miss something? If OBP now has lead, just let us know when you want to get together and complete the effort. Also, we can just provide the info we have to your POC.
Greg G -----Original Message----From: GIDDENS, GREGORY Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:16 PM To: PAGAN, DAVID G.- HQ; (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: RE: document addressing community concerns If possible, we need to be able to point to one of the examples as being related to M-2A since it was specifically called out in (b) (6) letter. Greg G -----Original Message----From: PAGAN, DAVID G.- HQ(b) (6) Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:29 AM To: (b) (6) Cc: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6) Subject: RE: document addressing community concerns OK...here are some edits (I had to start 3 times; I'm not sure where my computer hid the previous versions). -----Original Message----From: (b) (6) Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:02 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: GIDDENS, GREGORY (b) (6) second
Fw: document addressing community concerns
(b) (6) PAGAN, DAVID G.- HQ Subject: document addressing community concerns (b) (6)
As discussed at this morning's meeting, attached is information from David Pagan and OCA regarding concerns expressed to our offices about fencing locations. When combined with the other info/suggestions from the consultation process, this should more than address the Chairman's concerns. Again, while we cannot accommodate all the local issues, we should make clear in the document that we have worked extensively with these local communities. Thank you again for your help, and please let me know if you need anything else from us. Thank you(b )
Page 6 of 6
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.