CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 4/28/2010 - RE - 5 Realty - ROE Process For SBInet Redacted) 8 - Re - 8 SFA Language Redacted) 3

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

Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet
Date: 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.
Sincerely,
(b) (6)
-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:18 AM
To: (b) (6)
(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.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Importance: High
Please make this change to the template.

(b) (b) (5)
Sincerely,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(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.
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 4:22 PM
To: (b) (6)
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)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Add changes and please send for review.
Sincerely,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
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
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc (b) (6)
I just wanted to add a few words and (b) (6) made a suggestion.
Sincerely,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Did you create one for vetting with your specifications changed?
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Good. We are set to finish this up.
Sincerely,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
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
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:56 AM
To: (b) (6)
(b) (5)
Sincerely,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:04 AM
To: (b) (6)
(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
(b) (6)
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)

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: GIDDENS, GREGOR(
To: (b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN(b) (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY ( (b) (6)

Subject: RE: Requests
Date: 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
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 4:45 PM
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;
(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)
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

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

(b) (5)

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

My comments are regarding the approach in general, and not specific to the language in the document:
(b
)
(5
)
(b) (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
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: SFA language
Date: 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
the hole...I mean mix of things? (6)
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?

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Aug 13 17:57:56 2007
If your good with it then I am good with it!
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
I'm good with it.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
E
Sent: Mon Aug 13 17:54:25 2007
Per(b) (6) suggestion, I propose the following:
(b) (5)
What do you think?
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
(b) (5)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

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)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Appropriations Q#13
Date: 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)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 7:19 PM
Cc:(
b
Good afternoon (b) (6)
Thanks again for your review and input.
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)
(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
Cc: (b) (6) )

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

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

To: (b) (6)
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
Office: 202-344-2997
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: UT-Brownsville
Date: 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?!

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)

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)

To: (b) (6) (b)
Cc: (b) (6) (6)
Subject: Fw: UT-Brownsville
(b)
How does the fence laydown affect UT- Brownsville?
(6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6) >
To: (b) (6) >
Sent: Fri Dec 07 17:50:36 2007
Subject: UT-Brownsville
Back to that article – do you remember if there are there proposed fence projects that border the property? Want to
make sure I send out the right info.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE
Date: 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.
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.

From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Cc: Flossman, Loren W (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jan 15 15:40:07 2008

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)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:20 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE
(b) (6)
Please find the attached Change Order Request for Loren Flossman's approval/rejection for the J1
Project regarding the existing chain link fence that the CBP would like removed and replaced to meet
their operational needs.
I have conveyed to the CBP that this is not an automatic approval, but subject to the approval of Loren
based upon their needs and availability of funding.
<<PF225 Change Request (J1).doc>>

Please advise ASAP for me to proceed accordingly.
Thanks,
(b
)
(6
Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers-Albuquerque District
4101 Jefferson Plaza NE
Albuquerque, NM, 87109
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format
Date: Thursday, January 10, 2008 5:49:13 PM
Ok, good. Glad we're on the same page. I have been pushing (b) (6) just
to respond with high-level statements, but they don't think t
satisfy Congress.
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
(b) (6)
-----O -----
From: (b) (6)
Sent 5:46 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subj priations 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.
-----
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
Cu rd
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
-----O -----
From: (b) (6)
Sent 2008 4:08 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN
W; (b) (6)
Sub nal Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response
format
(b)(5),(b)(6)
(b) (6)
rder Patrol
(b) (6)
-----O
From: (b) (6)
Sent 008 3:49 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subj -- draft response
format
(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 2008 3:18 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subj -- 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 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 :38 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subj Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response
format
FYI
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent 17 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
Subj Appropriations Respon aft response
format
(b) (6) ,
(b) (5)
(b)(5),(b)(6)
Thanks,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent 3:00 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) AN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
Subj l Appropriations Resp draft response
format
(b) (6)
(b) (5)
(b)
(6)
Assistant Chief
Headquarters U.S. Border Patrol
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
onse 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
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 n-
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 requiremen r each segment; I will call you tomorrow
to explain if you’re in the office.
· (b) & his team are going to handle the stakeholder
input factor & the int(6) ction for the response.
· (b) (6) & his team are going to look at the
environmental factors/ ts.
· (b) (6) is going to provide a couple paragraphs on
engineering criteria ((b) this could possible be used or boiled down for
the intro), and then w(6) 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 h ll parts done by next Wed so we can review as a team & firm
up.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Primary Fence Segment Analysis
Map Project ID State Sector Station Location Horizontal Length (mi)
Segment A-1 CA SDC BRF Pack Truck Trail 3.58

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-20 TX RGV BRP Tomates Y 0.91
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-21 TX RGV FTB International POE to Sea 12.98
Shell Inn
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
From: (b) (6) (
MARTIN, JERRY Bb
Subject: Re: Planned fence miles
Date: Thursday, December 20, 2007 5:43:16 PM
Can't read it on bb. Go with it!

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.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D; (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.
(b) (6)
Director, Management, Planning and Analysis
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:14 PM
Cc: (b) (6)

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(6) need to propose a policy on the release of maps & what they
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
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)
(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) will attend
on behalf of(b) (6) and there will be a hard stop at 3:45 p.m.
To: (b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN ( ; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ; ADAMS, ROWDY (b (b) (6)

Greg G
From: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)

(b)
(6)
Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:39:26 2007

Greg G
From: (b) (6)

(b) (5)

From:(b) (6)
To (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Sep 07 15:31:35 2007

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

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


Subject: Requests
Good afternoon.
Thank you.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
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!

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Aug 13 18:02:04 2007
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
How are you?

From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Aug 13 17:57:56 2007
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
I'm good with it.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Aug 13 17:54:25 2007

Per (b) (6) suggestion, I propose the following:
(b) (5)
What do you think?
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
(b) (5)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Good morning.
projects.
Thank you.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Date: 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)
(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)

)
Cc: (b) (6)
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)
(6)
( - I know the terminology for “primary pedestrian fence” has changed, at least in the fence
tool box; I bwasn’t sure whether the term “primary pedestrian fence” needed to be updated to
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From:(
Sent: bFriday, February 01, 2008 10:15 AM
To: (b) (6)
until Monday.
Thanks.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6) )

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

From:(b) (6)
To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jan 16 18:48:29 2008

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)

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.
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 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.
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)

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

Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:07 AM
To: (b) (6)
Importance: High
Please keep this in your records.
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

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

Importance: High
OFAM recommendation is NOT to recommend this Change in Scope. This recommendation is offered for
the following reasons:
(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)

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

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

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

Thanks,
(b
)
(6
Project Manager
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN (
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 (b) (6) on what might be coming in the morning. Thanks for the follow-up.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jan 10 17:49:08 2008
Ok, good. Glad we're on the same page. I have been pushing (b) (6) just to respond with high-
level statements, but they don't think that will satisfy Congress.
">>>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;”
(6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
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)
Sent: Thu Jan 10 17:44:02 2008
(b)(4),(b)(5),(b)(6)
Thanks,
(b) (6)

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

b
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
(b)(5),(b)(6)
(b)
(6)
Assistant Chief
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(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)
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
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)
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)
To: (b) (6)
FYI
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (5)
(b)(5),(b)(6)
Thanks,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (5)
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
(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) & his team are going to handle the stakeholder input factor & the introduction for
the response. (6)
· (b) (6) & his team are going to look at the environmental factors/assessments.
· (b) is going to provide a couple paragraphs on engineering criteria (b) , this could
possible be used
(6)or boiled down for the intro), and then we’ll need to decide how best
(6) to respond on a
segment-by-segment basis for that factor.
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)
(b) (6)
Segment A-1 CA SDC BRF Pack Truck Trail 3.58

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-20 TX RGV BRP Tomates Y 0.91
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
Segment O-21 TX RGV FTB International POE to Sea 12.98
Shell Inn
Factor
Stakeholder Input
Environmental
Engineering
From: (b) (6)
To: GIDDENS, GREGOR( ; (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN ( ; (b) (6)

(b) (5)
(b)
(6)
Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:46:18 2007

Greg G
From: (b) (6)
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)

(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:39:26 2007

Greg G
From:(b) (6)

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

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

(b
)
(5
)
(b) (5)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)


Subject: Requests
Good afternoon.
Thank you.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
You love the grocery store? You should buy some food!!!! Oh yeah and EAT the food!

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Aug 13 18:17:59 2007

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Aug 13 18:02:04 2007
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
How are you?

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Aug 13 17:57:56 2007
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)

I'm good with it.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Aug 13 17:54:25 2007

(b) (5)
What do you think?
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
(b) (5)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Good morning.
projects.
Thank you.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Date: 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: bWednesday, February 06, 2008 7:03 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
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)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

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
(6)
( - I know the terminology for “primary pedestrian fence” has changed, at least in the fence
tool box; I bwasn’t sure whether the term “primary pedestrian fence” needed to be updated to
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From:(
Sent: bFriday, February 01, 2008 10:15 AM
To: (b) (6)
until Monday.
Thanks.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
(6)
(b) (6)
Office: 202-344-2997
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN (
Cc: (b) (6)

Date: 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)

To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Cc: (b) (6)
Loren
Attached is a change request for segment J1 to replace existing chain link pedestrian fencing
associated with the Santa Teresa Port of Entry. The core members of the FEIT have reviewed the
change request and recommend that it be DENIED primarily for the following reasons.
The existing fence proposed to be replaced with PF225 fence is legacy fencing currently being
counted towards the 370 mile goal. Replacing this fence would result in no additional miles
relative to the 370 mile goal.
The existing NEPA documents do not cover the replacement of the fence. A supplemental
environmental assessment would need to be prepared.
The existing chain link fence is not the property of OBP/or OFAM and would require the
approval of GSA.
Please let me know if you have any questions and how you would like to proceed.
Thanks
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

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

Thanks,
(b
)
(6
)Project Manager
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN (b) (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)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
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)
From: (b) (6) )
To (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jan 10 17:49:08 2008
Ok, good. Glad we're on the same page. I have been pushing(b) (6) just to respond with high-
level statements, but they don't think that will satisfy Congress.
">>>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;”
(6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
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)
Sent: Thu Jan 10 17:44:02 2008
(b)(4),(b)(5),(b)(6)
(b)(5),(b)(6)
Thanks,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)(5),(b)(6)
(b)(5),(b)(6)
(b)
(6)
Assistant Chief
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(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)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

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

To (b) (6)
FYI
(b) (6)
Operations
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b)(5),(b)(6)
(b)(5),(b)(6)
Thanks,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 6:54 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
Subject: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format
Importance: High
All,
Here’s the draft template for response to #13 of the appropriations requirements, based on our meeting
today. Please let us know if you think it needs further tweaks. This only includes primary fence right
now, should have a firmed up laydown for vehicle fence tomorrow. Of the primary fence segments,
only 1 is greater than 15 miles in length – will need advice on how to break that down, possibly by
terrain or other location attributes.
To recap for those who weren’t there, Congress is requiring us to fulfill certain requirements before they
will release our FY 08 funding to us. Requirement # 13 applies to TI and states:
“An analysis by the Secretary, for each segment, defined as no more than 14 miles, of fencing or
tactical infrastructure, of the selected approach compared to other, alternative means of achieving
operation control; such analysis should include cost, level of operational control, possible unintended
effects on communities, and other factors critical to the decision-making process;”
(b) (6) – do you by chance have an electronic copy of the appropriations requirements?)
In the meeting, we came to the conclusion that it made the most sense to respond by following the
framework of the “4 factors” of the fence decision-making process, consistent with the external
messaging developed by(b) (6) team and being used in our public meetings:
· (b) (6) – we will need input from OBP on operational requirements analysis for
each segment; I will call you tomorrow to explain if you’re in the office.
· (b) & his team are going to handle the stakeholder input factor & the introduction for
the response. (6)
· (b) Oh & his team are going to look at the environmental factors/assessments.
(6)
· (b) is going to provide a couple paragraphs on engineering criteria ((b) , this could
(6)or boiled down for the intro), and then we’ll need to decide how best
possible be used (6)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
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN ( ; (b) (6)

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

(b) (5)
(b)
(6)
To: CYLKE, LAURA R; (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:46:18 2007

Greg G
From: (b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b)
(6)
Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:39:26 2007

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

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

From: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Sep 07 15:31:35 2007

(b
)
(5
)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)


Subject: Requests
Good afternoon.
Thank you.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
What a comedian you are.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Aug 13 18:40:46 2007
You love the grocery store? You should buy some food!!!! Oh yeah and EAT the food!

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Aug 13 18:17:59 2007

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Aug 13 18:02:04 2007
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
How are you?

From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Aug 13 17:57:56 2007

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
I'm good with it.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Aug 13 17:54:25 2007

(b) (5)
What do you think?
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
(b) (5)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Good morning.
projects.
Thank you.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 4/28/2010 - RE - 5 Realty - ROE Process For SBInet Redacted) 8 - Re - 8 SFA Language Redacted) 3

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 4/28/2010 - RE - 5 Realty - ROE Process For SBInet Redacted) 8 - Re - 8 SFA Language Redacted) 3

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)

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

From: (b) (6)

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

Sent: Thu Jul 26 10:23:01 2007

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

This communication might contain communications between attorney and

Please make this change to the template.

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

Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet

This communication might contain communications between attorney and

Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet

Your expeditious review and response would be greatly

Add changes and please send for review.

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

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

Good. We are set to finish this up.

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

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

Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet

If there are any discrepancies, let me know.

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

Sent: Fri Jul 20 19:30:41 2007

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

TOPIC: Framework of Realty/ROE process

Join meeting as Attendee:

Start meeting as Host (b) (2)

3. Host Key for Alternate Hosting

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

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

The clock is ticking.

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

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:39:26 2007

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

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

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

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 15:31:35 2007

Office of Congressional Affairs

From: (b) (6)

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

Secure Border Initiative

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

I don't know that I'd take that position if I were you!!

How are you?

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

If your good with it then I am good with it!

Subject: Re: SFA language

I'm good with it.

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

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

Secure Border Initiative

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

From: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: SFA language

Office of Congressional Affairs

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

From: (b) (6)

Subject: SFA language

Secure Border Initiative

U.S. Customs and Border Protection