Está en la página 1de 6

FME006234

KEMPIN, JOSEPH C
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Attachments:
(b) (6) Wednesday, February 03, 2010 6:09 PM (b) (6) (b) (6)

RE: Quantification of info for O-1 thru 3 letter Follow up Red info gaps for Commissioner Drusina ltr_v1 (2) (2).doc; 3 feb 10 draft Commissioner Drusina ltr_v1 (3).doc

info gaps for 3 feb 10 draft Commissioner Dru... Commissioner Dr...

(b) (6)

The first attachment is the one you haven't seen. It includes number of x-sections, percentages, etc. You can take a look at that and draw your own conclusions. I've also attached another potential re-draft for your use. Please let me know if we can provide anything else. V/r PMP (b) (6) Chief, Tactical Infrastructure Branch on Support Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (b) (6) (b) (6) -----O From: (b) (6) Sent: To: (b) (6) (b) (6)

ruary 03, 2010 8:36 AM

Subject: RE: Quantification of info for O-1 thru 3 letter
(b) (6)

I don't won't to reference the number of cross sections that are outside the threshold w/o putting it into context of the bigger picture. If you could provide the number of cross sections evaluated for each segment, we can figure out how to best incorporate into the letter. Thanks
(b) (6)

________________________________ From: (b) (6) Sent To: (b) (6) (b) (6) ebruary 03, 2010 9:07 AM

Subject: Quantification of info for O-1 thru 3 letter
1

FME006235

(b) (6)

Wanted to let you know we aren't ignoring (b) (5)

(b) (6)

V/r PMP (b) (6) Chief, Tactical Infrastructure Branch Engineering and Construction Support Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (b) (6) (b) (6)

2

FME006236

February 2, 2010 Commissioner Edward Drusina, P.E. United States Section, International Boundary Water Commission (USIBWC) The Commons, Building C, Suite 100 El Paso, Texas 79902 Dear Commissioner Drusina First, congratulations on your recent appointment. I look forward to working with you and maintaining the strong cooperative working relationship our agencies have had over the last several years. With regards to your letter dated January 21st and our proposed border security fencing projects O-1, O-2 and O-3, these primary pedestrian fence segments are very important to our Nation’s security as well as the safety of the nearby local communities. The fence segments represent Border Patrol’s current number one priority relative to new tactical infrastructure construction in the Nation and were included in former Secretary Chertoff’s April 2008 waiver of applicable environmental and land management laws and regulations. The areas in which the fence segments are proposed are currently subjected to extensive illegal border activity including illegal immigrant crossings and drug trafficking. The proposed fencing must be built to provide constant persistent impedance to these activities. For over three (3) years we have been working closely with the USIBWC on these segments trying to identify alignments that would be operationally effective from a border security perspective while having minimal impacts on the floodplain of the Rio Grand River. Numerous fence alignments have been evaluated and multiple floodplain studies prepared based in part on direction received from your last three (3) predecessors. On January 6th, several of our senior leaders met with former Commissioner Ruth, Mr. Tuttle from the Department of State, and members of your staff regarding our current proposed fence alignments and the associated floodplain impacts. At that meeting, Commissioner Ruth acknowledged that from a “practical perspective” the proposed fence alignments would have a negligible impact on the floodplain and the international boundary, and agreed to meet “informally” with the Commissioner of the Mexican Section of the IBWC to see if he would support the projects given that there would be no increase in water surface elevations or deflection of flow relative to Mexico exceeding the thresholds set by USIBWC and described below.
(b) (5)

FME006237

(b) (5)

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

Because the Mexican Section of the IBWC has opposed all proposed border fencing within the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers’ floodplains since the enactment of the Secure Fence Act (regardless of the expected floodplain impacts), Commissioner Ruth was not optimistic that the Mexican Commissioner would agree to support the proposed fencing and indicated during the January 6th meeting that an unilateral decision would likely be needed to construct the fence segments. We understand that the Mexican Commissioner did in fact recently inform Commissioner Ruth that Mexico would oppose the fence segments if formally submitted to them for consideration. For the numerous reasons stated above, we respectfully request that the USIBWC and Department of State reconsider your position and approve a unilateral decision to allow us to proceed with the design and construction of the O-1, O-2 and O-3 fence segments. We would welcome an opportunity to discuss this with you and representatives of the Department of State (as well as the Department of Homeland Security) if you believe it would be beneficial. Thank you in advance for your support on this important National security matter. Sincerely,

David V. Aguilar Acting, Deputy Commissioner

FME006238

February 2, 2010 Commissioner Edward Drusina, P.E. United States Section, International Boundary Water Commission (USIBWC) The Commons, Building C, Suite 100 El Paso, Texas 79902 Dear Commissioner Drusina First, congratulations on your recent appointment. I look forward to working with you and maintaining the strong cooperative working relationship our agencies have had over the last several years. With regards to your letter dated January 21st and our proposed border security fencing projects O-1, O-2 and O-3, these primary pedestrian fence segments are very important to our Nation’s security as well as the safety of the nearby local communities. The fence segments represent Border Patrol’s current number one priority relative to new tactical infrastructure construction in the Nation and were included in former Secretary Chertoff’s April 2008 waiver of applicable environmental and land management laws and regulations. The areas in which the fence segments are proposed are currently subjected to extensive illegal border activity including illegal immigrant crossings and drug trafficking. The proposed fencing must be built to provide constant persistent impedance to these activities. For over three (3) years we have been working closely with the USIBWC on these segments trying to identify alignments that would be operationally effective from a border security perspective while having minimal impacts on the floodplain of the Rio Grand River. Numerous fence alignments have been evaluated and multiple floodplain studies prepared based in part on direction received from your last three (3) predecessors. On January 6th, several of our senior leaders met with former Commissioner Ruth, Mr. Tuttle from the Department of State, and members of your staff regarding our current proposed fence alignments and the associated floodplain impacts. At that meeting, Commissioner Ruth acknowledged that from a “practical perspective” the proposed fence alignments would have a negligible impact on the floodplain and the international boundary, and agreed to meet “informally” with the Commissioner of the Mexican Section of the IBWC to see if he would support the projects (b) (5)

(b) (5)

FME006239

Because the Mexican Section of the IBWC has opposed all proposed border fencing within the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers’ floodplains since the enactment of the Secure Fence Act (regardless of the expected floodplain impacts), Commissioner Ruth was not optimistic that the Mexican Commissioner would agree to support the proposed fencing and indicated during the January 6th meeting that an unilateral decision would likely be needed to construct the fence segments. We understand that the Mexican Commissioner did in fact recently inform Commissioner Ruth that Mexico would oppose the fence segments if formally submitted to them for consideration. For the numerous reasons stated above, we respectfully request that the USIBWC and Department of State reconsider your position and approve a unilateral decision to allow us to proceed with the design and construction of the O-1, O-2 and O-3 fence segments. We would welcome an opportunity to discuss this with you and representatives of the Department of State (as well as the Department of Homeland Security) if you believe it would be beneficial. Thank you in advance for your support on this important National security matter. Sincerely,

David V. Aguilar Acting, Deputy Commissioner