CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 4/28/2010 - RE - For Future Consideration Redacted) 2 - RE - Requests Redacted) 2

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: For future consideration

Date: Friday, December 21, 2007 11:28:23 AM
Importance: High
(b) (6)
During a recent teleconference regarding fencing initiatives, the USFWS clearly stated that there were
no endangered animal species within the El Paso Sector. For that reason no “critter holes” are
anticipated in being engineered within our fencing projects. I believe (b) (6) ’ statement regarding
the common plant species is additionally accurate.
The most important caveat to remember is that the overwhelming majority of proposed fence alignment
initiatives in NM falls within the Roosevelt Easement. In TX, the overwhelming majority of fence
alignment locations falls within USIBWC or County Water Improvement Districts.
The EAs that have already been executed serve specific purposes. Endangered plant and animal
species are several issues that are focused upon. Being good stewards of the taxpayer’s money, I
don’t particularly agree with the Biological/Environmental advisor being necessary within EPT. By no
means do I claim to be a subject matter expert in this particular arena, however, looking at it from a
perspective of reasonableness, I believe we have already paid for that service and should not pay
again.
Regards,
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief Patrol Agent
El Paso Sector
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 8:21 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: HOATS, ROY A

Subject: RE: For future consideration
(b)
(6)
As per our biologist that completed the EA in Deming and Santa Teresa the following:
It is a great idea in areas where there are sensitive plant and animal species. However, for the
majority of the areas where we are working in New Mexico, there are very few sensitive plant species
that need to be protected, and we collect the coordinates of those sensitive plants during surveys for
environmental documents. If somebody was paid to do this for road and barrier construction through
creosote flats or grasslands in NM, they would be standing around staring at very common plant and
animal species all day. However, in much of Arizona and California there is a tremendous need for
this. Matter of fact, GSRC has teams of archeologists and biologists on the border in AZ (BMGR,
TON), and have been there for over a year helping construction crews avoid sensitive plants and
animals such as columnar cacti and flat-tailed horned lizard.
We need to be good stewards of the taxpayer’s money and it doesn’t sound like this service would be
needed much throughout El Paso Sector. On that note, I question the need for the Environmental Due
Diligence Assessments (EDDA) for areas such as EPT. We have the Roosevelt Easement throughout
most of the NM side of the Sector and the Programmatic EA’s as well as the site/AOR specific EA’s
have covered/evaluated everything the EDDA was looking for. I don’t know what it cost to have the
NM projects re-evaluated, but I’m sure I answered all the same questions for both.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
EPT TI Coordinator
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 1:10 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: For future consideration
All,
I was speaking with (b) (6) this morning and he mentioned that they are considering bringing in a
Biological/Environmental advisor to be present during the construction phase of the different projects. I
don’t know the actual title of this person, but what I understood from(b) (6) was that this person would
be working as part of the construction team. The purpose behind having such a person on the team is
to have a subject matter expert on site and clearing the path prior to the actual work getting started.
This idea is that the advisor would be under CBP/SBInet payroll and thus would be providing optimal
alternatives for us (b) (6) stated that this person would be scouting ahead identifying the different
species of plants and animals and either having them relocated to a safer area or clearly marking them
prior to the arrival of the construction crew so that the crew could work their way around the plant(s).
This is still in the planning phase, but he did ask me to mention it to the TI coordinators so that you
could provide some input. No timeline was given, but start thinking about this concept so that if it does
materialize, we (B.P.) are able to contribute to the process. Thank you.
(b) (6)
SBInet
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: hope this helps.
Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:42:38 PM
(b)
(6)
I'm here. It was a fight but I finally wore(b) down. I'll talk to you more in the morning.. He says that
he'll need a email saying what programs (6) I'll be working on ie fence lab etc. And I have to find my
replacement at sector. Easy stuff.
(b) (6)
----- Original Message -----

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 20 19:57:32 2007
Subject: Fw: hope this helps.
(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)
(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)
Subject: Re: IMMEDIATE TURNAROUND SUBMISSIONS!!!!
Date: Thursday, June 21, 2007 7:35:48 AM
Could you identify any that deal with fencing right now but all of them are important?! Thanks. (b)
needs the PF225 project # and unidentified landowner match. (6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jun 21 07:33:00 2007
(b)
(6)
If you are only talking public landowners it is only IBWC, there are several private we need to id for
construction access in PRS.
(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jun 21 07:28:47 2007
(b)
I thought it was basically the IBWC and a landowner/leasee. What is the number of parcels that need
(6)
to have landowners identified? Thanks.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jun 21 07:26:45 2007
(b)
Marfa has contacted all idententified owners and has several unidentified who have yet to be contacted.
(6)
(b)
(6)

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

Sent: Wed Jun 20 16:44:59 2007
Subject: IMMEDIATE TURNAROUND SUBMISSIONS!!!!
Sector Outreach Contacts,
A last minute meeting for tomorrow (THURSDAY) at 12:00 PM (EST) has pushed the request for your
weekly updates for outreach progress to ASAP. Chief Aguilar and Chief Self will be presenting this
information to the Deputy Commissioner at the noon meeting. We have your previous submissions but
it has been requested to have the most up-to-date information. This means that (b) (6) will
need the information in his email by COB today. I would also like to have your projected date of
outreach completion. This date should be for having contacted all of “known” stakeholders. If there are
“unidentified” stakeholders then please indicate that on your submissions. The weekly submissions have
been great and as you can see are extremely valuable resources for the Commissioner’s staff to gauge
progress. Again please send these submissions to(b) (6) and me by COB today. I know many
people are traveling to D.C. for DDR but I just learned of this request also. Thanks in advance.
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
Office of Border Patrol
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6.5E
Washington, D.C. 20229
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: More fence
Date: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:51:38 PM
Where does this leave the fence at mileage-wise if there are no deliveries until 9/23? I don’t have a
breakdown in front of me. How short will it be from completion?
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:49 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: FW: More fence
Importance: High
All,
(b)(4),(b)(5),(b)(6)
(b) (6)
Field Operations Supervisor
Tucson Sector Tactical Infrastructure Office
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:38 PM
To:(
Cc:b(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)
ote...
Date: Friday, December 21, 2007 7:15:41 PM
(b) (6) is an A-CHIEF there. I don't have the number but the Del Rio Sector # is the one!

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Dec 21 19:12:14 2007
Subject: On a work-related note...
Off the top of your head, do you know who in Del Rio a constituent of Rep. Rodriguez's can contact re:
fencing. Apparently he/she is not sure whether his property is a place where there are fence plans.
And my response that "if they haven't been contacted by anyone in the BP then probably not" didn't
help.
If you don't know, don't sweat it. They should have followed up before 7pm on the Friday before
Christmas!
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: outreach
Date: Sunday, January 06, 2008 9:00:23 AM
Is it (b) (6) requesting this information? Which sectors? All of the SWB sectors that have
PF225 projects I'm guessing. I just want to be sure what he wants because this sounds exactly like the
one document (I guess that was the one you provided (b) ). Does that document not provide dates? I
will request the sectors provide information for all "town
(6)halls" with dates and locations and a same day
return on the info.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sun Jan 06 08:12:59 2008
Subject: FW: outreach
Good morning (b)

(6)
As you can see in the e-mail chain below, DHS Public Affairs is asking for the dates and locations of
Sector town hall meetings. In addition, it would be good to get the approximate number of attendees,
and if any local representatives attended.
Can you please forward this request to the Sectors, with a due date of COB Monday?
Thank you.
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
Sent: Sun 1/6/2008 8:05 AM
To: (b) (6) f
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: outreach
Good morning (b)

(6)
The details are kept by Border Patrol sectors.
I will ask them to provide the details from their after action reports.
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Fri 1/4/2008 5:42 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) can you assist?
(6)
(b) (6)
Director
Media Relations Division
Office of Public Affairs
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 5:42 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Thanks. This has some great info. However, would it be possible to get more details about each Town
Hall meeting? This document has great info about Congressional outreach and etc but I am looking for
a little more specific info on the townhall meetings. Is it possible to get a listing of the dates and
location of each meeting?
Any info I use I will run it by everyone before I send.
Thanks.
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Subject: FW: outreach
(b)
(6)
See the attached outreach conducted regarding tactical infrastructure. Please let me if this helps and
what you intend to provide specifically to the DMN from this document.
Regards,
(b) (6)
Director
Media Relations Division
Office of Public Affairs
(b) (6)
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: outreach
Here you go…
(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
(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> .
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Fence Segment Operational Requirements for Congressional Appropriations
Date: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:40:12 AM
For M-1 and M-2A, is this in the change management process? I hadn't seen official word that these
segments had changed (unless of course I have missed something). Thanks for the help!
-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:36 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: PF225 Fence Segment Operational Requirements for Congressional Appropriations
(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
(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)

To: (b) (6)
It’s not that easy…..

(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
Headquarters U.S. Border Patrol
(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)
FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
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)
Assistant Chief
Headquarters U.S. Border Patrol
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Phase I Project Issues for J1/J3 & I1A
Date: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 8:15:30 AM
ALCON;
I have the contractor working up a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) for the additional section that is
required along J1 at the POE. Should have this information shortly to advise Loren Flossman
accordingly.
Thanks,
(b
)
(b) (6)
Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers-Albuquerque District
4101 Jefferson Plaza NE
Albuquerque, NM, 87109
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 10:33 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF225 Phase I Project Issues for J1/J3 & I1A
Thanks (b) (6) Please advise if you do not get the required answers for your questions. OBP is
obviously behind the sector's position on operational placement of the fencing around the POE. The
IBWC issue will more than likely need to be discussed with IBWC, SBI and OBP if SBI TI is not inclined
to place the gates in the fence. There is an open communication with IBWC at the DC level so
hopefully we can get a feel for their wishes at that level also. Thanks again.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Dec 28 17:04:32 2007

Subject: PF225 Phase I Project Issues for J1/J3 & I1A
(b)
(6)
On December 28, the SBInet Office conducted a teleconference with (b) (6)
Several issues came up that I wanted to address with you so that we can get
a resolution in a rapid manner. I’m not sure if you are aware, but we are holding the Pre-Construction
Meeting for the projects in Santa Teresa on January 9th. Once this is completed, the fence will be
going in the ground almost immediately. At that point all issues will be considered either out in the
open for resolution or resolved.
About a week ago we received the project plans from Tetra Tech for our review. I was told that a copy
was also sent to (b) (6) and yourself. During the review of the plans (b) (6)
brought up some valid issues. After speaking with (b) (6) about it this morning, it was
decided collectively that decisions on some of these issues will have to be made at your level. I have
tried to outline the issues below and cc’d all involved for clarification.
Issue #1 – I have attached two JPEG photos to outline the issue here. The J-1 project area is divided
by the Santa Teresa Port of Entry. The J-1 project extends out 1.15 miles east and west from the POE
on both sides for a total of 2.3 miles. The issue lies in the actual grounds of the POE itself (refer to the
JEPGs for clarification). In between the J-1 projects on either side of the POE, there is a stretch of
about 800 feet where there is a chain link fence. The SBInet Office and the Santa Teresa Border Patrol
Station were all under the impression that the fence would run continuous through this area with the
only breaks being the gates that would cover the roads leading to and from the POE. The project plans
call for the new vehicle/pedestrian fence to stop on the outer edges of the POE with the chain link
fence remaining in the middle for this estimated space of about 800 feet. (b) (6) has already
coordinated with OFO and management at the POE and they want the fence to cover this area. If it
does not, then this presents a weak link in the fence for the STN AOR. The POE shuts down each night
at 10 p.m. Once it shuts down, it is probable that the chain link fence would be utilized as an area of
easy penetration, and vandalism to the chain link fence and illegal entries in this area will rise
dramatically. Coupled with the fact that this area is easily accessible by vehicle because of the paved
roads leading to and from the POE, alien smuggling organizations will make this a main business route.
The El Paso Sector wants the fence to cover this entire area. (b) (6) with USACE says it will
have to be approved at OBP, but that it would only require a slight modification to the contract, and
extend the completion date by about two weeks (from mid April to beginning of May).
Issue #2 – The Santa Teresa Border Patrol Station is reviewing the plans for the projects to ensure they
get all of the gates along the border that they need for operations. One issue that has not been
resolved is the fence access to the monuments for the International Boundary and Water Commission
(IBWC). These gates are not accounted for on the schematics depicting the project areas, and it is
assumed that they are not in the plans to be built at or near each monument. It has been expressed to
us numerous times that at the national level IBWC has expressed no need for gates at each monument
because in New Mexico the IBWC office in Mexico is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the
monuments. The local IBWC office in El Paso has expressed a desire for the gates for their own
access. The El Paso Sector would prefer the whole area be fenced, but Sector also wants to ensure
that IBWC, as a major stake holder, has a voice in this issue and has what it needs to do their job. On
the surface it seems like this might be a Sector issue to decide whether or not to grant the local IBWC
request of having gates at each monument, but some time ago we were told that there was a National
and Regional MOU between CBP and IBWC in regards to this issue, and whatever was decided and
expressed in this MOU would provide us with the guidance we need to make a decision that everyone
can live with.
* Note - I was under the assumption that the gates for IBWC were to be included in the plans
because in the Site Visit Report that Tetra Tech submitted with the project plans the following were
revealed:
* Section 4.1 – Monumentation Control – Based on the limits of work, it was agreed that the
monumentation control should begin at monument #5 (west of J1 project limits) and work east of
monument #2C (east of J3 project limits).
* Section 4.3 – Monument Gate Locations – it states (b) (6) (IBWC) stated that the gates to
serve the monuments should not be located at the monument location due to activity that could
damage the monuments. They should be off set a distance to be determined.
With the project set to begin in less than two weeks, we need guidance on these issues immediately.
To ensure that there are no other issues representatives from USACE and Tetra Tech will be coming out
to the Santa Teresa Border Patrol Station on January 4th for a site visit. During this visit we will tour all
of the project areas to ensure that everyone involved understands exactly what is being built, and
where it is being built. This should also ensure that our understanding accurately reflects Tetra Tech’s
intentions.
Thanks for the assistance.
(b) (6)
El Paso Sector SBInet Office
(b) (6)
From: FLOSSMAN, LOREN (
To: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGO(b ; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Re: PF225: ROE DT filings
Date: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 5:10:45 PM
Thanks

From: (b) (6)
To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jan 08 17:07:14 2008

Subject: Fw: PF225: ROE DT filings
All,
Per below email from COE, the US Atty met with their team today to review DT filing for Eagle Pass.
$100 deposit check has been cut, and they're planning to file the case Monday.
So we're on the precipice of the first PF225 ROE DT court case.
More to follow...
V/r
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (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)
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN (b (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Photos with fence
Date: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:13:33 PM
(b) (6)
Did you mention this morning that the Corps supplied some drawings of the fence?
(b)
(6)
From:(b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Nov 08 14:11:29 2007
Subject: FW: Photos with fence
(b)
(6)
RGV is wondering if we have any photos that can be super-imposed onto an existing photograph to
allow the landowner/public to get a somewhat realistic view of what the project will look like. They feel
that it would be great if they had something like this to show the people for the meeting taking place in
Dec. I know we briefly talked about it this morning, but I just wanted you to see what I was talking
about.
(b
)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 1:55 PM
To: (b) (6)
Importance: High
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:04 AM
To: (b) (6)
Importance: High
FYI
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:55 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Photos with fence
(b) (6)
Here are the photos that have the fence inserted into them. I only inserted the fence into these images,
using them as representative of the conditions. I didn’t insert the fence into all of the photos that you
sent. There should be 4 images attached to this email; if you don’t get all 4 images, please let me
know.
Regards,
(b) (6)
e2M, Inc.
2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200
Fairfax, VA 22031
(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) ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Planned fence miles
Date: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:58:22 AM
Good morning.
As we discussed yesterday, I drafted a decision paper on this.
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 or contact us at 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 o (b) (6) and there will be a hard stop at 3:45 p.m.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet
Date: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:51:27 AM
(b) (6)
(b) (5)
Thanks-
(b)
(6)
Attorney
Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, Indianapolis
Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
This communication might contain communications between attorney and client, communications that
are part of the agency deliberative process, or attorney-work product, all of which are privileged and
not subject to disclosure outside the agency or to the public. Please consult with the Office of Assistant
Chief Counsel-Indianapolis, U.S. Customs and Border Protection before disclosing any information
contained in this email.
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 4:22 PM
To: (b) (6)
To all addressees:
Please see attached REVISED ROE Form, and provide your comments regarding any necessary,
additional changes or clarifications in the wording.
Your expeditious review and response would be greatly appreciated!
THANKS!
(b) (6)
Management & Program Analyst
Customs & Border Protection (CBP)
Office of the Commissioner
Secure Border Initiative (SBI)
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 7.3-D
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet
Add changes and please send for review.
Please do not hesitate to call with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Can you send it? And we can quickly review. Then it should be good for vetting if necessary.
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
I just wanted to add a few words and (b) (6) made a suggestion.

Sincerely,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Did you create one for vetting with your specifications changed?
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Good. We are set to finish this up.
Sincerely,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
I didn't wait for an updated version for RGV because it is a fencing project right now. I really wanted to
get the discussion of the Corps fulfilling their role of "real estate specialists" started. After hearing some
of the concerns with an ROE that does not require a GOV signature....I though it best to continue
forward with the vetted version. We have a big meeting at 1:00 until whenever about fencing in FY
'07. When we get out we will call you and check your availability. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:56 AM
To: (b) (6)
(b) (5)
Sincerely,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:04 AM
To (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (5)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 7:01 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet
Please attend with me. I think we need a pre meeting to finalize what we want to do.
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jul 20 19:30:41 2007

Subject: Realty/ ROE process for SBInet
When: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:30 AM-9:30 AM (GMT-07:00) Arizona.

Where: virtual, info below
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the realty process of SBInet, specifically obtaining ROE. The
deliverable is to reach an understanding of the of the process at the highest level: key elements,
chronological steps, RAA of principle parties, and scope of work. Please invite others as appropriate.
(b) (6)
The Boeing Company
IDS SBInet
Environment, Health and Safety
(b) (6)
TOPIC: Framework of Realty/ROE process

DATE: Tuesday, July 24, 2007
TIME: 8:30 am, Pacific Daylight Time (GMT -07:00, San Francisco ) .
Teleconference:
(b) (2)
(b) (2)
Meeting number: 892023230
Meeting password: noxborder
Join meeting as Attendee: (b) (2)
Start meeting as Host: (b) (2)
3. Host Key for Alternate Hosting
(b) (2)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Request for maps
Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 3:15:59 PM
(b) (6)
Please push forward with this request.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 2:58 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Request for maps
Importance: High
(b) for the upcoming IBWC meeting being held next week, we would like to have maps identifying on
(6)
a state by state basis the lay down of PF225. The OBP GIS team has the current shape files for the
225 project coordinates. I am requesting that the GIS shop provide electronic PDF copies of the maps
and twenty (20) sets of hard copies. This should be sufficient for the meeting on both the 26 th and
28 th next week.
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) FLOSSMAN, LOREN ( ; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGOR( ADAMS, ROWDY ( (b) (6)

Subject: RE: Requests
Date: Friday, September 07, 2007 3:31:40 PM
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)
(b) (6)

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 4/28/2010 - RE - For Future Consideration Redacted) 2 - RE - Requests Redacted) 2

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 4/28/2010 - RE - For Future Consideration Redacted) 2 - RE - Requests Redacted) 2

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: For future consideration

From: (b) (6)

Cc: HOATS, ROY A

From: (b) (6)

Subject: For future consideration

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

Branch Chief, Infrastructure

SBInet, Program Management Office

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

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

Cc: (b) (6)

Sector Outreach Contacts,

Office of Border Patrol

1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6.5E

Washington, D.C. 20229

From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Subject: More fence

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

Good morning (b)

Good morning (b)

From: (b) (6)

Media Relations Division

Office of Public Affairs

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Any info I use I will run it by everyone before I send.

From: (b) (6)

Media Relations Division

Office of Public Affairs

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Here you go…

Secure Border Initiative

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) We looked at the numbers and they seem to be off.

Project M-2A should be 0.91 miles.

Project M-2B is correct and reads 1.06 miles.

From: (b) (6)

It’s not that easy…..

Headquarters U.S. Border Patrol

From: (b) (6)

I didn’t see a Del Rio Attachment.

From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Headquarters U.S. Border Patrol

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Fri Dec 28 17:04:32 2007

Thanks for the assistance.

Field Operations Supervisor

El Paso Sector SBInet Office

Cc: (b) (6)

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

Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Tue Jan 08 17:07:14 2008

So we're on the precipice of the first PF225 ROE DT court case.

Sent: Tue Jan 08 16:06:06 2008

From: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

2751 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200

As we discussed yesterday, I drafted a decision paper on this.