CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 4/28/2010 - FW - 12 Requests Redacted) 5 - FW - Planned Fence Miles Redacted) 2

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

Cc: Self, Jeffrey (
Subject: Fw: Requests
Date: Friday, September 07, 2007 5:35:52 PM
This is the latest on the notification debate.
----- Original Message -----

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

Subject: RE: Requests
(b) (5)
(b) (6)
Congressional Liaison Officer
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
-----Original Message-----
From: GIDDENS, GREGORY
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 5:13 PM
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Requests
Noted, but incorrect. We just have to be clear on the messaging.
Greg G

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

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

(b) (5)
Greg G
From: (b) (6)
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY;(b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;
(b) (6)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: Requests
Good afternoon.
As we discussed at this afternoon’s brief-out, attached is a file with requests to (1) release fence maps,
(2) notify Congress of our intent to seek RoE for C, and (3) provide landowners with the DOT brochure
that addresses condemnation and relocation.
Please review and comment on the text by 4:00 pm EST tomorrow. The revised version will be provided
to Mr. Giddens to forward for approval.
Thank you.
(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format
Date: Friday, January 11, 2008 3:52:54 PM
Here they are broken down by sector. Tell me what you all think.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jan 10 15:48:54 2008
Subject: RE: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format
(b)
(6)
I have broken the segments down by sector so all that needs to be populated are the BP section of each
segment. The other 3 factors/lines will be filled in by OFAM and SBI. Thank you for your help!
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:18 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format
I never received the tasker request or the segments broken down by sector. I had asked to see where
it said we needed it broken down in this manner instead of stating that "these" are the factors used to
determine all fencing locations. We haven't moved on it since I stopped by that day and spoke to
(b) (6) Let me know.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jan 10 15:13:40 2008
Subject: FW: Congressional Appropriations Response to #13 -- draft response format
(b)
(6)
I was just following up to see what the status of this response was. Do we have an estimate of when
we can expect a response? This isn’t a rush just a status check. Thank you!
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
FYI
(b) (6)
Business Manager, Operations
SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: Oxendine, Jacqueline M (CTR)

Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 4:17 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (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) (5)
(b)
(6)
Assistant Chief
Headquarters U.S. Border Patrol
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

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

Importance: High
All,
Here’s the draft template for response to #13 of the appropriations requirements, based on our meeting
today. Please let us know if you think it needs further tweaks. This only includes primary fence right
now, should have a firmed up laydown for vehicle fence tomorrow. Of the primary fence segments,
only 1 is greater than 15 miles in length – will need advice on how to break that down, possibly by
terrain or other location attributes.
To recap for those who weren’t there, Congress is requiring us to fulfill certain requirements before they
will release our FY 08 funding to us. Requirement # 13 applies to TI and states:
“An analysis by the Secretary, for each segment, defined as no more than 14 miles, of fencing or
tactical infrastructure, of the selected approach compared to other, alternative means of achieving
operation control; such analysis should include cost, level of operational control, possible unintended
effects on communities, and other factors critical to the decision-making process;”
(b) (6) – do you by chance have an electronic copy of the appropriations requirements?)
In the meeting, we came to the conclusion that it made the most sense to respond by following the
framework of the “4 factors” of the fence decision-making process, consistent with the external
messaging developed by(b) (6) team and being used in our public meetings:
· (b) (6) – we will need input from OBP on operational requirements analysis for
each segment; I will call you tomorrow to explain if you’re in the office.
· (b) & his team are going to handle the stakeholder input factor & the introduction for
the response. (6)
· (b) (6) & his team are going to look at the environmental factors/assessments.
· (b) s going to provide a couple paragraphs on engineering criteria (b) , this could
(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)
(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)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Date: Friday, January 18, 2008 3:34:14 PM
Happy Friday Everyone!

I was just following up on the appropriations tasker to see if anyone could start sending me their
portion so that I can begin to compile. Please let me know when you have a chance. Thanks!
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

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

Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 10:19 AM
To: (b) (6)
Importance: High
(b) (6)
This is the tasking that I wanted to speak with you about yesterday. A deadline of 1/21 would work
great.
This tasking addresses requirement #13 in the section titled Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure,
and Technology in the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, as follows:
(Please provide) (A)n analysis by the Secretary, for each segment, defined as no more than 15
miles, of fencing or tactical infrastructure, of the selected approach compared to other,
alternative means of achieving operational control; such analysis should include cost, level of
operational control, possible unintended effects on communities, and other factors critical to
the decision-making process;
I’ve attached a copy of the Bill’s 15 requirements as well as the general provisions.
Thanks!
(b)
(6)
Program Management Analyst

CBP/SBI
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)

Importance: High
All,
“An analysis by the Secretary, for each segment, defined as no more than 14 miles, of fencing
or tactical infrastructure, of the selected approach compared to other, alternative means of
achieving operation control; such analysis should include cost, level of operational control,
possible unintended effects on communities, and other factors critical to the decision-making
process;”
messaging developed by(b) (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) (6) his team are going to handle the stakeholder input factor & the introduction for
the response.
• (b) (6) & his team are going to look at the environmental factors/assessments.
• (b) s going to provide a couple paragraphs on engineering criteria (b) this could
(6) be used or boiled down for the intro), and then we’ll need to decide
possible (6) how best to
respond on a segment-by-segment basis for that factor.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) Self, Jeffrey(
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: Requests
Date: Friday, September 07, 2007 7:02:38 PM
This is basically what we briefed the SWB Chiefs today. The conference call for the Sector's TI staffs
will reenforce the message and way forward.
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN,
LOREN W; (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Sep 07 18:59:09 2007

Agree, we just need to get it over with. Also, wee have to move forward programmatically.
You have(b) (6) initial offering and he will be honing it over the weekend. I ask that we turn the
energy into helping hone the message needed to go to the Hill and the one needed to support
OBP/COE as they begin to engage landowners on the ROE-C.
Greg G

From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ; GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6) SETH; FLOSSMAN,
LOREN W; (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Sep 07 18:08:07 2007

(b) (5)
From: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Cc: EVANS, KIRK; ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)

(b) (5)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN,
LOREN W; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ; ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)

What are you hearing?
Greg G

From: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Sent: Fri Sep 07 17:18:27 2007

(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Noted, but incorrect. We just have to be clear on the messaging.
Greg G

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

(b) (5)
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D; VAIL, (b) (6)

Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:58:19 2007
(b) (5)
Greg G
From: (b) (6)
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY;(b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;
(b) (6)

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

Notify Hill on Mon and pursue ROEs on Tues would be great.
The clock is ticking.
Greg G
From:(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ; ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6) '
Get started with notifying the Hill, or get started with pursuing ROEs?
(b)
(6)
To (b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:39:26 2007

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

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

From: (b) (6)
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
)
(b) (5)
(b) (6)
Office of Congressional Affairs
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 7:45 PM
To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

Subject: Requests
Good afternoon.
As we discussed at this afternoon’s brief-out, attached is a file with requests to (1) release fence maps,
(2) notify Congress of our intent to seek RoE for C, and (3) provide landowners with the DOT brochure
that addresses condemnation and relocation.
Please review and comment on the text by 4:00 pm EST tomorrow. The revised version will be provided
to Mr. Giddens to forward for approval.
Thank you.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: UT-Brownsville
Date: Friday, December 07, 2007 6:05:04 PM
(b)
(6)
How does the fence laydown affect UT- Brownsville?
(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: FW: Cat Holes for RGV Fence in Segment O-11
Start: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 1:00:00 PM
End: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 2:00:00 PM
_____________________________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 5:33 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Cat Holes for RGV Fence in Segment O-11

When: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 1:00 PM-2:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where:
Folks,
Sorry to ruin your holiday but we are hoping to catch a quorum to have a call on 2 Jan at 1PM EST (1200 CST). Please let me know if
you can make it.
ISSUE: Can we make some accomodation for endangered cats on the use of floating fence (jersey barrier style) for selected places
along RGV corridor?
BACKGROUND: As you know, we continue to work with FWS on the number and location of cat holes for RGV. FWS is very concerned
about the use of floating fence (jersey barrier style) in certain locations that are prime cat movement corridors. The note below
summarizes recent discussion with FWS.
Fence in RGV:
USFWS is taking the position that the floating fence on the N-S run of Section O-11 is unacceptable and retention of it may have dire
results. When asked what the resulting conclusion might be FWS stated there is no way to mitigate for impermeable fence in that
area. (b) was going to send an email asking if there was any way to not have floating fence or jersey barrier in that particular
location. She did agree to ask Ernesto et al to prioritize locations for 500 cat openings based on the fence type/location information
we provided her in Tucson last week, and assuming that undefined areas in O-9 and O-13 would be something besides floating fence
or Jersey barrier.
(b) (2)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE
Date: Monday, January 14, 2008 7:36:51 AM
Importance: High
FYI. It appears that this segment wasn’t communicated properly early on and will have to be added.
(b) (6) - Did we ever find out if the chain link was being counted as existing primary fence? Also,
(b) (6) is looking for some updated fencing miles for a Deputy Brief, can you guys hook up with him?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 9:19 PM

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

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

Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 6:19 AM
To: (b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

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

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

Please advise ASAP for me to proceed accordingly.
Thanks,
(b
)
(6
)Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers-Albuquerque District
4101 Jefferson Plaza NE
Albuquerque, NM, 87109
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Date: Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:13:41 PM
(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)
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (5)
(b)(5),(b)(6)
Thanks,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From:(
Sent: bTuesday, January 08, 2008 3:00 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (5)
(b)
(6)
Assistant Chief
(b) (6)
From:(
Sent: bMonday, January 07, 2008 6:54 PM
To: (b) (6)

Importance: High
All,
“An analysis by the Secretary, for each segment, defined as no more than 14 miles, of fencing
or tactical infrastructure, of the selected approach compared to other, alternative means of
achieving operation control; such analysis should include cost, level of operational control,
possible unintended effects on communities, and other factors critical to the decision-making
process;”
messaging developed by (b) s team and being used in our public meetings:
• (b) (6) (6) – we will need input from OBP on operational requirements analysis
for each segment; I will call you tomorrow to explain if you’re in the office.
• (b) & his team are going to handle the stakeholder input factor & the introduction for
the (6)
response.
• (b) (6) & his team are going to look at the environmental factors/assessments.
• (b) is going to provide a couple paragraphs on engineering criteria (b) this could
(6) be used or boiled down for the intro), and then we’ll need to decide
possible (6) how best to
respond on a segment-by-segment basis for that factor.
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: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Copy of Master SPA updated 14 Jan 08.xls
Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:38:39 AM
FYI, I didn’t see you all on distribution. I have always saved a copy to (b) (2)
(b) (6) could you please add the “to” addressees above to your distribution list for future copies?
There is a lot of good information on this spread sheet.
Thanks
(b) (6)
HQ OBP Liaison, OPA Div.
Office of Border Patrol
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6) ]

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Copy of Master SPA updated 14 Jan 08.xls

San Diego Sector, Phase II. Segment A-1
Market Value
Numbe
Landowner Offer
Ready
r of Length Signed Title Landowner
Land Owner Name: Landowner Address Telephone # County Parcel ID # has been TRACT NO. ROE for C Comments Letter
Parcel (mi) ROE for I Ready not Found
Contacted Sent
s
ACCESS ROADS
UNITED STATES OF (b) (6)

1 6481100100 3.28 YES NO YES NO
AMERICA PUBLIC
(b) (6) 6480401500,

Rancho Vista del Mar, c/o
2
(b) (6) 6480402800, YES LANDOWNER SIGNED 12/10/07
6480403100
3
STAGING AREA
10
REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION AT BORDER
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Market Value
Numbe
Landowner Offer
Ready
Contacted Sent
s
17
18
19
20
21
Market Value
Numbe
Landowner Offer
Ready
Contacted Sent
s
Market Value
Numbe
Landowner Offer
Ready
Contacted Sent
s
Real Estate
Landowner Requirements
Signed Offer Met For
Certification
Real Estate
Certification
Real Estate
Certification
Real Estate
Certification
San Diego Sector, Phase II, Segment A-2
Number
County Parcel Landowner has
of Land Owner Name: Landowner Address Telephone # Length (mi) Signed ROE
ID # been Contacted
Parcels
ACCESS ROADS
(b) (6)
1 6580900300 YES YES
6521500300 YES
3
6521500500
4
6521500700 YES
5
6521500800 0.59 YES
6 YES YES
6521501100 0.59
7
6521502100 0.59 YES YES
8
6521601300 0.59
9
6521601600 0.59 YES YES
10
6521701700 0.59
11
6521703100 0.59 YES YES
12
6521703700 0.59 YES
13 YES
6521704500 .67/.58
Number
ID # been Contacted
Parcels
(b) (6) not available at

14
this time 6521705400
not available at
15
not available at
16 YES YES
this time 6540801700 0.12
not available at
17
this time 6540801800 0.12 YES YES
not available at
18
this time 6540802100 YES YES
not available at
19 YES YES
this time 6540802200 0.12
not available at
20
not available at
this time 6541001500 1.02 YES
not available at
21
this time 6541001600 1.02 YES
not available at
this time 6541001700 1.02 YES
not available at
22
this time 6541100400 0.67 YES
not available at
23 YES
this time 6541100500 0.67
not available at
24
not available at
25
this time 6541100901 0.58 YES
not available at
26 YES
this time 6541200200 0.67
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA not available at
27 PUBLIC AGENCY
PUBLIC DOMAIN this time 6541400200 .39/.58
not available at
28
USA this time 6541500400
29 PUBLIC AGENCY
PUBLIC DOMAIN this time 6560602100 0.17
Number
ID # been Contacted
Parcels

30
not available at
31
not available at
32 PUBLIC AGENCY
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO this time 6560900100 0.17
(b) (6)
33 not available at
this time 6560900200 0.17 YES
not available at
34 YES
this time 6560900600 0.17
35 PUBLIC AGENCY
PUBLIC DOMAIN this time 6560900800 0.17
not available at
36
not available at
37
38
this time 6570800500 1.06/.09 YES
not available at
39 PUBLIC AGENCY
PUBLIC DOMAIN this time 6571100400 1.06/.09
not available at
40
41
not available at
42
this time 6590200500 1.06/.09 YES
not available at
43 YES YES
this time 6590201000 1.16
not available at
44
this time 6590201300 1.06/.09 YES
45 not available at
this time 6590201700 1.06/.09
46 not available at
this time 6590201800 1.06/.09
Number
ID # been Contacted
Parcels

47
this time 6590202200 1.06/.09 YES
not available at
48
this time 6590202400 1.06/.09 YES
not available at
49
this time 6590202500 1.06/.09 YES
not available at
50
this time 6590800200 YES
not available at
51
this time 6590800300 1.06/.09 YES
not available at
52 YES
this time 6590800500 1.06/.09
not available at
53
this time 6590800600 1.06/.09 YES
54
not available at
this time 6590900100 1.06/.09
not available at
55
this time 6590900600 1.06/.09 YES
not available at
56
this time 6590900700 1.06/.09
not available at
58
this time 6591300100 1.06/.09 YES YES
not available at
59 YES YES
this time 6591300300 1.06/.09
not available at
60
this time 6591400100 1.06/.09 YES
not available at
61
this time 6591400200 1.06/.09 YES
not available at
62
this time 6591500500 1.06/.09
Number
ID # been Contacted
Parcels
(b) (6) not available at .05/1.96/2.0

63
this time 6601102100 6
not available at .05/1.96/2.0
64
this time 6601102300 6
not available at
65
this time 6601400800 .05/1.96/2.06
not available at
66
not available at
67
this time 6610410200 1.16
not available at
68
this time 6610410300 1.16
not available at
69
this time 6610500400 1.16
(b) (6)
70
6610500600 1.16
71 PUBLIC AGENCY
PUBLIC DOMAIN this time 6610700400 .05/1.96
72
this time 6610800400 2.06/1.96
not available at
73
74
not available at
this time 6610800800 1.16
not available at
75
this time 6610900100 1.16
not available at
76
this time 6610900200 1.16
not available at
78
not available at
79
Number
ID # been Contacted
Parcels

80
this time 651100901
(b) (6)
81
6521700600 YES
STAGING AREA

Title
Offer
Market Value Landowner Real Estate Requirements Met For
Real Estate Comments TRACT NO. Landowner Letter
Ready Ordered Received Signed Offer Certification
not found Sent
ROE Signed 10/30/07 891E

Right-of-entry mailed 10/25/07, (b)(5),
(b)(6)
d
811E
Right-of-entry mailed 10/25/07 812E

Right-of-entry mailed 10/25/07, landowner
signed ROE 12/20/2007 813E
signed ROE 12/20/2007 813E
Right-of-entry mailed 10/25/07, landowner 813E YES NO

signed ROE 12/20/2007
Right-of-entry mailed 10/25/07, ROE
signed 11/03/07 814E
right-of-entry mailed 10/25/07 821E

Right-of-entry mailed 10/25/07 (b) (6)
called 11/05/07, will sign, pro border, 820E, 820E-1
Right-of-Entry mailed 10/25/07 822E

Right-of-entry mailed 10/25/07, RECEIVED
SIGNED ROE 11/13/07 825E
Right-of-entry mailed 10/25/07, Signed
12/28/2007 824E, 824E-1
Right-of-entry mailed 10/25/07, signed
823E
ROE 1/03/08
Title
Offer
not found Sent

Right-of-Entry mailed 10/25/07, came back
810E
undeliverable 11/26/07
Right-of-entry mailed 10/29/07, signed
830E-1, 830E-2
ROE 11/20/07
Signed ROE 11/20/07 830E-1
Signed ROE 11/20/07 830E-1, 830E-3

Signed ROE 11/20/07 830E-1
Signed ROE 11/20/07 830E-1
840E-1
840E, 840E-1
840E-1
Right-of-Entry mailed 10/25/07, BP got
ROE signed on 12/04 829E-1
828E
ROE signed on 12/04

ROE signed on 12/04 829E
828E-1
ROE signed on 12/04
831E, 832E
843E-1, 843E-2
843E
Title
Offer
not found Sent

signed 11/07/07 842E
850E
860E, 860E-1
Right-of-entry mailed 10/25/07, (b) (6)
received call from landowner and they will
sign and return ROE, Signed 12/10/07 861E
Right-of-Entry mailed 10/25/07, Signed
862E
1/07/08
863E
872E
864E
Right-of-entry mailed 10/25/07 ROE
Signed 11/26/07 870E, 870E-1
842E-1
873E
Signed 10/30/07 891E
ROE 12/07/07 900E-1
905E
signed 11/03/07
Singed ROE 12/07/07 900E

Right-of-entry mailed 10/25/07, mail
901E
returned undeliverable 12/03
Right-of-entry mailed 10/25/07, mail
returned undeliverable 12/03, emailed (b)
(6) 901E-1
Title
Offer
not found Sent
Signed 12/14/2007 902E
ROE signed 10/10/07 904E
Signed ROE 12/07/07 900E-1

ROE 12/07/07 900E-4
900E-4
ROE 12/07/07
ROE 12/07/07 900E-4
right-of-entry mailed 10/25/07, mailed

again 11/26/07 letter came back
undeliverable have new address, (b) (6)
called (b) (6) on 12/07 and
stated that (b) (6) had passed away (b
has contacted the county to find the new)
owner 906E
ROE 12/07/07 900E-2
right-of-entry mailed 10/25/07, mailed
906E
again 11/26/07 letter came back
Signed ROE 10/30/07 913E, 913E-1

912E, 912E-1, 912E-3 YES NO NO
ROE 12/07/07
ROE 12/07/07 912E-2, 912E-3
ROE 12/07/07 912E-3, 912E-4

Title
Offer
not found Sent
Right-of-Entry mailed 10/25/07 950E-1
Right-of-Entry mailed 10/25/07 956E

called 11/5/07 will sign and fax, Mail
returned undeliverable 12/03. Emailed
(b) (6) 955E
940E

ROE 11/19/07 952E

called 12/10/07 and said she would sign
ROE and return to our office 951E-1
Right-of-entry mailed 10/25/07 954E-1
Right-of-entry mailed 10/25/07 954E-1
ROE Signed 10/10/07
mailed right-of-entry 12/13/07 829E-2

Title
Offer
not found Sent
mailed right-of-entry 12/13/07 829E-2

This landowner was recently added to the
list by BP. Sent out initial correspondence
1/11/08
El Paso Sector, Phase II, Segment H-2A
Number Landowner Market
County Parcel Length Signed Real Estate Title Offer Letter
of Land Owner Name: Landowner Address Telephone # has been TRACT NO. Value
ID # (mi) ROE Comments
Ordered Received
Sent
Parcels Contacted Obtained
ACCESS ROADS
Bureau of Land 1800 Marquess, Las
1 YES
Management Cruces, NM 88005
(b) (6) 12 mos. Temp.
2 YES access
easement
12 mos. Temp.
3 access
easement
4
STAGING AREA
2.0 ROE not
6 BLM BLM Las Cruces NM 505-525-4309 Yes N/A YES NO
acres required, a
(b) (6) 12 mos. Temp.
7 YES access
easement
GOVERNMENT / 60'
8 BLM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roosevelt Proclamation
9
10
Real Estate
Landowner
Requirements Met
Signed Offer
For Certification
El Paso Sector, Phase I, Segment I-1A
Number Landowner
Length Signed
of Land Owner Name: Landowner Address Telephone # County Parcel ID # has been
(mi) ROE
Parcels Contacted
ACCESS ROADS
505-525-
1 Federal Land BLM Las Cruces NM 304-217-126-2289 YES N/A
4309
505-525-
2 Federal Land BLM Las Cruces NM 304-117-126-3290 YES N/A
4309
3 State of New Mexico YES N/A
(b) (6)
4 YES YES
5 Columbus Cattle Co. 3037170132139 YES

6
STAGING AREA
505-525-
7 BLM BLM Las Cruces NM 2.0 acres Yes N/A
4309
8

GOVERNMENT / 60' Roosevelt
10 1.53 N/A YES
Proclamation
11 Columbus Cattle Co. YES NO
12
13
14
Title
Real Estate
Market Offer
Real Estate Comments TRACT NO. Value Letter
Obtained Ordered Received Sent
Certification
ROE not required, a permit from

NO YES NO YES NO
BLM must be obtained.
NO YES NO YES NO
PERMIT NO YES NO NO NO
NO YES NO NO NO

YES NO
N/A N/A N/A

El Paso Sector, Phase II, Segment I-1B
Landowner Length Signed Real Estate TRACT Title Offer Letter
of Land Owner Name: Telephone # County Parcel ID # has been Value
Address (mi) ROE Comments NO. Sent
Parcels Contacted Obtained Ordered Received
ACCESS ROADS
Bureau of Land
1 YES access using AR-6
Management
2
STAGING AREA
BLM Las Cruces 2.0 ROE not required, a
7 BLM 505-525-4309 Yes N/A YES NO
NM acres permit from BLM
8

GOVERNMENT / 60'
10 BLM N/A YES N/A N/A N/A
Roosevelt Proclamation
11
12
13
14
Landowner
Signed Offer
El Paso Sector, Phase I, Segment J-1
Number Landowner
Length Signed
of Land Owner Name: Landowner Address Telephone # County Parcel ID # has been Real Estate Comments
(mi) ROE
Parcels Contacted
ACCESS ROADS
PO Box 6370
Map Code # 4-013-171-032-310
1 Post Land Limited Las Cruces, New Mexico (505) 525-0176 Yes YES ROE letters were signed on 7/11/07
Assesor's Parcel ID #17-13528
88006-0176
201 E. Main Street Map Code #4-012-171-473-282
2 Verde Group 915-225-3219 Yes YES ROE letters were signed on 7/5/07
El Paso, Texas 79901 Assesor's Parcel ID #17-17091

3 Verde Group 915-225-3219 Yes YES N/A

7 Verde Group 915-225-3219 Yes Yes ROE letters were signed on 7/5/07

5 Verde Group 915-225-3219 Yes Yes ROE letters were signed on 7/5/07
ROE letters were signed on
6 Verde Group 915-225-3219 Yes Yes 7/5/07received temporary easement
11/07
Santa Teresa LLC 201 E. Main St., Map Code #4-013-171-264-066
7 915-225-3219 Yes Yes ROE letters were signed on 7/5/07
(Verde Group) El Paso, Texas 79901 Assessor's Parcel ID#17-02839
8
9
STAGING AREA
PO Box 6370 Map Code # 4-013-171-032-310

10 Post Land Limited (505) 525-0176 Yes Yes ROE letters were signed on 7/11/07
Las Cruces, New Mexico 88006-0176 Assesor's Parcel ID #17-13528
ROE not required, a permit from GSA
Map Code #4-013-171-230-230
11 GSA Las Cruces, New Mexico 88005 Yes N/A must be obtained for access to
Assessor's Parcel ID #17-14687
Federal land
12

13 2.22 N/A YES
Proclamation
14
15
16
Title
Real Estate
Market Offer Landowner
Value Letter Signed
Ordered Received not found Met For
Obtained Sent Offer
Certification
NO NO YES NO
YES
NO NO YES NO
YES
NO YES NO NO
NO YES
YES
NO YES
YES
NO YES YES
NO YES
YES
NO YES YES YES

YES
YES N/A YES

YES
N/A N/A N/A YES
El Paso Sector, Phase II, Segment J-2
Length Signed
of Land Owner Name: Landowner Address Telephone # County Parcel ID # has been Real Estate Comments Tract No. Value
(mi) ROE
Parcels Contacted Obtained
ACCESS ROADS
(b) (6) Map Code 4-014-171-207-268
1 yes YES ROE signed 9/11/07 NO
Map Code 4-014-171-400-300
2 yes YES ROE signed 9/20/07 NO
PO BOX 790830
Santa Teresa LLC Map Code 4-016-171-260-160
3 San Antonio, Texas 78279- yes yes ROE signed 9/20/07
(Verde Group) Assesor's Parcel ID #17-06701
0830
4
STAGING AREA
Staging will be acquired
6
through J-1 & J-3
7

10 3.57 N/A YES N/A
Proclamation
11
12
Title
Real Estate
Offer
Landowner Landowner Requirements
Letter
Ordered Received not found Signed Offer Met For
Sent
Certification
NO NO YES NO YES
NO NO YES NO YES
yes NO NO NO YES
N/A N/A YES

El Paso Sector, Phase I, Segment J-3
Number Landowner
Length
of Land Owner Name: Landowner Address Telephone # County Parcel ID # has been Signed ROE Real Estate Comments
(mi)
Parcels Contacted
ACCESS ROADS
(b) (6)
Map Code4-018-171-248-160 aquired a temoprary access
1 yes YES
Assesor's Parcel ID #16-00776 easement
Map Code4-019-171-234-292 aquired a temoprary access

3 yes YES
Assesor's Parcel ID #16-01469 easement
4
5
6
7
STAGING AREA
(b) (6)
Map Code4-018-171-248-160
8 yes yes

10 1.07 N/A YES
Proclamation
11
12
13
14
Title
Market Offer
Landowner Landowner
Tract No. Value Letter
not found Signed Offer
NO NO NO YES NO
NO NO NO ` YES NO
YES yes NO YES YES
N/A N/A N/A

El Paso Sector, Phase II, Segment K-1
Number Landowner
Length Signed
(mi) ROE
Parcels Contacted
ACCESS ROADS
International Boundary
4171 North Mesa Street Access to levee awaiting
1 and 915-832-4100 YES YES
Suite C-310 El Paso, Texas authorization from CBP HQ
Water Commission
PO BOX 1111
2 ASARCO LLC YES YES
EL PASO, TEXAS 79999
3
4
5
6
STAGING AREAS
PO BOX 1111
7 ASARCO LLC YES YES
EL PASO, TEXAS 79999
BNSF Railway, 1624 First
915-534-2375
8 El Paso and Santa Fe Rail Road Street NW, Albuquerque, NM X47099900002000 YES YES
87102
9
10

4171 North Mesa Street
11 and 915-832-4100 3.59 N/A YES Awaiting Authorization from CBP HQ
Suite C-310 El Paso, Texas
Water Commission
12
13
14
Title
Real Estate
Offer
Market Value Landowner Landowner Requirements
Tract No. Letter
Obtained Ordered Received not found Signed Offer Met For
Sent
Certification
NO NO NO YES NO NO
NO NO NO YES NO YES
NO YES NO YES YES YES
NO YES NO NO NO NO
NO YES NO NO NO NO
El Paso Sector, Phase II, Segment K-2A
Number Landowner
Length
of Land Owner Name: Landowner Address Telephone # County Parcel ID # has been Signed ROE Real Estate Comments Tract No.
(mi)
Parcels Contacted
ACCESS ROADS
1 and 915-832-4100 NO YES 110E
Water Commission
2
STAGING AREA
International Boundary Access to levee awaiting
4 and 915-832-4100 NO N/A authorization from CBP HQ - permit 200E
Water Commission request mailed 11/06/07
5 GSA Pheonix AZ NO N/A Permit request mailed 11/06/07 210E, 220E
6
7

4171 North Mesa Street Access to levee awaiting
9 and 915-832-4100 8.96 YES N/A
Suite C-310 El Paso, Texas authorization from CBP HQ
Water Commission
10
11
Title
Real Estate
Value Letter Signed
not found Met For
Obtained Ordered Received Sent Offer
Certification
NO NO NO YES NO NO
N/A YES NO NO NO NO
N/A YES NO NO NO NO
NO YES NO NO NO NO
El Paso Sector, Phase II, Segment K-2 (B-C)
Number Landowner
Length
of Land Owner Name: Landowner Address Telephone # County Parcel ID # has been Signed ROE Real Estate Comments Tract No.
(mi)
Parcels Contacted
ACCESS ROADS
International Boundary and
1 and 915-832-4100 YES YES
Water Commission
Water Commission
El Paso County Water
2 El Paso County Water District 915-859-4186 Y80599905300601 YES YES ROE signed 11/16/07
District
3 Pan American 120E
821 NE G Ave., P.O. Box
4 Fabens Independent Schools G58000015300300 YES ROE mailed 11/26/07 151E
697, Fabens, TX 79838
1501 Hole in the Wall Rd.,
5 Williams River Farm G58000015300310 YES ROE mailed 11/26/07 152E
San Elizario, TX 79849
STAGING AREA
2 Civic Center Plaza, El Permit request mailed 11/06/07,
5 City of El Paso S53399902401301 YES YES 240E
Paso Tx 79901 signed Temp Easement 11/16/07
6 and 915-832-4100 NO N/A Permit request mailed 11/06/07 230E
Water Commission
Water Commission
7

8 and 915-832-4100 19.76 YES N/A
Water Commission
Water Commission
9
10
11
Title
Real Estate
Offer
Letter
Sent
Certification
NO NO NO YES NO NO
NO NO NO YES NO NO
NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO yes NO NO NO NO
N/A YES NO NO NO NO
Number Landowner
Length
of Land Owner Name: Landowner Address Telephone # County Parcel ID # has been Signed ROE Real Estate Comments
(mi)
Parcels Contacted
ACCESS ROADS
Access from POE to Levey is

1 Fabens Port of Entry Fabens, TX YES YES
government control
STAGING AREA
(b) (6)
4 T61100000000075 YES YES Signed 10/11/07

7 and 915-832-4100 4.02 YES N/A
Water Commission
Water Commission
8
9
Title
Real Estate
Offer
Tract No. Letter
Sent
Certification
NO NO N/A YES NO YES
NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO YES NO NO NO NO
Number MAP Landowner has Market
Length Real Estate Tract Title
of Land Owner Name: Landowner Address Telephone # Parcel been Signed ROE Value
(mi) Comments No.
Parcels ID # Contacted Obtained Ordered Received
ACCESS ROADS
(b) (6) (b) (6)
1 77 YES YES NO NO NO
signed on behalf
ROE mailed
2 78 YES YES NO NO NO
10/30/07
3 80 YES N/A NOT NEEDED NO YES NO
combined ROE
4 82 YES YES NO YES NO
with line item 7
ROE mailed
10/30/07, Signed
combined ROE
with line item 7
ROE signed
7
85 YES YES 10/16/07
received signed
International Boundary & Water 4171 N. Mesa C-100, El Paso, permit for all
8 YES 190E
Commission TX 79902 staging & access
11/28/07
Access from
9 Fabens Port of Entry Fabens, TX YES YES NO NO N/A
POE to Levey is
**Access Roads are the
same as K-3 & K-5
STAGING AREA
10
11
12

International Boundary and International Boundary and permit request
13 915-832-4100 3.36 YES N/A NO YES NO
Water Commission Water Commission mailed on
Offer Real Estate
Landowner Landowner
Letter Requirements
not found Signed Offer
Sent Met For
YES NO YES
YES NO NO
NO NO NO
NO NO NO
NO NO NO
NO NO NO
YES NO YES
NO NO NO
Number Landowner
Length Signed
of Land Owner Name: Landowner Address Telephone # MAP Parcel ID # has been Real Estate Comments
(mi) ROE
Parcels Contacted
ACCESS ROADS
(b) (6) (b) (6)
1 77 YES YES
2 78 YES YES ROE mailed 10/30/07

combined ROE with line item 7 under
4 82 YES YES
DACW47-9-08-009
ROE mailed 10/30/07, Signed ROE
5 83 YES YES
11/14/07
combined ROE with line item 7 under
6 87 YES YES
DACW47-9-08-009
7
85 YES YES ROE signed 10/16/07
International Boundary &

8 YES
Water Commission
STAGING AREA
(b) (6) 2 acre parcel of property located on
9 YES YES (b) (6)
signed 10/09/07
International Boundary &
10 No YES Permit request mailed 11/06/07
Water Commission
11

International Boundary and Water
12 and 915-832-4100 3.36 YES N/A permit request mailed on 11/06/07
Commission
Water Commission
Title
Real Estate
Market Offer
Landowner Landowner Requirements
Tract No. Value Letter
not found Signed Offer Met For
Certification
NO NO NO YES NO YES
NO NO NO YES NO NO
NO YES NO NO NO NO
NO YES NO NO NO NO
NO YES NO NO NO NO
190E
270E NO NO NO NO NO NO
260E
NO YES NO NO NO NO
Marfa Sector, Phase II, Segment L-1
Number Landowner
Length Signed
(mi) ROE
Parcels Contacted
ACCESS ROADS
STAGING AREA
4 and YES YES permit request mailed 11/06/07
Water Commission
Water Commission
5
6
7

8 and 915-832-4100 3 YES N/A
Water Commission
Water Commission
9
10
Title
Real Estate
Tract No. Value Letter Signed
not found Met For
Certification
NO NO NO NO NO NO
Marfa Sector, Phase II, Segment L-1A
Number Landowner
Length Signed
of Land Owner Name: Landowner Address Telephone # County Parcel ID # has been Real Estate Comments Tract No.
(mi) ROE
Parcels Contacted
ACCESS ROADS
(b) (6)
1 YES YES
3 YES YES
6
7
STAGING AREA
(b) (6)
9 YES YES
10
11

(b) (6)
12 0.20 YES YES
mailed ROE 10/24/07 - landowner

talked to (b) (6) , will sign but is
concerned about some of the
13 0.25 YES YES 105E
verbage in the legal description
11/05/07. (b) (6) got the ROE
signed per his e-mail 11/29/07
P.O. Box 1887, Presidio, TX
14 and 915-832-4100 2.75 YES N/A
79845
Water Commission
15
16
Title
Real Estate
Value Letter Signed
not found Met For
Certification
NO NO NO YES NO YES
NO NO NO NO NO YES
NO NO NO NO NO YES
NO NO NO NO NO YES
NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO NO NO NO NO NO
Marfa Sector, Phase II, Segment L-1B
Number Landowner
Length Signed
(mi) ROE
Parcels Contacted
ACCESS ROADS
(b) (6)
1 YES YES
2 YES YES
STAGING AREA
(b) (6)
5 YES YES

6 and 915-832-4100 NO YES Permit request mailed 11/06/07
79845
Water Commission
7

8 and 915-832-4100 3.20 YES YES
79845
Water Commission
9
10
Title
Real Estate
Tract No. Value Letter Signed
not found Met For
Certification
NO NO NO YES NO YES
NO NO NO YES NO YES
NO NO NO NO NO YES
NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO NO NO NO NO NO
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: (b) (6)

Date: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:56:48 PM
Importance: High
All,
Please see the message below. This is in reference to the D-6 project east of Nogales. It looks as if
(b) (6) is willing to cooperate provided that the fence style is bollard, like in Sasabe, AZ. This is a
tremendous step forward for us and I only hope that we can accommodate (b) (6) Bollard is also the
preferred style of fencing by the Tucson Sector. Happy Thanksgiving.
(b) (6) - Can you make sure (b) (6) gets a copy of this message? I don't have his email address.
(b) (6)
Field Operations Supervisor
Tucson Sector Tactical Infrastructure Office
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:44 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: (b) (6)
(b
)
Outstanding. Pls coordinate with(b) I am sure that we can accomodate the style in this situation.
(6)
Thx. (b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Nov 21 17:00:22 2007
Subject: (b) (6)
Sirs,
(b)(5),(b)(6)
Thank you,
(b
)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Discuss Fence in Texas
Start: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:00:00 AM
End: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:00:00 AM
Location: Conference Room 7.5.B
_____________________________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 3:17 PM
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: Discuss Fence in Texas
When: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:00 AM-10:00 AM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: Conference Room 7.5.B
From: (b) (6)
To: ADAMS, ROWDY(b SELF, JEFFREY ( ; (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: DRAFT schedule
Date: Monday, July 23, 2007 6:13:40 PM
The K1 Project is the Texas project that is closest to a construction date. That being said, it will be
impossible to begin before the end of the FY due to all the necessary contractual procedures. The best
case scenario would have them starting to grub the site but no real construction will begin until Oct..
I'll see if design bid build would save time but if not, that is pretty much the scoop per the Corps.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jul 23 17:58:10 2007

Subject: DRAFT schedule
(b) (6)
Here is the DRAFT schedule. The current baseline in our system had contract awards in OCT for El Paso
K-1. Our draft schedule attached is trying to "push schedule to the left" and as you can see, the K1
schedule has the NTP 28 Sept. As I previously stated, on that award date, dependent upon the design,
the Contractor can begin clearing and grubbing. The design will dictate how soon the fence construction
will begin.
(b)
(6)
Project Manager
USACE-PM-ECSO
(b) (6)
(b)(2),(b)(6)
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predece Resource Names June 2007
1 RFP Package #4 - F-1: 3.0mi to 10.5mi W of Douglas, AZ POE 70 days Tue 6/12/07 Mon 9/17/07
2 Design Start 0 days Tue 6/12/07 Tue 6/12/07 Design Start

6/12 Desig
3 Government Site Visit 1 day Thu 7/12/07 Thu 7/12/07 Government Site Visit
4 Prepare Draft RFP 29 days Tue 6/12/07 Fri 7/20/07 2 Prepare Draft RFP
5 RFP Review-95% 3 days Mon 7/23/07 Wed 7/25/07 4 RFP Review-95%
6 Comment Annotation 2 days Thu 7/26/07 Fri 7/27/07 5 Comment Annotation
7 Government Review Conference-95% 1 day Tue 7/31/07 Tue 7/31/07 Government Review Confe
8 Pre-Bid Conference (Site Visit) 1 day Wed 8/1/07 Wed 8/1/07 Pre-Bid Conference (Site V
9 RTA RFP 3 days Thu 8/2/07 Mon 8/6/07 8 RTA RFP
10 100% Submission 0 days Mon 8/6/07 Mon 8/6/07 9 100% Submission
11 Back Check Review 2 days Tue 8/7/07 Wed 8/8/07 9 Back Check Review
12 RTA RFP (Corrected Finals) 1 day Thu 8/9/07 Thu 8/9/07 11 RTA RFP (Corrected Fina
13 RFP Evaluation 5 days Tue 8/7/07 Mon 8/13/07 10 RFP Evaluation
14 Issue RFP 0 days Mon 8/13/07 Mon 8/13/07 13 Issue RFP
15 Proposal Preparation 20 days Tue 8/14/07 Mon 9/10/07 14 Proposal Preparation
16 Proposal Evaluation 5 days Tue 9/11/07 Mon 9/17/07 15 Proposal Evaluation
17 Award Task Order 0 days Mon 9/17/07 Mon 9/17/07 16 Award Task Order
18
19 RFP Package #2B - E-2B: 4.75mi to 11.75mi W of Naco, AZ POE 71 days Tue 6/12/07 Tue 9/18/07

6/12 Desig
22 Prepare Draft RFP 29 days Tue 6/12/07 Fri 7/20/07 20 Prepare Draft RFP
Task Rolled Up Task External Tasks
Progress Rolled Up Milestone Project Summary

Project: Phase 1 RFP Schedule MS98
Date: Mon 7/23/07
Milestone Rolled Up Progress
Summary Split
Page 1
23 RFP Review-95% 3 days Mon 7/23/07 Wed 7/25/07 22 RFP Review-95%
24 Comment Annotation 2 days Thu 7/26/07 Fri 7/27/07 23 Comment Annotation
25 Government Review Conference-95% 1 day Tue 7/31/07 Tue 7/31/07 Government Review Confe
26 Pre-Bid Conference (Site Visit) 1 day Thu 8/2/07 Thu 8/2/07 Pre-Bid Conference (Site V
27 RTA RFP 3 days Fri 8/3/07 Tue 8/7/07 26 RTA RFP
28 100% Submission 0 days Tue 8/7/07 Tue 8/7/07 27 100% Submission
29 Back Check Review 2 days Wed 8/8/07 Thu 8/9/07 27 Back Check Review
30 RTA RFP (Corrected Finals) 1 day Fri 8/10/07 Fri 8/10/07 29 RTA RFP (Corrected Fina
31 RFP Evaluation 5 days Wed 8/8/07 Tue 8/14/07 27 RFP Evaluation
32 Issue RFP 0 days Tue 8/14/07 Tue 8/14/07 31 Issue RFP
33 Proposal Preparation 20 days Wed 8/15/07 Tue 9/11/07 32 Proposal Preparation
34 Proposal Evaluation 5 days Wed 9/12/07 Tue 9/18/07 33 Proposal Evaluation
35 Award Task Order 0 days Tue 9/18/07 Tue 9/18/07 34 Award Task Order
36
37 RFP Package #1 - D-2: Lukeville, AZ POE 74 days Tue 6/12/07 Fri 9/21/07

6/12 Desig
39 Government Site Visit 1 day Wed 7/11/07 Wed 7/11/07 Government Site Visit
40 Prepare Draft RFP 35 days Tue 6/12/07 Mon 7/30/07 38 Prepare Draft RFP
41 RFP Review-95% 3 days Tue 7/31/07 Thu 8/2/07 40 RFP Review-95%
42 Comment Annotation 2 days Fri 8/3/07 Mon 8/6/07 41 Comment Annotation
43 Government Review Conference-95% 1 day Tue 8/7/07 Tue 8/7/07 42 Government Review Confe
44 Pre-Bid Conference (Site Visit) 1 day Wed 8/8/07 Wed 8/8/07 43 Pre-Bid Conference (Site V

Date: Mon 7/23/07
Summary Split
Page 2
49 RTA 0 days Thu 8/16/07 Thu 8/16/07 48 RTA
50 RFP Evaluation 5 days Mon 8/13/07 Fri 8/17/07 RFP Evaluation
51 Issue RFP 0 days Fri 8/17/07 Fri 8/17/07 50 Issue RFP
52 Proposal Preparation 20 days Mon 8/20/07 Fri 9/14/07 50 Proposal Preparation
53 Proposal Evaluation 5 days Mon 9/17/07 Fri 9/21/07 52 Proposal Evaluation
54 Award Task Order 0 days Fri 9/21/07 Fri 9/21/07 53 Award Task Order
55
56 RFP Package #3 - E-3: 3.4mi to 12.4mi E of Naco, AZ POE 75 days Tue 6/12/07 Mon 9/24/07

6/12 Desig
63 Pre-Bid Conference (Site Visit) 1 day Thu 8/9/07 Thu 8/9/07 62 Pre-Bid Conference (Site V

Date: Mon 7/23/07
Summary Split
Page 3
68 RTA 0 days Fri 8/17/07 Fri 8/17/07 67 RTA
69 RFP Evaluation 5 days Tue 8/14/07 Mon 8/20/07 RFP Evaluation
73 Award Task Order 0 days Mon 9/24/07 Mon 9/24/07 72 Award Task Order
74
75 RFP Package #5 - H-2B/I-1A: Columbus, NM POE 74 days Tue 6/12/07 Fri 9/21/07

6/12
77 Government Site Visit 1 day Mon 7/9/07 Mon 7/9/07 Government Site Visit

Date: Mon 7/23/07
Summary Split
Page 4
93
94 RFP Package #6 - J-1/J-3: Santa Teresa, NM POE 75 days Tue 6/12/07 Mon 9/24/07

6/12
96 Government Site Visit 1 day Mon 7/9/07 Mon 7/9/07 Government Site Visit
101 Pre-Bid Conference (Site Visit) 1 day Thu 8/9/07 Thu 8/9/07 100 Pre-Bid Conference (Site V
106 RTA 0 days Fri 8/17/07 Fri 8/17/07 105 RTA
107 RFP Evaluation 5 days Tue 8/14/07 Mon 8/20/07 RFP Evaluation

Date: Mon 7/23/07
Summary Split
Page 5
111 Award Task Order 0 days Mon 9/24/07 Mon 9/24/07 Award Task Order
112
113 RFP Package #1B - D-5A: W of Mariposa POE 79 days Tue 6/12/07 Fri 9/28/07
6/12 Desig
115 Government Site Visit 1 day Fri 7/13/07 Fri 7/13/07 Government Site Visit
131
132 RFP Package #7 - K-1: EPS Pumphouse to W RR Bridge 79 days Tue 6/12/07 Fri 9/28/07

Date: Mon 7/23/07
Summary Split
Page 6
6/12 Desig
134 Government Site Visit 1 day Tue 7/10/07 Tue 7/10/07 Government Site Visit
150
151 RFP Package #2 - E-2A: 11.75mi to 17.75mi W of Naco, AZ POE 0 days Tue 6/12/07 Tue 6/12/07 6/12
152 Design Start (ON HOLD) 0 days Tue 6/12/07 Tue 6/12/07 Design Start
6/12 Desig

Date: Mon 7/23/07
Summary Split
Page 7
July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008
tart
Government Site Visit
Prepare Draft RFP
RFP Review-95%
Comment Annotation
Government Review Conference-95%
Pre-Bid Conference (Site Visit)
RTA RFP
8/6 100% Submission
Back Check Review
RTA RFP (Corrected Finals)
RFP Evaluation
8/13 Issue RFP
Proposal Preparation
Proposal Evaluation
9/17 Award Task Order
tart
Prepare Draft RFP

Date: Mon 7/23/07
Summary Split
Page 8
RFP Review-95%
Comment Annotation
RTA RFP
8/7 100% Submission
Back Check Review
RFP Evaluation
8/14 Issue RFP
Proposal Evaluation
tart
Prepare Draft RFP
RFP Review-95%
Comment Annotation

Date: Mon 7/23/07
Summary Split
Page 9
RTA RFP
8/13 100% Submission
Back Check Review
8/16 RTA
RFP Evaluation
8/17 Issue RFP
Proposal Evaluation
tart
Prepare Draft RFP
RFP Review-95%
Comment Annotation
RTA RFP
Back Check Review

Date: Mon 7/23/07
Summary Split
Page 10
8/17 RTA
RFP Evaluation
8/20 Issue RFP
Proposal Evaluation
Prepare Draft RFP
RFP Review-95%
Comment Annotation
RTA RFP
8/13
Back Check Review
8/16
RFP Evaluation

Date: Mon 7/23/07
Summary Split
Page 11
8/17
Proposal Evaluation
9/21
Prepare Draft RFP
RFP Review-95%
Comment Annotation
RTA RFP
8/14
Back Check Review
8/17
RFP Evaluation
8/20
Proposal Evaluation

Date: Mon 7/23/07
Summary Split
Page 12
9/24
tart
Prepare Draft RFP
RFP Review-95%
Comment Annotation
RTA RFP
Back Check Review
8/23 RTA
RFP Evaluation
8/24 Issue RFP
Proposal Evaluation

Date: Mon 7/23/07
Summary Split
Page 13
tart
Prepare Draft RFP
RFP Review-95%
Comment Annotation
RTA RFP
Back Check Review
8/23 RTA
RFP Evaluation
8/24 Issue RFP
Proposal Evaluation
tart

Date: Mon 7/23/07
Summary Split
Page 14
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) Pagan, David ( (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Planning call on El Centro Sector EA public open house
Date: Thursday, December 27, 2007 4:31:31 PM
Good afternoon.
The first notice for the El Centro Sector Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) was published in
yesterday’s Imperial Valley Press. A second notice will run on Thursday, January 3, followed by
Sunday, January 6.
Approximately 40 Draft EAs were shipped to interested parties, including copies to local libraries.
The public open house has been scheduled for January 9, 2008, at the Imperial County Expo, 200
East Second Street, Imperial, CA. The open house will be held from 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
The announcement has been posted on the BorderFenceNEPA.com website to start the 30-day public
comment period.
(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)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: ENV IPT Teleconference Meeting Minutes (draft)
Date: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 6:40:20 AM
FYI, below are the official minutes for the PF-225 ENV IPT last Monday.
(b) (6)
HQ OBP Liaison, OPA Div.
Office of Border Patrol
delbert.simmons@associates.dhs.gov
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: ENV IPT Teleconference Meeting Minutes (draft)
All,
Attached are the draft meeting minutes from Monday's ENV IPT teleconference. Please review and
provide comment by COB Wednseday (tomorrow). For those that are to provide status updates, please
fill in where identified.
Note: Next ENV IPT is set for Monday, 14 January at 10:00 am cst.
Thanks
(b)
(6)
The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the
recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please return it to the sender immediately and delete the original message and any copy of it
from your computer system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please contact the
sender.
ENV IPT MEETING MINUTES
MEETING DATE:
PF225 - Environmental Working Group
01-07-2008
START TIME
9:00 AM, CST
ATTENDANCE
(b) (6)
VISITORS
NEXT ENV IPT TELECONFERENCE:

January 14 2008
10:00 AM CST
(b) (2)
1) R EVIEW AND COMMENT RECONCILIATION PROCESS FOR SBINET PF-225 EIS DOCUMENTATION
Review teams include SME, SBInet, CBP Tasker, OBP, and DHS ExecSec.
Documents to be Reviewed
 EIS (Draft, Final)
 EIS Executive Summary (Draft, Final)/ EIS Executive Summary (Draft, Final)
 ROD
 NOAs for Federal Register (FR) and newspaper (DEIS, FEIS, ROD)
 NOAs for newspaper (DEIS, FEIS, ROD)
 Cooperating agency invitation letters
Page 1 of 12
 Agency Coordination letters
 Final/Draft EIS transmittal letters to commenting agencies/tribes, libraries, EPA HQ, and affected
EPA Region Offices
Draft Document SME Review Date Submittal Stage

Tucson SEA Jan 11 at 1:00 PM (EST) DEA Submitted
Comments back COB Thursday
Deming Jan 11 at 1:00 PM (EST) PDEA Submitted
Marfa EA Done DEA submitted
Del Rio EA Done DEA Submitted
El Paso SEA PDEA to be submitted
ELC EA Done DEA Submitted
Yuma SEA Jan 11 at 1:00 PM (EST) PDEA Submitted
2) P HASE I NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS
Ajo (D-2): Status: delayed (HQ CBP/SBI to meet with DOI Jan 7 concerning NPS concerns)
The draft EA was released on 17 September 2007 for the 30 day public comment period. USFWS
would like to enter into formal consultation for Lesser Long-Nosed Bat and Sonoran Pronghorn.
FWS will be using the Final EA for the BA, then prepare the BO off of that document, which will
save time. They should be able to turn the BO around in 30 days after receipt of document. This
EA covers a total of 5.2 miles of primary fence on either side of the POE. The proposed action
calls for the construction of approximately 3.1 miles of primary pedestrian fence from the Sonoita
POE going eastward and 2.1 miles from the POE going westward. A portion of this project (0.56
miles) will extend out to 90 feet beyond the 60 foot Roosevelt Reservation adjacent to the Organ
Pipe National Cactus Monument.
 Waiting for feedback from DOI. Meeting today to address issues.
 Once decided, the Final EA-FONSI needs to be revised. It is unlikely that the document
would need to be reviewed by the public again.
 Need to nail down when BO will be finalized.
Santa Teresa (J-1, J-2, and J-3):
Final EA and FONSI completed (14 November 2007). J-1 and J-3 are ready for construction to
begin. J-2 is a concern because two archaeological sites have been identified. Next step is for
archaeological data recovery, testing is complete.
Sector has requested a different type of fence than that identified in the RFP. May have to re-bid
to address different fence type. Depending on findings at J-2, the re-bid may include construction
at J-2. There are two cultural resource sites in J-2 that are to be avoided during the construction
of J-1 and J-2. The proposed action calls for the construction of 5.7 miles of primary fencing
beginning approximately 1 mile east of the Santa Teresa POE and extending 5.7 miles eastward
stopping just west of the city of Sunland Park.
 J-2 Schedule for Cultural Resource Clearance by April 18.
El Paso (K-1): Status:
FONSI Executed 12-31-07.
Limestone Ridge EA (E-3): Status: Public Comment ended January 6, 2008
Draft EA NOA 7 Dec 2007.
BLM MOA should be executed by January 18, 2008. Once signed, will be able to construct in non-
site areas and must do a damage assessment in the site area prior to construction.
 (b) (6) to follow up with (b) (6) to determine if Section 7 consultation needs to be
reinitiated.
Page 2 of 12
3) W EBSITE
Web-site language and content needs revised to include additional EAs and post-public comment
period for RGV. e2M coordinating with GSRC on language.
4) ROE S: SEE ATTACHED TABLE – (b) (2)
Tucson EA is at risk. No surveys have been done. Risk is being communicated to senior
leadership at both CBP-SBI and ECSO.
El Paso EA is at risk due to Water District issues. Need to meet offline to identify path forward.
Yuma: C-1 has access road at Andrade POE through tribal land/staging area. C-2 staging area.
Del Rio: No ROE for M-2A
5) DOPAA S
 ECSO is developing 100% design-bid-build for Texas. This needs to be reflected in NEPA
documents.
 Design-build RFPs (outside of Texas). Telling contractor what style of fence to construct plus
providing materials. This needs to be reflected in NEPA documents.
 Sonny is not sure that the above two points are still applicable. If changed, needs verified.
 EPT DOPAA may need revised if alignment shifts.
6) C OOPERATING AGENCY STATUS (SEE ATTACHED COOPERATING AGENCY DISTRIBUTION LIST) –
(b) (6) TO UPDATE SECTION BELOW.
 DOI-CBP MOU. Status: ?
 FWS sent letter stating that they will not be a Cooperating Agency.
a) Rio Grande Valley EIS
 IBWC: Cooperating Agency.
 COE:
- Regulatory – Galveston
- Galveston District will be a Cooperating Agency for 404 permit.
- SWG Regulatory established 404 permit schedule.
- TCEQ agreed to 15 Day Joint Public Notice comment period for 401 Certification.
 EPA: Received letter response. EPA will be a “Participating” Agency.
b) Del Rio EA
 COE:
- Regulatory – Ft. Worth
- NEPA - Galveston; per 11/5 IPT meeting, letters have been signed
 EPA: No response to date.
c) Marfa EA
 COE – Albuquerque:
- Regulatory – (b) (6)
- NEPA – (b) (6)
d) El Paso EA
 COE – Albuquerque:
- Regulatory – (b) (6)
- NEPA – (b) (6)
 BLM will need to be included for NM SEA at Deming.
Page 3 of 12
e) Tucson EA
 COE (SPL Regulatory) – District has not yet issued a response to CBP's request to be a
cooperating agency. Contact: (b) (6)
- NEPA - (b) (6)
 NPS: No response to date.
 BLM: No response to date.
f) Yuma EA
- NEPA - (b) (6)
 BLM: No response to date.
g) El Centro EA
- NEPA – (b) (6)
 BLM: Cooperating Agency.
 CAFG: No response to date.
h) San Diego Gap Filler EA
- NEPA – (b) (6)
 BLM: Cooperating Agency.
i) San Diego EIS
cooperating agency. Contact:(b) (6)
- NEPA – (b) (6)
 BLM: Cooperating Agency. Preparing EA to address pre-construction engineering
surveys.
7) S ECTION 7 (BEING REVISED INTO TABLE FORMAT)
SBI/CBP to meet with FWS/DOI to revise schedule to meet PF225 NEPA and construction
timeline. FWS schedule for BAs and BOs is not aligned with the EAs and EISs.
 Special Use permit received 10 December 2007; expires 28 December 2007.
 Special Use Permit –Survey (Natual/Cultural/Mapping/Geotech):
- Unknown when/if Use permit will be approved for geotech.
 Emergency Consultation – Surveys
- Concurrence from USFWS provided September 24, 2007.
Page 4 of 12
- A request for emergency consultation for Natural Resources, Cultural Resources, and
Engineering Design surveys was submitted to the USFWS – South Texas Ecological
Services Office. The request is for the purpose of pre-project activities including the
conduct visual inspections, natural resource surveys, cultural resource surveys,
ground control and aerial surveys, and geotech surveys that began the week of
October 1, 2007. A complete assessment of the pre-construction activities shall be
analyzed fully in the formal consultation for the construction of the fence.
b) Del Rio EA
 A letter submitting a determination of May Affect – Not Likely to Adversely Affect for
jaguarundi and ocelot in Del Rio (M-2A) , and No Effect for all remaining species and
fence segments in Texas was concurred with by USFWS on 19 October 2007.
c) Marfa EA
d) El Paso EA
e) Deming SEA (H-2A and I-1B) – Contingency Miles
 Conference Letter indicating changes in the action submitted to USFWS for Deming.
 Will not use PF225 Section 7 process.
f) Tucson EA
 E-2A BA to be done through reinitiating consultation relative to lesser long-nosed bat and
jaguar under the 29 August 2007 Biological Opinion. TCA Sector EA (D-5B/D-6) to be
done under separate BA/BO.
 This strategy is to be addressed and confirmed through FWS coordination (b) (6)
g) Yuma EA
 Letter requesting informal consultation being developed for Carlsbad (b) (6) and
Phoenix (b) (6) offices.
h) El Centro EA
 A letter submitting determination of No Effect for Natural and Cultural Resources surveys
for San Diego and El Centro was concurred with by USFWS on October 11, 2007.
 A request for emergency consultation for Engineering Design surveys was submitted to
the USFWS – Carlsbad Ecological Services Office (10/17/07). The request is for the
purpose of pre-project activities including the visual inspections, ground control and aerial
surveys, and geotech surveys that are to begin the week of October 29, 2007. A
complete assessment of the pre-construction activities shall be analyzed fully in the
formal consultation for the construction of the fence.
 Effort now underway to see if geotech can limit impacts so that it can be done under
informal consultation instead of emergency consultation.
i) San Diego Gap Filler EA
Page 5 of 12
j) San Diego EIS
 BLM Special Use Permit –Survey (Natual/Cultural/Mapping/Geotech)
- Letter sent to tie BLM EA to PF225 NEPA process and associated Section 7 process.
(b) (6) to verify that it was signed and sent out.
complete assessment of the pre-construction activities shall be analyzed fully in the
formal consultation for the construction of the fence.
8) BMP S
 BMPs need to be finalized if they are to be included in the construction RFPs. RFP review dates
provided in Section 12.
 A-1 RFP includes Draft BMPs that were agreed to with FWS in Carlsbad (December 17, 2007).
 Dave and Sonny to vet BMPs with SBI Management.
9) S ECTION 404 (SEE ATTACHED TABLE FOR UPDATE)
 Need to coordinate with Albuquerque and LA Districts and determine which Sectors will require
IPs. For those that will require an IP, need to address process. Assuming that the mechanics
will follow a similar process as that for RGV.
 Need to determine who will do 404 permit for other sectors. Will it be the contractor or ECSO?
a) RGV:
 Was the Public Notice for RGV executed? Did the Public Information Meetings count
towards the 404?
 TCEQ has agreed to an expedited process for 401 (15 day review). They are requesting
language for emergency status. (b) (6) will provide, with (b) (6) input.
 SWG has a backup plan for delineate wetlands for non-ROE locations.
 CBP should add access and staging areas (including "temporary impacts") to permit
application plans, showing where impacts intersect with wetlands. These plans will be
part of the Public Notice, which becomes public in mid-January.
 Adding access and staging areas if not temporary. Becomes public in mid-January.
 TCEQ is interested in BMPs. Joint Public Notice/Decision Document between USACE
(404) and TCEQ (401).
10) SECTION 106 ((b) (6) – TO REVIEW AND UPDATE)
a) Rio Grande Valley EIS (O-1-O21)
 Significant archaeological site identified (Fort Brown earthworks). e2M to prepare a
summary of findings, recommendations, and potential impact on process.
 Cultural Resource Survey/Report Status: e2M has surveyed all parcels with ROE. Right
now approximately 55 miles are surveyed (75 % of total area). There are 15 sites that
may need additional work.
Page 6 of 12
 PA Status: PA will include procedures for buildings and archaeological sites. Draft
expected January 11, 2007. Final by February 28, 2008 (RGV, MAR, DRT, EPT).
 Separate segments by those that are cleared and those that have sites requiring further
study. At this time, Section 7 and 9 cleared completely.
 Looking at July 25, 2007 for all Section 106 clearance (depending on ROE).
b) Del Rio EA (M-1, M-2A)
 Cultural Resource Survey Status. Survey began November 28, 2007.
 Two sites. One probably eligible. One not. Does not include M-2A (no ROE).
 Estimate 45 days after ROE (M-2A) survey to clear non-site areas for construction. NTP
no sooner than 45 days after ROE for archaeological survey.
 End of April for M-1 (non-site areas clear for construction).
 MOA Status: Will need MOA.
c) Marfa EA (L-1, L-1A, L-1B)
 Cultural Resource Survey Status. Survey began November 28, 2007.
- E2M is waiting for ROE.
 Building survey being conducted.
 MOA Status: None needed at this time.
d) El Paso EA (K-2A, K-2B/C, K-3, K-5, K-5A)
 Cultural Resource Survey/Report Status: GSRC to provide update.
- Have concurrence for K-2B/C, just need an amendment. If fence location is moved to
north side of drag road then need CR survey there.
e) El Paso (J-2)
 Data recovery in process. Clearance by April 18 2008.
 No MOA needed.
f) Deming (H-2A and I-1B)
 Surveys complete. All can be avoided. Will need monitors during construction.
g) Tucson EA (D-5B/D-6)
 Draft PA to SHPO January 4 2008. Assume PA signing February 18, 2008.
 Obtain ROE, conduct survey. Identify potential sites, develop treatment plan. No ROE at
this time to conduct survey.
 Estimate 45 days after ROE survey to clear non-site areas for construction.
 (b) (6) requested that a 4-5 page briefing be prepared as to why CBP should
prepare a CR Management Plan for the border.
h) Yuma EA (C-1, C-2)
 Cultural Resource Survey/Report Status: GSRC waiting on IBWC ROE.
i) El Centro EA (B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5A, B-5B)
 No issues identified.
 MOA Status: None will be needed.
j) San Diego Gap Filler EA
 Cultural Resource Survey/Report Status: No issues.
 MOA Status: Not need (need to verify with (b) (6) ).
k) San Diego EIS
 Cultural Resource Survey/Report Status: e2M has finished survey and non-confidential
report is in DEIS. There are two sites that need additional work if they can not be avoided.
Estimating 31 March 2008 for clearance.
Page 7 of 12
11) PUBLIC MEETINGS
 There will be no public meeting for Deming.
 e2M is preparing a public meeting schedule for the remainder of meetings (EAs and EIS). (b)
(6)
o distribute. Date and locations are dependent on actual NOAs, which are still in flux.
Draft Document Release Draft **Public Review Period Location *Anticipated Public
to Public Meeting Date
Rio Grande Valley 11/16/07 11/16-12/31/07 Rio Grande Complete
DEIS City/McAllen/Brownsville
El Centro EA 12/26/07 12/26/07 – 1/24/08 Imperial Valley Expo 1/09/08
San Diego EA 1/7/08 1/7/08 – 2/5/08 Alpine Community Center, 1/16/08
1830 Alpine Blvd, Alpine CA
San Diego DEIS 12/28/07 12/28/07 – 2/12/08 San Diego Convention Center 1/17/08
Del Rio EA 1/7/08 1/7/08 – 2/5/08 TBD 1/23 - Estimate
Marfa EA 1/8/08 1/7/08 – 2/5/08 TBD 1/24 - Estimate
Yuma SEA 1/18/08 1/18/08 – 2/16/08 TBD Week of 1/28/08 - 2/1/08
Tucson SEA 1/7/08 1/7/08 – 2/5/08 TBD Week of 1/28/08 - 2/1/08
El Paso SEA 1/18/08 1/18/08 – 2/16/08 TBD Unknown
*Assuming BP Sector personnel are available..
Final Document Release Final Public Review Period Anticipated ROD

to Public Signature
Rio Grande Valley FEIS 2/1/08 2/1/08-3/3/08 3/4/08
San Diego FEIS 3/14/08 3/14/08-4/14/08 4/15/08
12) SCHEDULE ((b) (6) TO REVISE)
 The schedule for completion of the Phase II NEPA process needs to be incorporated into RMS
and provided to CBP.
 The RFP Issued date is target date for finalizing NEPA. Start Construction date is drop-dead
date for NEPA compliance.
 Effort underway to revise NEPA schedules based on Section 7, Section 106, and RFP
Issue/Construction dates.
Critical Task Finish Date Status
 Publication of the NOI 9/24/2007 Complete
 NOA published in FR 11/16/2007 Complete
 45 day Public comment period 12/31/2007 Complete
 Public Hearing(s) 12/14/2007 Complete
 *Draft Final EIS review begins 1/14/2008 On-schedule
 CBP approves Final EIS 1/22/2008 On-schedule
 Distribution of FEIS to EPA and IPs 1/31/2008 On-schedule
 NOA published in FR 2/1/2008 On-schedule
 30 day Public comment period on FEIS 3/3/2008 On-schedule
 Publication in FR of ROD and NOA 3/7/2008 On-schedule
 RFP Review Begins 5/26/2008
 RFP Issued 6/16/2008
 RFP Award 7/31/2008
 Start Construction 8/8/2008
*e2M is requesting that the January 14 submission date be pushed back to ensure that the FEIS includes
Final BA, potential tweaking of alignment, wetland data, and vetting of Public Comments.
Page 8 of 12
b) Del Rio EA
 Distribute Final Project Notification Letters 10/25/2007 Complete
 Preliminary Draft EA Submitted for Review 12/06/2007 Complete
 Draft EA Approval 1/2/2008 On-schedule
I ssue NOA 1/7/2008 On-schedule
 30 day Public Comment Period 2/6/2008 On-schedule
 Public Information Meeting TBD
 Draft Final EA and FONSI review begins 2/15/2008 On-schedule
 CBP Approves FONSI 2/26/2008 On-schedule
 Publish NOA 3/5/2008 On-schedule
 RFP Award 5/8/2008
c) Marfa EA
 RFP Award 5/20/2008
d) El Paso EA
 Preliminary Draft EA Submitted for Review 12/31/2007 Lagging
 *Draft EA Approval 1/14/2008 At-risk
I ssue NOA 1/21/2008 At-risk
 30 day Public Comment Period 2/20/2008 At-risk
 Draft Final EA and FONSI review begins 2/29/2008 At-risk
 CBP Approves FONSI (if appropriate) 3/12/2008 At-risk
 Publish NOA 3/13/2008 At-risk
*On-hold until Water District issue is resolved.
e) Deming SEA (H-2A, I-1B)
 CBP Approves FONSI (if appropriate) 3/6/2008 On-schedule
Page 9 of 12
 RFP Review Begins
 RFP Issued
 RFP Award
 Start Construction
f) Tucson EA
 Draft EA Approval 1/24/2008 At-risk
I ssue NOA 1/28/2008 At-risk
 30 day Public Comment Period 2/27/2008 At-risk
 Draft Final EA and FONSI review begins 3/7/2008 At-risk
 CBP Approves FONSI 3/18/2008 At-risk
 Publish NOA 3/26/2008 At-risk
 RFP Review Date 2/20/2008
 RFP Award 4/28/2008
g) Yuma EA
 Preliminary Draft EA Submitted for Review 1/3/2008 Lagging
h) El Centro EA
 Draft EA Approval 12/26/07 Complete
I ssue NOA 12/26/07 Complete
 Public Information Meeting 1/09/08 On-schedule
 RFP Award 3/17/2008
i) San Diego Gap Filler EA
Page 10 of 12
 Issue NOA 1/4/2008 On-schedule
 Public Information Meeting 1/16/08
 RFP Award 6/20/2008
j) San Diego EIS
 Publication of the NOI 9/24/2007 Complete
 Preliminary DEIS Submitted for Review 12/10/2007 Complete
 DEIS Approval 12/19/2007 Complete
 NOA published in FR 1/04/08 Complete e
 45 day Public comment period 02/19/08 On-schedule
 Public Hearing(s) 01/17/08 On-schedule
 Draft Final EIS review begins 2/25/2008 On-schedule
 CBP Approves Final EIS 3/11/2008 On-schedule
 Distribution of FEIS to EPA and IPs 3/13/2008 On-schedule
 NOA published in FR 3/21/2008 On-schedule
 30 day Public comment period on FEIS 4/21/2008 On-schedule
 Publication in FR of ROD and NOA 4/25/2008 On-schedule
 RFP Issued 12/31/2007
13) PHASE I ESAS (E2M TO PROVIDE STATUS)


14) OTHER ISSUES

New signatory for FONSIs is (b) (6) Acting Executive Director – Asset Management.
15) ACTION ITEMS
 (b) (6) to revise Cooperating Agency section of minutes and to provide (b) (6) with
any updates to the Agency Tracking Table as needed.
 ECSO to provide (b) (6) with Cooperating Agency Letters from Galveston, Albuquerque,
and Los Angeles.
 GSRC to send TCA, YUM, Gap Filler, COE regulatory letters to (b) (6)
 Schedule NEPA/Section 7 backwards from construction dates and assess risks to projects.
 Check on TCA RFP issue date versus start construction date to assess why there is a thee
month lag between the two dates (b) (6) .
16) KEY ISSUES (FOR FEIT ACTION)
 EPT Water District issue needs elevated.
Page 11 of 12
e2M to provide status table link.
Page 12 of 12
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: FENCE CONTACTS
Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:48:16 PM
Importance: High
Sirs
FYI on Public Land Manager’s POC’s and NGO POC’s
Thx
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: hope this helps.
Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 7:57:33 PM
(b) (6)
This is what (b) (6) answered for "what kind of fence is going in Sasabe and Calexico". It basically
comes down to that the sector will decide if the fence meets all of the requirements.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 20 19:52:01 2007
Subject: hope this helps.
Under the premise of PF225, the Corps will create solicitations for which commercial contractors can
review and bid. These solicitations will normally be broken down by geographic area or sometimes by
individual segment. Since these solicitations will be design build, no design is supplied to the contractor
to construct to. During the pre-solicitation phase, a pre-determined list of performance requirements
will be reviewed by both sector OBP personnel as well as Corps engineers. During this review, certain
performance requirements will be identified to address any operational needs of OBP and possible
stakeholder influence as well as overall structure by the Corps. These identified requirements will be
placed into the solicitations which will be presented to existing MATOCs. The contractors will then
provide bid packages with designs that must incorporate all of the identified performance requirements
as identified by OBP and the Corps. OBP and the Corps will review these packages and choose the best
design and overall package that meets all of the identified performance requirements for that particular
geographical area or segment.
Thank you,
(b) (6)
Branch Chief, Infrastructure
SBInet, Program Management Office
(b) (6)
Warning: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. It contains information that may be exempt from
public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5U.S.C. 552). This document is to be controlled,
handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to Sensitive
But Unclassified (SBU) information and is not to be released to the public or other personnel who do not
have a valid "need-to-know" without prior approval from the originator. If you are not the intended
recipient , please contact the originator for disposition instructions.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Status Update for J1/J3 and I-1A
Date: Friday, November 30, 2007 2:22:14 PM
Gents,
For your information. I just received this e-mail message from El Paso Sector it is the latest update on
the wire mesh increase in the Santa Teresa fence project. The message came from USACE, (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 10:42 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Status Update for J1/J3 and I-1A
Gentlemen,
(1) I have received word from Ft. Worth that the approval for the increased wire mesh size is
forthcoming. Official word should be issued later today via SBInet and DHS. I am currently working on
the Scope of Work to revise this portion of the contract, and to obtain the additional funding to proceed
forward.
(2) We have also received the funding for the modification to change the fencing on J1/J3 from a
Pedestrian to Vehicle Barrier and pressing forward.
(3) That being said, the contractor will be submitting the designs this afternoon for both J1/J3 and I-
1A. These drawings will illustrate the changes to reflect the increased wire mesh and the crash
barrier. I anticipate that the drawings/specifications should be at your respective offices on Monday.
Please let me know if you need additional information.

Thanks,
(b
)
(b) (6)
Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers-Albuquerque District
4101 Jefferson Plaza NE
Albuquerque, NM, 87109
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Minimum cat opening size and frequency - RGV
Date: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:16:47 PM
(b)
(6)
Not sure if you are aware of all that has gone on about the potential holes needed in the RGV fence to
allow ocelot and jaguarandi to get through and still keep people out.
OBP (b) (6) proposed 8.5" x 11" opening but FWS has now come back with 9 x 12. Can OBP
live with that??
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:07 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Minimum cat opening size and frequency - RGV
FWS came back with a request of 9” wide x 12” high, and every other panel. Can we live with that?
(b) (6)
Natural Resources
engineering-environmental Management, Inc.
18897 Eichler Rd
Newell, SD 57760
(b) (6)
CONFIDENTIALITY. The information contained in this transmission is advice intended exclusively for the proper use by the intended addressees
and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this information in error, you are requested to inform the sender and/or
addressee immediately and permanently delete and/or destroy the material. Please note that no confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any
mis-transmission.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: More fence
Date: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:49:30 PM
Importance: High
(b
)
(6)
(b)(5),(b)(6)
(b) (6)
Tucson Sector Tactical Infrastructure Office
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:38 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: More fence
Granite Construction Company was awarded a contract to build 5.4 miles of pedestrian fence on
the Naco west line. The contract includes mesh fencing, 13' high, bollard in the washes, and low-water
crossings. The stretch of fence they are responsible for is from the second wood gates to the BLM
boundary. They will probably start work on Monday and the job is to be completed by 9/26/2007! Yes,
the year is correct in that date.
(b) and I met with representatives from Granite and the Army Corps of Engineers this morning.
(6)
Granite will truck their materials down Paloma Trail to Rachael's Ridge and then to the line via an old
two-track along the west side of Gringo Draw. The(b) (6) will provide Granite with a materials lot on
their deeded property, water from the well near the (b) (6) and they will allow for a batch plant
for cement on their deeded property. Granite will improve the two-track and the washed out area on
Paloma Trail to be able to access the project area with trucks and large equipment. I need to note that
those improvements are not part of the contract for the fencing project. Those details were worked out
between Granite Construction and the (b) (6) and (b) (6)
We have no responsibility to provide force protection for this project. Granite is to obtain their own
security guards for the work sites. They will attempt to hire off-duty Sheriff's Deputies on overtime
through that department. We will need to patrol that area as normal and expect a good number of G-
123 calls from workers at the project, as there will be many more eyes on the border.
(b) (6)
Naco Station
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Negative Press for SBI - Rumours about fences
Date: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 10:33:59 AM
(b) and (b) I believe this was an e-mail we discussed last Friday, but I don't remember what
(6)
additional (6)
insight you had.
Can you please remind me what we determined regarding this?
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 10:29 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Negative Press for SBI - Rumours about fences
Negative press being spread about provided as executive awareness.
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Aug 08 09:20:40 2007

Subject: Rumours about fences
All, I wanted to give you all a heads up that this message has been circulated from the Malpai
Borderlands Group in southeastern AZ. http://www.malpaiborderlandsgroup.org/about.asp
<http://www.malpaiborderlandsgroup.org/about.asp> It appears someone was out on a site visit with
BP and mentioned to these folks plans for "three fences along the border: A major new road for access
and Normandy barricades, metal fence and barb wire." The message reads:
Hello All,
I have just been advised that there will be a broken promise in these borderlands. After telling the local
people that there will be no solid wall or fences built on the US Mexico Border, past the 5- 1/2 mile
point east of Douglas, the Border Patrol (BP) is traveling around with 2 engineers from foreign countries
to make plans for the fence they plan to install on the US-Mexico border beginning 5 - 1/2 miles east of
Douglas and continuing to the Arizona State Line. The New Mexico BP is also talking on the New Mexico
side about doing this over there. The Conservation Easements and other major considerations would be
affected.

The actual big monster metal fence is already installed to the 5- 1/2 mile point east of Douglas. That
point was to be the stopping place for the big wall. Now they plan to build a 3 phase barrier all the way
to the AZ - NM state line. The plan would eventually be three fences along the border: A major new
road for access and Normandy barricades, metal fence and barb wire.
This is like a bad joke!
Here are some facts:
* The BP told us that Boeing has a contract for towers and cameras out here also under the
Secure Border Initiative (SBI). The SBI program was to only give this area cameras. Why spend so
much money for both?
* Presently there is no road on the US Border east from Douglas past the 13 mile point (at
Silver Creek) on Geronimo Trail Road all the way through to Antelope Wells, New Mexico. This makes it
hard for general drive-through traffic because there is limited access for vehicles.
* In Arizona where the proposed road and fences will go, the terrain is rough, pristine, and
closed to vehicle traffic except in 3 places where small roads touch the border. The distance to the
Arizona State Line will be over 15 miles of new fence and new road in open country. (Because of the
deep canyons and the mountains, it will be more distance than the mileage measurement shows on a
map)
* This area of Arizona and New Mexico is the northern limit for many neo-tropical species that
would be negatively affected by opening up the country to vehicle traffic.
* The road will cause the area to be a target for more drive-through traffic from Mexico
because of the access to more areas to cross.
* Presently, law enforcement can watch and sensor the 3 entry areas. With a road along the
border, there will be massive open destruction of land and species. The east west road will connect the
existing drive-through roads so the illegal vehicles will be able to enter anywhere and they can run back
to Mexico to evade capture if spotted by the BP. The BP could block the 3 entry places east of the 13
mile marker (Silver Creek) and the 4 or so west of Silver Creek back towards Douglas. Better yet, they
can sensor them and catch the intruders.
* A fence will not deter any traffic except animals. The illegal traffic will continue with greater
intensity because of the new areas that have roads along the border.
* In Douglas, Arizona, where there is a wall, the Mexicans have cut the wall with torches,
welded hinges and a hasp on it on the Mexican side and put their locks on it. Then, at their
convenience, they open it and drive through.
* They have been loading their drug loaded pickups onto car-hauling trailers and they back
the trailer up over the obstructions on the border. The load truck drives off of the trailer, above the
obstructions and on into the US.
* If this is already happening, how are they going to detect and control similar openings and
barriers over 15 miles of new road and fence in open country?
* The expense of having this wall built and maintained will be a total waste of money and
effort. It will be an invitation to over-run the San Bernardino Valley and the Peloncillo Mountains with
traffic.
* With the lucrative price of steel, there will be massive theft of the fence from the Mexican
side as they demolish the fence and haul it off in pieces to sell. (There have already been windmills,
pipelines, and water systems stolen and taken to Mexico out in remote areas.)
* The impact of the builders and the traffic to and from the wall while building will cause
massive permanent damage to the environment.
* As it stands now a few sensors in strategic places are more effective.
* We are already facing camera towers that are going to be installed along the border. ( The
SBI-Boeing Project) These are less intrusive and if placed in the right places, operated and manned
correctly, these will be enough.
* This open country is affected by Conservation Easements that have been placed on 77,000
acres of deeded land and affects more than 200,000 acres of state and federal land. These
Conservation Easements are to protect open space and have been placed in good faith by the ranchers
and the Malpai Borderlands Group. The fences and roads as a result of the fences will cause so much
more damage to the environment and the ecology of the area because of the increase in traffic, dust,
poaching, 4 wheeler traffic and generally more people driving around. It is already a bad situation, and
we don't need more damage.
* The San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge has installed a vehicle barrier along its south
boundary 65 feet from the border. The US Government has paid for and installed this barrier. The BP
intends to install the 3 fences on the border because they feel the NWR barrier is not any good. The BP
also wants escape gates in the NWR barriers in case they are chased by the drug smugglers and the BP
needs to get away. There is no access now for the smugglers so why should they add more expense,
roads and fences to what already works?
* We must have help and support from our national government to stop this expensive and
dangerous plan. We need to get the Border Patrol to do their job now instead of trying to spend more
money and cause more destruction to the environment and ecology of the land. Many times there are
no Border Patrol on the Geronimo Trail Road for hours. There needs to be a constant watch instead of
haphazard surveillance. If they are not effectively working now, how in the world do they think they can
add all of this area and control the illegal entries?
We would appreciate any help , suggestions, and support from any of you that would be able to stop
this terrible project before it goes any farther!
Sincerely,
Warner and Wendy Glenn
Malpai Ranch in the
San Bernardino Valley
Arizona
(b) (6)
US Army Corps of Engineers, Ft Worth Dist.
PO Box 17300
Fort Worth, TX 76102-0300
(Parcel Svc. = 819 Taylor St. Rm 3A14)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: FONSI re EPS Primary Pedestrian Fence
Date: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 11:15:41 PM
Gentlemen,
Please review message string. EPT wants to ensure you are all informed of our Phase II fence
alignment challenges as they begin to unfold.
We must focus on operational requirements that will empower us to gain operational control of the
border. EPT's operational requirement and necessity is to establish Phase II fence alignment on the
North toe of the Levee Road.
Although we are cognizant and are good shepards of the taxpayers money, our emphasis is and will
remain focused on operational requirements.
Thanking you in advance for your continued support and cooperation.
Regards,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jan 02 20:59:09 2008
Subject: Re: FONSI re EPS Primary Pedestrian Fence
(b)
(6)
Keep (b) (6) apprised as well as our ACPA at HQOBP.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jan 02 20:27:47 2008
Subject: FW: FONSI re EPS Primary Pedestrian Fence
Gntlemen,
FYI
Regards,
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 4:20 PM
To: (b) (6)
Environmental Response for K projects.
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: FONSI re EPS Primary Pedestrian Fence
(b)
(6)
Thanks for the update, this is helpful information.
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b)(5),(b)(6)
Thanks
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Thanks
(b)
(6)
Message sent from my Blackberry

From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jan 02 17:50:04 2008

(b) (6)
The fence alignment we are pushing is on the north side of the levee road/south side of the canal. The
Water District opposes this alignment unless we meet certain stipulations. We are in the process of
trying to reach an agreement on an acceptable construction method. There are other options being
presented that we strongly oppose and will not consider such as the south side of the levee road. We
proposed the north side of the inner canal road (north of the canal) as an option but they strongly
oppose that alignment. I am not sure how specific we need to be to continue on with the assessment
but the alignment will be somewhere between the south side of the levee road and the north side of the
inner canal road. Although the distance between these points varies throughout the project areas, it is
minimal.
In regards to the bridges, the locations are listed below. The Water District would not agree to the
West Davis Tree Line crossing but we are proceeding with surveys and geotechnical testing for this
location. We would also like to include it in the environmental assessment. We have assured the
District that we will not actually construct a bridge at this location but we are following through with all
necessary steps. It is our contention that when traffic patterns shift with technology and tactical
infrastructure deployment, there will no longer be opposition to this bridge. When that happens, we will
have reduced the number of steps to actually construct the crossing.
(b)
(7)
(E)
(b)
(7)
(E)
Hope this helps you out,
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
K2-5
I lost visibility on this for awhile, but in a conference call we had (I believe the early part of December)
there was to be a meeting between EPT and the Water District to resolve the issues of the alignment
and the location of three of the eight bridges. We have not heard back on this meeting went. I could
use you help on this issue
H-2A
the preliminary draft went out over the holidays for internal review.
v/r
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

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

Importance: High
(b) (6)
Can you shine any light on where we are at with the EPT, PF-225, Phase II and Contingency miles of
the EA processes?
Regards,
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Thanks for the quick turn around on this. We will get the FEA packaged and the NOA out shortly.
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
All,
Attached is the signed El Paso SEA (Phase-1) FONSI.
Happy New Year!
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6) ]

Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:09 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Importance: High
(b) (6)
The attached FONSI has been signed by the El Paso Sector Chief for the El Paso Station SEA (K-1
Projects) and ready to be processed.
I will be going into the office later this evening at which time I will forward copies of the comment
matrix for this document.
Hope you had on on great X-mas holiday.
(b) (6)
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
CC: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Dec 27 10:41:42 2007

(b) (6) <<FONSI re EPS Primary Pedestrian Fence.pdf>> s,
Here is the signed FONSI (Chief Patrol Agent, Victor M. Manjarrez, Jr.) for the EPT PF-225, Phase 1.
Regards,
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:16 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FONSI re EPS Primary Pedestrian Fence
Importance: High
FYI.
(b) (6)
Staff Assistant
Office of the Chief
El Paso Sector
U.S. Border Patrol
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: PF225 segments for congressional appropriations
Date: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:13:26 PM
Importance: High
Here is San Diego's fence requirements.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jan 22 10:12:42 2008

Subject: PF225 segments for congressional appropriations
Greetings
The attached document contains the operational requirements for each PF225 listed on your
spreadsheet. One project was left out of your spreadsheet “West of Tecate”.
I went ahead and listed our operational requirement for that project as well.
If there are any questions regarding this matter, please call me at (b) (6)
(cell).
Thank you,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: PF225 Fence Segment Operational Requirements for Congressional Appropriations
Date: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:36:30 AM
(b) (6)
I copied/pasted it and sent it. But see below!
(b)
(6)
From:(b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jan 14 11:34:49 2008
Subject: RE: PF225 Fence Segment Operational Requirements for Congressional Appropriations
(b) We looked at the numbers and they seem to be off.

(6)
Project M-1 should be 3.01 miles. The description should be Starr Ranch Curve to Cienegas Creek as
opposed to San Felipe Creek to Cienegas Creek.
Project M-2A should be 0.91 miles.
Project M-2B is correct and reads 1.06 miles.
We’re working on the justification document now. Also, just as an FYI, (b) and I are going to Tucson
tomorrow to see their GSR system since we will be getting one soon. We (6) are also going to see what P-
28 is all about.
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 9:27 AM
To: (b) (6)
It’s not that easy…..
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
I didn’t see a Del Rio Attachment.
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: PF225 Fence Segment Operational Requirements for Congressional Appropriations

Importance: High
Sectors,
Congressional Appropriations is requiring that all of the PF225 fencing segments be operationally
justified. Most if not all of the sectors have already done this in one form or another. I am requesting
that each sector complete a brief summary of the operational requirements for each of your PF225
fence segments. I am attaching the segments broken down by sector to ensure you have the latest.
You do not need to fill in anything on these excel documents. Paragraph form for each segment will be
fine.
I am also attaching an over arching explanation of the SBInet solution. Use this as needed to help with
approved terminology. If there are any questions then please ask. I would ask that these be
completed by COB Friday January 18th. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN (b GIDDENS, GREGOR( ; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Fw: PF225: ROE DT filings
Date: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 5:07:15 PM
Importance: High
All,
(b) (5)
More to follow...
V/r
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jan 08 16:06:06 2008

Subject: PF225: ROE DT filings
(b)(5),(b)(6)
(b) (6)
Realty Specialist, ECSO
819 Taylor Street, 3B10
Fort Worth TX, 76102
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: Planned fence miles
Date: Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:20:44 PM
Importance: High
Are these somethings you need eyes on? I can't open well on bb.

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

Sent: Thu Dec 20 15:25:57 2007
Subject: RE: Planned fence miles
All,
Attached are the corresponding tables for options 1 & 2. We just received an updated laydown for both
VF & PF & so are doing some reconciling before sending out option 3.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
Business Manager - Operations & Reporting
SBI, Tactical Infrastructure Program
(b) (6)
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
Sent: Thu 12/20/2007 8:58 AM
To (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Planned fence miles
Good morning.
As we discussed yesterday, I drafted a decision paper on this.
<<Decision Paper.doc>>
I did this last night pretty late, and have not had time to review it, so it may be rough.
Please make any changes to this with Track Changes on, and provide any feedback by this afternoon at
2:00 pm.
Thanks.
(b) (6)

(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.

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 4/28/2010 - FW - 12 Requests Redacted) 5 - FW - Planned Fence Miles Redacted) 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 4/28/2010 - FW - 12 Requests Redacted) 5 - FW - Planned Fence Miles Redacted) 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)

This is the latest on the notification debate.

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

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 17:18:27 2007

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

Subject: Re: Requests

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

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

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 17:05:22 2007

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:58:19 2007

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

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:46:18 2007

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

The clock is ticking.

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

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 16:39:26 2007

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

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

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

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

Sent: Fri Sep 07 15:31:35 2007

Office of Congressional Affairs

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

From: (b) (6)

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

Secure Border Initiative

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

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

Business Manager, Operations

SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

From: Oxendine, Jacqueline M (CTR)

Business Manager, Operations

SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

From: (b) (6)

Headquarters U.S. Border Patrol

From: (b) (6)

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

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

Business Manager, Operations

SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Segment A-1 CA SDC BRF Pack Truck Trail 3.58

Border Patrol Assessment

Border Patrol Assessment

Border Patrol Assessment

Border Patrol Assessment

Border Patrol Assessment

Segment L-1 TX MAR SBT Neely's Crossing 4.63

Border Patrol Assessment

Border Patrol Assessment

Happy Friday Everyone!

From: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Program Management Analyst

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