From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN (b (b) (6)

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

Subject: FW: Requests
Date: Friday, September 07, 2007 8:42:24 AM

(b) ,
(6)
My comments are included in the attached.

(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:45 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
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: RGV Public Meetings December 2007
Date: Monday, December 10, 2007 7:52:11 AM

(b) (6) -

Who will be the POC in RGV for the public meetings this week? I will be reaching out to IBWC this AM
to provide them the heads up and a POC would be helpful.

Your earliest reply is greatly appreciated! Thanks...

(b) (6)
INATR-SBI Liaison
U.S. Customs Border Protection
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 8:30 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6) Rowdy D Adams; (b) (6)
Subject: RE: RGV Public Meetings December 2007

Good morning (b) (6)

I apologize for the late notice, but wanted to let you know three things
that you may wish to pass on to the IBWC.

First, we have added a third public meeting in RGV next week. The
meeting will be on Thursday, December 13, 2007, at the VFW Post in Rio
Grande City.

Second, the Border Patrol will have less of a presence at the meetings
than originally anticipated, and I don't know the names of the
attendees. As such, I'm not sure who the best point of contact will be
for IBWC at the meetings.

I will be at the meetings and my bb number is (b) (6) They are

welcome to contact me if necessary, but I defer(b) (6)
direction.

Third, we will have an "orientation" session for the meetings starting

Tuesday morning at 10:00 am in McAllen. We'll be discussing the meeting,
making final arrangements, and do a few quick walk-throughs.

Please let (b) or me know if you have any questions. Thanks.

(6)
(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
For more information about the Secure Border Initiative, visit
www.cbp.gov/sbi or contact us at SBI_info@dhs.gov.

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:25 AM
To (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) Rowdy D Adams; (b) (6)
Seth (b) (6)
Subject: RE: RGV Public Meetings December 2007

(b) (6)

Thank you very much for your prompt response. Have a great Holiday!

(b) (6)
INATR-SBI Liaison
U.S. Customs Border Protection
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:01 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) Rowdy D Adams; (b) (6)

Subject: Re: RGV Public Meetings December 2007

Morning (b) (6)

(b) (6) will attend on the 11th and (b) (6) will attend
on the 12th.

Thanks

(b)
(6)

Principal Engineer for Operations

U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission
4171 N. Mesa St.
El Paso, TX 79902

(b) (6)

(b) (6) 11/20/2007 7:31 AM >>>

Good Morning Gentlemen,

This email is to provide you with advanced notice of the upcoming Public
Open House meetings being held in Mc Allen and Brownsville, Texas. The
RGV-EIS was published on November 16, 2007 and is now available for
public comments as described in the attached document. The first Open
House meetings will take place on December 11, 2007 in Mc Allen
Convention Center, Mc Allen, TX. The second Open House will be held
December 12, 2007 at the Brownsville Events Center, Brownsville, TX.
Both Open Houses are scheduled from 4:30-8:00 PM (CST).

You and your staff are invited to participate in the Open Houses. After
you have reached the attached document, if you would please let me know
who from your staff will be attending, I would like to notify the
CBP-SBI staff who to expect in order be available for meet and greet as
well as provide any assistance to them if needed.

Regards,

(b) (6)

INATR-SBI Liaison

U.S. Customs Border Protection

(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: SBI townhall meetings
Date: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 12:15:24 PM
Importance: High

San Diego Sector's response. This should be the last one.

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

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

Sent: Tue Jan 08 12:13:55 2008

Subject: SBI townhall meetings

Greetings

San Diego Sector has had two such “town hall meetings”.

1. SBI outreach community Fair: June 27, 2007

Catered to landowners in projected PF-225 sites

Number of actual landowners – 4

Community participants; 30 – 40

Overall event deemed positive

2. SBI outreach meet Congressional staffers June 21, 2007

Met at San Diego Sector along with SBI outreach team from El Centro Sector

Representatives from the following offices were in attendance:

Congressman Darryl Issa

Congressman Douglas Hunter

Congressman Robert Filner

Senator Barbara Boxer

 Senator Diane Feinstein

Senator Dennis Hollingsworth

Senator Christine Kehoe

San Diego county supervisor Diane Jacobs

3. Future meetings

January 16, 2007 (Alpine community center)

Gap Filler EA public meeting

E2m will set up meeting

January 17, 2007 (San Diego Convention center)

Pf-225 A-1 EIS public meeting

E2m will set up meeting

POC’s for all SBInet and SBI TI functions for San Diego Sector

(b) (6)

There have been several smaller outreach efforts either one on one contacts in the field or here in the
office.

I have addressed two MATOC contractor conferences regarding the SBI efforts and Border Patrol
position on proposed fencing. If there are any questions, please call me (b) (6)

Thank You,
(b) (6)

Field Operations Supervisor

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY (
Subject: FW: Texas brief to C-1
Date: Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:42:31 PM

Jeff,
2:00 in the C-1 Conference room.
Maps (1 set) and brief (2 sets) are on your desk.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
Headquarters U.S. Border Patrol
(b) (6)

From: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:35 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Texas brief to C-1

Commissioner conference room

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:32 PM
To: Flossman, Loren W
Subject: Re: Texas brief to C-1

Where is the C-1 brief at 2:00?

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

From: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W(b) (6)
To (b) (6) Self,
Jeffrey D (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Nov 15 12:21:40 2007
Subject: Texas brief to C-1

This is a revision to the brief from this morning - we need OBP to weigh in on the desire to have a fence built in
Texas if the segments aren’t complete – let me know if you have an comments - thanks loren
 Tactical Infrastructure:
Decision for Texas
Commissioner Basham
November 15, 2007

SBI net
SBInet
For Official Use Only – Pre-decisional
 Tactical Infrastructure
SBI TI and SBInet Management Collaboration

Tactical Infrastructure Is an Integral Part of the SBI Solution Set

– Border Calculus : Time to reach the vanishing point >> Time to apprehend
– TI Needs to be Integral with Detection, C4I, and Response Capability
– Wherever Possible SBI Will Consider and Deploy Tactical Infrastructure in
Concert with Detection and C4I Capabilities
Missions
– SBI Team will construct 225 miles of pedestrian fence and 300 miles of
vehicle fence to secure the Nation’s southern border NLT December 31,
2008 in support of OBP

For Official Use Only – Pre-decisional 2

 Tactical Infrastructure

Decision for Texas Tactical Infrastructure:

1. Is Texas fence a priority for BP?
2. If Texas is a fence priority are we willing to condemn property and Execute the
Wavier ?

In order to complete the 70+ miles in Texas SBI needs the following support
decisions:
1. decision supporting condemnation by 26 Nov 07
2. decision on use of the for DOI lands
3. decision on potential use of the environmental for the RGV EIS

For Official Use Only – Pre-decisional 3

 Tactical Infrastructure

Remaining Fence Required to be contracted to complete PF 225 - 190 miles

Remaining Fence miles to be contract in Texas 127 miles or 65% of total

remaining mileage (127/190)

PF225 – Phase 2 Right of Entry for Survey & Exploration Status for Texas
TEXAS TEXAS TEXAS TEXAS
SIGNED UNDETERMINED DENIED TOTAL

PARCELS 332 234 94 660 PARCELS

% PARCELS 50.3% 35.5% 14.2%

OWNERS 258 110 40 408 OWNERS

% OWNERS 63.2% 27.0% 9.8%

MILES 86 26 15 127 MILES

% MILES 67.7% 20.5% 11.8%

RISK: Having a signed ROE does not guarantee we will be able to acquire the land to build the fence; particularly
in Rio Grande Valley Sector (RGV).
For Official Use Only – Pre-decisional 4
 Tactical Infrastructure

Risks to PF 225 if Texas fence is built without the Wavier and Condemnation tool:

Land owners apposed to the fence will not sell their property knowing they will halt the fence
project

City Land owners opposed to the fence have decided not to allow CBP access to city property
where fence is required

Assumption all ROEs for S&E (86 miles) agree to sell their property to CBP

Option 1. Accept fence segments with multiple gaps which OPB feels is
operationally unbeneficial

To complete PF 225 move to lesser priority contingency miles

outside of Texas

Option 2. Execute condemnation and use the Waiver authority

RISK: - we could loose the majority of 86 miles

- to the PF 225 project when the remaining states discover DHS isn’t
condemning property in Texas

For Official Use Only – Pre-decisional 5

 Tactical Infrastructure

Texas DOI slide:

For Official Use Only – Pre-decisional 6

 Tactical Infrastructure

Texas Environmental Compliance:

Environmental Assessments (3 EAs) underway in Marfa, Del Rio, and El Paso Sectors
Marfa and Del Rio Draft EAs to be posted on 19 Dec07
El Paso EA to be posted in early Jan 08
30 day Public Comment Period, 19 Dec 07 – 18 Jan 08 for Marfa and Del Rio
30 day Public Comment Period for El Paso starts when draft EA posted
All Findings of No Significant Impact to be signed by 25 Feb 08

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared for Rio Grande Valley Sector
Draft EIS to be posted on 16 Nov 07
45 day Public Comment Period, 16 Nov 07 – 31 Dec 07
Final EIS to be posted on 1 Feb 08
Record of Decision (ROD) to be signed on 4 March 08

High probability of litigation actions by environmental and anti-fence groups

challenging the EIS process

For Official Use Only – Pre-decisional 7

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Updated PF225 Fence Summary Spreadsheet
Date: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:08:52 AM

FYI, An updated PF-225 Final Summary Spread Sheet from USACE is attached.

(b) (6)
HQ OBP Liaison, OPA Div.
Office of Border Patrol
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:17 AM
To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: FW: Updated PF225 Fence Summary Spreadsheet

Latest version of the Fence Summary Spreadsheet

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 6:29 PM
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

Subject: Updated PF225 Fence Summary Spreadsheet

All

Attached is the latest version of the PF225 fence summary spreadsheet. Please note that B-1, which
was a buffer segment, has been removed from PF225 and moved to VF200/300 at the Sector's
request. This change was approved by (b) (6)

Thanks

(b)
(6)

Secure Border Initiative - Tactical Infrastructure

Program Management Office
(b) (6)
 P225 TI Document Requirements
Map Project Fence Segment ID SBInet Phase Sector Station Cong. Location Fence Type Fence Priority Horizontal Real Estate Planning RE Issues RE Execution Immediate Real EV Compliance EV Issues
ID Project # District Notes Length (mi) Estate Task(s)

CA A-1 SDC-BRF-1 2001-1 PII SD BRF 51st Pack Truck PV-1 1 3.58 BLM land; project will enter into MAJOR ISSUES EXIST FOR
Trail Otay Mountain Wilderness area. ENDANGERED SPECIES. T&E species
For all of SDC - those not contacted issues considered serious. Cultural and
are for easement purposes as Waters of the US concerns expected to
Roosevelt Easement exists for all require study for appropriate resolution.
projects. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly habitat,
Arroyo Toad habitat, lengthy
coordination with USFWS

CA A-2 SDC-BRF-2 2001-2 PII SD BRF 51st W of Tecate PV-1 2 0.77 Roosevelt Reservation. Access Cultural, T&E species issues,believed
road will be on private land. manageable in EGA. EA in survey
stage.
CA A-2 SDC-ECJ-1 2002-1 PII SD ECJ 51st Ceti's Hill PV-1 2 0.57 Roosevelt Reservation. Acces road Cultural, T&E species issues,believed
will be on private land. manageable in EGA. EA in survey
stage, 401/404 issues.
CA A-2 SDC-ECJ-2 2002-2 PII SD ECJ 51st East PV-1 2 0.58 Roosevelt Resevation. Access road Cultural, T&E species issues,believed
Brickyard to will be on private land. manageable in EGA. EA in survey
Gunsight stage.
Drainage
CA A-2 SDC-ECJ-3 2002-3 PII SD ECJ 51st W. PV-1 2 0.89 Roosevelt Reservation Cultural, Waters of the US and T&E
Horseshoe species issues, believed manageable in
Canyon EGA. EA in survey stage. Waters of the
US permit needed.
CA A-2 SDC-ECJ-4 2002-4 PII SD ECJ 51st East Bell PV-1 2 0.12 Roosevelt Reservation Cultural, T&E species issues,believed
Valley manageable in EGA. EA in survey
CA A-2 SDC-ECJ-5 2002-5 PII SD ECJ 51st Ag Loop PV-1 2 1.02 Roosevelt Reservation. BLM Land Cultural, T&E species issues,believed
manageable in EGA. EA in survey
CA A-2 SDC-CAO-1 2003-1 PII SD CAO 51st Soutwest Rim PV-1 2 0.17 Roosevelt Reservation. BLM Land
of Smith
Canyon
CA A-2 SDC-CAO-2 2003-2 PII SD CAO 51st Rattlesnake PV-1 2 1.06 Roosevelt Reservation PROBABILITY FOR MAJOR
Ridge to Larry ENDANGERED SPECIES ISSUES.
Pierce Road Ancient artificts issues MODERATE.
CA A-2 SDC-CAO-3 2003-3 PII SD CAO 51st West edge of PV-1 2 0.09 Roosevelt Reservation Waters of the US permit needed
Boundary
Peak
CA A-2 SDC-BLV-1 2004-1 PII SD BLV 51st Willows PV-1 2 1.63 Roosevelt Reservation.Trying to EA in survey stage. Retofit will not
Access #1 purchase easements. Need money require a new EA but additional fence
to buy. California Desert will. Toad and butterfly concern.
Conservation Area
CA A-2 SDC-BLV-2 2004-2 PII SD BLV 51st Willows PV-1 2 2.01 Trying to purchase easements. EA in survey stage. Retofit will not
Access #2 Need money to buy. California require a new EA but additional fence
Desert Conservation Area will. Toad and Butterfly problems
CA A-2 SDC-BLV-3 2004-3 PII SD BLV 51st Airport Mesa PV-1 2 0.05 Roosevelt Reservation Quino Checkerspot Butterfly habitat,
Arroyo Toad habitat, lengthy
coordination with USFWS
CA A-2 SDC-BLV-4 2004-4 PII SD BLV 51st O'Neil Valley PV-1 2 1.47 Roosevelt Reservation.Trying to Retofit will not require a new EA but
purchase easements. additional fence will. Area includes
Waters of US permit needeed.
San Diego Sector 14.01
CA B-2 ELC-ELS-3 2005-3 PII ELC ELS 51st Mon 224 to PV-1 B 2.36 Roosevelt Reservation. BLM
ELS West
Checks
CA B-4 ELC-CAX-1 2006-1 PII ELC CAX 51st CAX East PV-1 1 8.59 Partial Roosevelt Reservation. Waters of the US permit needed.
Checks Bureau of Rec and BLM. Ancient artifacts issues MODERATE.

CA B-5A ELC-CAX-3 2006-5 PII ELC CAX 51st PV-1 B 19.16 Roosevelt Reservation. BLM Land

CA B-5B ELC-CAX-2 2006-2 PII ELC CAX 51st Special Design 3 2.85 Roosevelt Reservation. BLM Land Waters of the US permit needed.
Ancient artifacts and endangered
species issues MODERATE.
El Centro Sector 32.96
 P225 TI Document Requirements
Map Project Fence Segment ID SBInet Phase Sector Station Cong. Location Fence Type Fence Priority Horizontal Real Estate Planning RE Issues RE Execution Immediate Real EV Compliance EV Issues
ID Project # District Notes Length (mi) Estate Task(s)

CA C-1 YUM-CAX/YUS-1 2007-1 PII YUM CAX/YUS 51st Andrade PV-1 & Special 4.00 miles 2 10.28 Not Roosevelt Reservation. Some Cultural and T&E species concerns
POE: Imperial Design of PV-1 and ownership is Tribal (Quechan tribe). expected to require study for appropriate
sand dunes 6.28 miles Need to involve Sector personnel in resolution. US being sued by Mexico
to CA-AZ line of special real estate negotiations. Special and does not want any improvements to
design use permits and/or Rights of Entry the subterranean ground water.
may be needed for additional land Milkweed plant issue.
or access.

AZ C-2B YUM-YUS-2 2007-2 PII YUM YUS 7th From end of PV-2 1 3.70 Not Roosevelt Resrvation. BLM & Cultural and T&E species concerns
PF70 project Bureau of Rec. Need to involve expected to require study for appropriate
to County 18 Sector personnel in real estate resolution. May have delays due to
negotiations. Tribal coordination with Cocopah Indian
Tribe. Existing EA for the 1.5 miles for
P70.

Yuma Sector 13.98

AZ D-2 TCA-AJO-1 2008-1 PI TCA AJO 7th AJO 2mi east Phase 1 Design- 2 3.10 Roosevelt Reservation. Pronghorn and Lesser Long-nosed bat
of POE Build Coordination with NPS. are issues for USFWS. Taking the
fence over the Sonoyta Hill is an issue
for NPS
AZ D-2 TCA-AJO-2 2008-2 PI TCA AJO 7th AJO 2mi west Phase 1 Design- 1 2.10 Roosevelt Reservation.National
of POE Build Monument and Wildlife Refuge
Area. Coordination with NPS.
Require special use permit in Organ
Pipe.
AZ D-5A TCA-NGL-1 2010-1 PI TCA NGL 7th 1mi W to 3mi Phase 1 Design- 3 2.00 Coronado National Forest/ National EA for road is done. Need a
W of Build Forest Service supplemental doc
Mariposa
POE
AZ D-5B TCA-NGL-2 2010-2 PII TCA NGL 7th NGL 1mi E to PV-1 2 5.16 Not Roosevelt Reservation. Land Cultural resources issues, Waters of the
6mi E of POE transaction may be difficult because US permit needed. Ancient artifiacts
of land owner. issues MODERATE. T&E species
issues. Needs a supplement to the 2003
EA
 P225 TI Document Requirements
Map Project Fence Segment ID SBInet Phase Sector Station Cong. Location Fence Type Fence Priority Horizontal Real Estate Planning RE Issues RE Execution Immediate Real EV Compliance EV Issues
ID Project # District Notes Length (mi) Estate Task(s)

AZ D-6 TCA-NGL-3 2010-3 PII TCA NGL 7th E Deconcini PO PV-1 1 2.23 Partial Roosevelt Reservation. EA in the vicinity
Litigation on D-5 with this landowner

AZ E-2A TCA-NCO-1A 2011-1 PII TCA NCO 8th NCO 17.75mi PV-1 4 6.44 Partial Roosevelt Reservation. EA, with FONSI, includes fence. Arch
W to San Coronado National Memorial/NPS. site in proj area will allow 60ft only.
Pedro River Land transaction may be difficult
because of land owner.

AZ E-2B TCA-NCO-1B 2011-3 PI TCA NCO 8th Monument 97 Phase 1 Design- 4 6.94 Partial Roosevelt Reservation. San EA, with FONSI, includes fence. Arch
to 4.75mi W Build Pedro Rirarian National site in proj area will allow 60ft only.
of POE Conservation Area/BLM
AZ E-3 TCA-NCO-2 2011-2 PI TCA NCO 8th NCO 3.4mi E Phase 1 Design- 5 5.07 Roosevelt Reservation. Owner is Potential Jaguar corridor, Prepare
to 12.4mi E of Build selling the property and wants TI on Limestone Ridge SEA that covers fence.
POE the border only.
AZ F-1 TCA-NCO-3 2012-1 PII TCA NCO 8th From existing PV-1 5 0.97 Roosevelt Reservation EA, with FONSI, includes fence. Arch
fence to site in proj area will allow 60ft only.
Kings Ranch
Tucson Sector 34.01
NM H-2A EPT-DNM-3 2013-3 PII EPT DNM 2nd 17 miles PV-2 B 14.11 Roosevelt Reservation. BLM Existing EA to be supplemented
West of COL
POE
beginning 3
miles West of
COL POE
NM I-1A EPT-DNM-2 2013-2 PI EPT DNM 2nd DNM 1.5mi E Phase 1 Design- 1 2.56 Roosevelt Reservation. BLM. Existing EA to be supplemented
to 3mi E of Build State/Fed land; 0.5mi private (easy
POE Land transaction)
NM I-1B EPT-DNM/STN-1 2013-4 PII EPT DNM/STN 2nd 3mi E of POE PV-2 B 9.89 Roosevelt Reservation Existing EA to be supplemented
to Luna
County Line
NM J-1 EPT-STN-1 2014-1 PI EPT STN 2nd STN 1mi W of Phase 1 Design- 2 1.15 Roosevelt Reservation. Private EA prepared by JTF-N in 2003. SEA
POE Build landowner who would l ke input on prepared and complete
fence type. 1 owner unsure
NM J-1 EPT-STN-2 2014-2 PI EPT STN 2nd STN 1mi E of Phase 1 Design- 3 1.15 Roosevelt Reservation. Private EA prepared by JTF-N in 2003. SEA
POE Build landowner who would l ke input on prepared and complete
fence type.
NM J2 EPT-STN-4 2014-4 PII EPT STN 2nd West side of PV-2 4 3.49 Roosevelt Reservation EA prepared by JTF-N in 2003. SEA
blackie’s gate prepared and complete
to west side
of the
cattlepens
NM J-3 EPT-STN-3 2014-3 PI EPT STN 2nd STN Blackie's Phase 1 Design- 4 1.08 Roosevelt Reservation. Landfill is a EA prepared by JTF-N in 2003. SEA
Gate to W Build coopertive owner. prepared and complete
end Sunland

TX K-1 EPT-EPS-1 2015-1 PI EPT EPS 16th EPS PV-2 5 1.07 IBWC Land Existing EA to be supplemented
Pumphouse
to end of
fence at
Roadside
Park
TX K-1 EPT-EPS-2 2015-2 PI EPT EPS 16th EPS End of P-3A-15 6 0.65 IBWC Land Existing EA to be supplemented
fence at
Roadside
Park to
Headgates
TX K-1 EPT-EPS-3 2015-3 PI EPT EPS 16th EPS P-3A-18 7 1.26 IBWC Land Existing EA to be supplemented
Headgates to
West RR
bridge
 P225 TI Document Requirements
Map Project Fence Segment ID SBInet Phase Sector Station Cong. Location Fence Type Fence Priority Horizontal Real Estate Planning RE Issues RE Execution Immediate Real EV Compliance EV Issues
ID Project # District Notes Length (mi) Estate Task(s)

TX K-2A EPT-YST-2 2016-2 PII EPT YST 16th 1mi E of US PV-2 1 9.60 Land is owned by IBWC.Tribal Segment not noted in Programatic
54 to Socorro coordination is necessary. Environmental Assessment - levy
Headgates allignment. SEA being prepared under
PDT direction.EA scope is for the 21mi
section made up of K-2A, B, & C.

TX K-2B&C EPT-YST-1 2016-1 PII EPT YST 16th Socorro PV-2 1 19.42 IBWC Land. Appx. 1/4 mile Tigua PROBABILITY FOR MAJOR ANCIENT
Headgates to Tribe ceremonial view issues ARTIFACTS ISSUES. SEA being
1 mi W of prepared under PDT direction
FAB POE

TX K-3 EPT-FBN-1 2017-1 PII EPT FBN 6th and 23 FAB 1mi W to PV-2 2 9.03 IBWC Land SEA being prepared under PDT
3mi E of POE direction

TX K-4 EPT-FBN-2 2017-2 PII EPT FBN 23rd 3 mi E of PV-2 B 13.48 IBWC Land
Fabens to
1.5mi W of
Fort Hancock

TX K-5 EPT-FHT-1 2018-1 PII EPT FHT 23rd FHT 1.5mi W PV-2 3 5.21 IBWC Land SEA being prepared under PDT
to 1.5mi E of direction
POE

El Paso Sector 93.14

TX L-1 MAR-SBT-1 2019-1 PII MAR SBT 23rd Neely's P-3A-15 1 4.63 IBWC levee Road Segment not noted in Programatic
Crossing Environmental Assessment - levy
alignment.

TX L-1A MAR-PRS-1 2020-1 PII MAR PRS 23rd Presidio POE Conc. Retaining 15 ft 2 3.28 Sector comfortable with RE Waters of the US permit needed.
to 3.2mi E of Wall retaining acquisition strategy Ancient artifacts and endangered
POE wall built species ussues MODERATE.
into the
south side
of IBWC
levee
TX L-1B MAR-PRS-2 2020-2 PII MAR PRS 23rd Presidio POE Conc. Retaining 15 ft 1 2.87 Sector comfortable with RE Waters of the US permit needed.
to 3.2mi W of Wall retaining acquisition strategy Ancient artifacts and endangered
POE wall built species ussues MODERATE.
into the
south side
of IBWC
levee
Marfa Sector 10.78
TX M-1 DRT-DRS-1 2021-1 PII DRT DRS 23rd DRS San Ameristar 14 ft 4 2.36 Private land may require difficult Hazmat issues believed manageable
Felipe & Rio ornamental land transaction. City is resistant to (moderate) in EGA. Cane in that area is
Grande to style fence and has issued a an environmental issue.
Cienegas proclamation against the fence.
Creek & Rio
Grande
TX M-2A DRT-EGT-1 2022-1 PII DRT EGT 23rd EGT 2.3mi Ameristar 14 ft 3 0.75 Private land may require difficult T&E species and Hazmat
upstream to ornamental land transaction; landowners are issues,believed manageable in EGA.
1mi No of style currently ameanable to BP needs. Env is an issue due to cane.
POE Land owners are very resistant to
fence. Mayor is one of the owners.

TX M-2B DRT-EGT-2 2022-2 PII DRT EGT 23rd EGT POE to Ameristar 14 ft 1 1.06 City is resistant to fence and has Env document is complete, and includes
North of POE ornamental issued a proclamation against the fence; cane removal will occur.
style fence.
Del Rio Sector 4.17

Laredo Rio Sector 0.00

 P225 TI Document Requirements
Map Project Fence Segment ID SBInet Phase Sector Station Cong. Location Fence Type Fence Priority Horizontal Real Estate Planning RE Issues RE Execution Immediate Real EV Compliance EV Issues
ID Project # District Notes Length (mi) Estate Task(s)

TX O-1 RGV-RGC-1 2023-1 PII RGV RGC 28TH Near Roma P-1, P-2 and P- 1 mile of P- 2 3.76 Some Private land. May require Includes 2 fence segments that will
POE 3B-15 1, 2.52 difficult land transaction. Portion of fence off the river from USFWS refuge
miles of P-2 project located on FWS Los Negros land. USFWS will most likely oppose
and .24 Creek NWR. Will require special an alternative that separates their land
miles of P- use permit. Highly unlikely fence from a water source Potential for
3B-15 compatable with FWS NWR. City is Section 7 Consultation. Schedule delays
resistant to fence. and increased cost poss ble. Waters of
the US in area. Hazmat, cultural
resources and T&E species issues
believed manageable in EGA. Waters
of the US permit needed. HAZMAT and
endangered species issues
MODERATE.
TX O-2 RGV-RGC-2 2023-2 PII RGV RGC 28TH Near RGC P-1, P-2 and P- 1 mile of P- 2 8.75 Rio San Juan NWR. Same issues Same issues as O-1
POE 3B-15 1, 7.56 as O-1
miles of P-2
and .19
miles of P-
3B 15
TX O-3 RGV-MCS-1 2024-1 PII RGV MCS 28TH Los Ebanos P-2 and P-3B-15 1.79 miles 1 1.85 Los Velas West NWR. Same Same issues as O-1
POE P-2 and issues as O-1
0.06 miles
of P-3B-15

TX O-4 RGV-MCS-2 2024-2 PII RGV MCS 28TH From Penitas P-2 1 4.35 Texas Parks and Wildlife. Waters of the US in area and Hazmat
to Abram issues ( moderate) believed manageable
in EGA.

TX O-5 RGV-MCS-3 2024-3 PII RGV MCS 28TH Future P-2 1 1.73 Portion located on Granejo NWR. Y Waters of the US in area and Hazmat
Anzalduas Same issues as O-1. Some land issues ( moderate) believed manageable
POE owners still to be contacted. in EGA.

TX O-6 RGV-MCS-4 2024-4 PII RGV MCS 28TH Hidalgo POE P-2 and P-3B-15 3.8 miles of 1 3.86 Portion located on Pate Bend, Waters of the US in area and Hazmat
P-2 and .06 Hidalgo and Pharr Settling Basin issues ( moderate) believed manageable
miles of P- NWR. Some land owners still to be in EGA.
3B-15 contacted.

TX O-7 RGV-MER-1 2024-5 PII RGV MER 15TH Proposed P-1 3 0.90 City is resistant to fence. Portion of Includes a segment that goes through
Donna POE project located on Monterrey Banco USFWS refuge. USFWS most l kely will
NWR. Will require special use oppose this segment of the alignment.
permit. Highly unl kely fence Potential for Section 7 and/or requests
compatable with FWS NWR. for mitigation. Schedule delays and
increased cost possible. Waters of the
US in area, Hazmat and T&E species
issues believed manageable in EGA.

TX O-8 RGV-MER-2 2024-6 PII RGV MER 15TH Retamal Dam P-1, P-2 1 mile of P- 3 3.24 Some landowners still to be Waters of the US in area, Hazmat and
1 and 2.24 contacted. Portion of project T&E species issues believed
miles of P-2 located on La Coma NWR. Will manageable in EGA.
require special use permit. Highly
unlikely fence compatable with
FWS NWR
TX O-9 RGV-MER-3 2025-1 PII RGV MER 15TH Progresso P-1, P-2 1 mile of P- 3 3.86 City is resistant to fence. Waters of the US in area, Hazmat and
POE 1 and 2.86 T&E species issues believed
miles of P-2 manageable in EGA.
 P225 TI Document Requirements
Map Project Fence Segment ID SBInet Phase Sector Station Cong. Location Fence Type Fence Priority Horizontal Real Estate Planning RE Issues RE Execution Immediate Real EV Compliance EV Issues
ID Project # District Notes Length (mi) Estate Task(s)

TX O-10 RGV-MER-4 2025-2 PII RGV MER 15TH Progresso P-1, P-2 1 mile of P- 3 2.33 Private Land owners are Waters of the US in area, Hazmat and
POE 1 and 1.33 cooperative, though some still to be T&E species issues believed
miles of P-2 contacted. City is resistant to fence. manageable in EGA.
Portion of project located on
Rosario Banco NWR. Will require
special use permit. Highly unl kely
fence compatable with FWS NWR.

TX O-11 RGV-HRL-1 2025-3 PII RGV HRL 27TH Joe's Bar- P-2 6 2.33 Texas Parks and Wildlife land & Waters of the US in area, Hazmat and
Nemo Road Private land. Some land owners still T&E species issues believed
to be contacted. manageable in EGA.

TX O-12 RGV-HRL-2 2025-4 PII RGV HRL 27TH Weaver's P-2 and P-3B-15 .55 miles of 6 0.96 Private land. Some land owners still Waters of the US in area, Hazmat and
Mountain P-2 and .41 to be contacted. T&E species issues believed
miles of P- manageable in EGA.
3B-15

TX O-13 RGV-HRL-3 2025-5 PII RGV HRL 27TH W Los Indios P-2 6 1.59 Private land. May require difficult Waters of the US in area, Hazmat and
POE land transaction. Some land owners T&E species issues believed
still to be contacted. Portion of manageable in EGA.
project located on Cule Bron NWR.
Will require special use permit.
Highl nlikel fence compatable
TX O-14 RGV-HRL-4 2026-1 PII RGV HRL 27TH E Los Indios P-2 and P-3B-15 1 mile of P- 6 3.59 Private land. May require difficult Waters of the US in area, Hazmat and
POE 2 and 2.59 land transaction. Some land owners T&E species issues believed
miles of P- still to be contacted. manageable in EGA.
3B-15

TX O-15 RGV-HRL-5 2026-2 PII RGV HRL 27TH Triangle - La P-2 6 1.93 Private land. Some land owners still Potential for Section 7 Consultation
Paloma to be contacted. and/or requests for mitigation. Schedule
delays and increased cost poss ble.
Waters of the US in area and Hazmat
issues believed manageable in EGA.

TX O-16 RGV-HRL-6 2026-3 PII RGV HRL 27TH Ho Chi Minh - P-2 6 2.45 Private land. May require difficult Waters of the US in area and Hazmat
Estero land transaction. Some land owners issues believed manageable in EGA.
still to be contacted.

TX O-17 RGV-BRP-1 2026-4 PII RGV BRP 27TH Proposed P-1 and P-3B-15 1.19 miles 1 1.63 Waters of the US in area, Hazmat and
Carmen Road of P-1 and T&E species issues believed
Feight Train .44 miles of manageable in EGA.
Bridge P-3B-15

TX O-18 RGV-BRP-2 2026-5 PII RGV BRP 27TH Proposed Flor P-1 5 3.58 Private land. May require difficult Potential for Section 7 Consultation
De Mayo land transaction. Some land owners and/or requests for mitigation. Schedule
POE to still to be contacted. Portion of delays and increased cost poss ble.
Garden Park project located on Palo Banco and Waters of the US in area and Hazmat
Phillips Banco NWR. Will require issues believed manageable in EGA.
special use permit. Highly unl kely
fence compatable with FWS NWR.
 P225 TI Document Requirements
Map Project Fence Segment ID SBInet Phase Sector Station Cong. Location Fence Type Fence Priority Horizontal Real Estate Planning RE Issues RE Execution Immediate Real EV Compliance EV Issues
ID Project # District Notes Length (mi) Estate Task(s)

TX O-19 RGV-BRP-3 2026-6 PII RGV BRP 27TH B&M POE to P-1 and P-3B-15 3.18 miles 5 3.37 Private land. May require difficult Waters of the US in area and Hazmat
Los Tomates of P-1 and land transaction. Some land owners issues believed manageable in EGA.
0.19 miles still to be contacted. Existing T&E species issues are expected to
of P-3B-15 "private levee" will be an issue. require study for appropriate resolution.

TX O-20 RGV-BRP-4 2027-1 PII RGV BRP 27TH Tomates Y P-1 1 0.91 Private land. May require difficult Cultural resources, Waters of the US in
land transaction. Some land owners area and Hazmat issues believed
still to be contacted. manageable in EGA. T&E species
issues are expected to require study for
appropriate resolution.
TX O-21 RGV-FTB-2 2027-2 PII RGV FTB 27TH International P-2 and P-3B-15 10.45 miles 1 12.98 Private land. May require difficult PROBABILITY FOR MAJOR
POE to Sea of P-2 and land transaction. Some land owners ENDANGERED SPECIES ISSUES.
Shell Inn 2.53 miles still to be contacted. Portion of Cultural resources, Waters of the US in
of P-3B-15 project located on Boscaje De La area and Hazmat issues believed
Palma NWR. Will require special manageable in EGA. Potential for
use permit. Highly unlikely fence Section 7 and/or requests for mitigation.
compatable with FWS NWR. Schedule delays and increased cost
possible.

Rio Grande Valley Sector 69.94

Phase I 28.13 Total 272.98
Phase II 244.85 176.17 Buffer 59.00
Core 213.98 Required 204.3
RE Planning KeyGreen – Owners appears cooperative ENG Planning Key Green-Engineering straightforward-no challenges

Yellow – Not all owners contacted and or some resistance has been received
Red – Owners uncooperative at this point
RE Execution KeGreen – Execution is on or ahead of schedule (i.e. SPI >= 1)
Yellow – Execution is 10% or less behind schedule (i.e. SPI <1 but => 0 9)
Red – Execution is more than 10% behind schedule (i.e. SPI <.9)
ENG Execution Key
Yellow-Some minor/moderate engineering issues-some detailed design likely
Red-Significant engineering issues-detailed design required
L =Low Cost; M= Moderate Cost; H=High Cost
Green-Execution is on or ahead of schedule (i.e. SPI >= 1)
Yellow- Execution is 10% or less behind schedule (i.e. SPI <1 but => 0.9)
Red-Execution is more than 10% behind schedule (i.e. SPI <.9)

EV Key Green – Current FONSI exists or no adverse env impacts anticipated CONSTR Execution Key Green-Execution is on or ahead of schedule (i.e. SPI >= 1)
Yellow – Some minor/moderate env impacts anticipated Yellow- Execution is 10% or less behind schedule (i.e. SPI <1 but => 0.9)
Red – Significant env impacts anticipated Red-Execution is more than 10% behind schedule (i.e. SPI <.9)

EV Execution Green – Execution is on or ahead of schedule (i.e. SPI >= 1)

Yellow – Execution is 10% or less behind schedule (i.e. SPI <1 but => 0.9) 204.3
Red – Execution is more than 10% behind schedule (i e. SPI <.9)
P225 TI Document Requirements
Map Project Fence Segment ID SBInet Phase Sector Station Cong. Location Fence Type Fence Priority Horizontal Real Estate Planning RE Issues RE Execution Immediate Real EV Compliance EV Issues
ID Project # District Notes Length (mi) Estate Task(s)
P225 TI Document Requirements
Map Project Fence Segment ID SBInet Phase Sector Station Cong. Location Fence Type Fence Priority Horizontal Real Estate Planning RE Issues RE Execution Immediate Real EV Compliance EV Issues
ID Project # District Notes Length (mi) Estate Task(s)
P225 TI Document Requirements
Map Project Fence Segment ID SBInet Phase Sector Station Cong. Location Fence Type Fence Priority Horizontal Real Estate Planning RE Issues RE Execution Immediate Real EV Compliance EV Issues
ID Project # District Notes Length (mi) Estate Task(s)
EV Execution Immediate EV Task(s)
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
Field Surveys for EA. Part of
the SDC EA
Field Surveys for EA. Part of
the SDC EA
Field Surveys for EA. Part of
the SDC EA
Field Surveys for EA. Part of
the SDC EA
Field Surveys for EA. Part of
the SDC EA
Field Surveys for EA. Part of
the SDC EA
Field Surveys for EA. Part of
the SDC EA
Field Surveys for EA. Part of
the SDC EA
Field Surveys for EA. Part of
the SDC EA
Field Surveys for EA. Part of
the SDC EA
Field Surveys for EA. Part of
the SDC EA
Field Surveys for EA. Part of
the SDC EA
Field Surveys for EA
Field Surveys for EA
Field Surveys for EA
Field Surveys for EA
E & C Planning Engineering and Construction Issues Engineering Immediate ENG Construction Construction Issues
Execution Task(s) Execution
H Very hostile terrain. Access road need to be constructed. Design for Road and
Will required detailed design Fence
H Steep terrain, blasting required. Access will be on private Design for Road and
land. Fence
H Steep terrain, blasting required. No Access Issues. May Use the 15% DCR to
require a retaining wall. develop the RFP
H Steep terrain, blasting required. Access will be on private Use the 15% DCR to
land. develop the RFP
H Steep terrain, blasting required. No Access Issues. Use the 15% DCR to
develop the RFP
H Steep terrain, blasting required. No Access Issues. Use the 15% DCR to
develop the RFP
H Steep terrain, blasting required. Access Issues. Use the 15% DCR to
develop the RFP
H Steep terrain, blasting required. EA in survey stage. BLM Use the 15% DCR to
Owner. No Access issues. develop the RFP
H Steep terrain, blasting required. Use the 15% DCR to
develop the RFP
H Steep terrain, blasting required. Use the 15% DCR to
develop the RFP
H Existing vehicle barrier is post and rail. Sheet flow and Use the 15% DCR to
Drainage problems. develop the RFP
H Existing Vehicle Barrier post and rail. Sheet flow and Use the 15% DCR to
Drainage problems. develop the RFP
H Steep terrain, blasting required. Access on BLM. Moved Develop RFP
from P75.
H Existing Vehicle barrier post and rail. Access Issues. Use the 15% DCR to
Sheet flow and drainage problems. develop the RFP
M
M Very open area. Very easy terrain and access. Geotech Report
Underground irrigation culverts along canal alignment.
Large spoil pile toward west end (from canal construction)
will require significant removal operations or retaining
structure. Approximately one mile of new road through
brush is needed toward east end, (west of Monument
217). Site becomes sandy and difficult to drive at east
end
M
L Roads are very sandy and difficult to drive on. May need Geotech Report
some compaction. Fence must be designed to account
for sand drifts. Tie into Yuma Project C1.
EV Execution Immediate EV Task(s) E & C Planning
Field Surveys for EA
Field Surveys for EA
30 day Public Comment
Period completed. Formal
Section 7 Consultation
required
30 day Public Comment
Period completed. Formal
Section 7 Consultation
required
FONSI Signed
DOPAA
Field Surveys for EA
Engineering and Construction Issues Engineering Immediate ENG Construction Construction Issues
Execution Task(s) Execution
L Very open area. Roads are very sandy and difficult to Geotech Report
drive on. May need some compaction. Fence must be
designed to account for sand drifts. Underground sea
beach the BLM want to repair. No limits to access - all
American canal - drifting sand dunes. Some existing
parking lots for the tr be in the way; need vehicles with
tracks to access. Need major modification around the
POE, significant excavation operation to put fence 3 ft off
border next to POE or retaining wall structure. Existing
Monument next to POE will need to be moved and reset.
Major gas line runs through alignment
M Access may be hindered for Yuma County Sheriff, Yuma Geotech Report
County Fire, Bureau of Reclamation, and Bureau of Land
Management. From County 12 and 7/8 and 18st is all
tribal land. Every point into the part will need a gate.
Farming between canal and river as well as recreation
require coordination will stake holders. South end of fence
will be in flood plain if aligned to tie into existing P70
fence.
M Existing post-and-rail for 11mi from POE. Task Order Awarded.
Awaiting FOSI to begin
construction
M Existing post and rail 17mi from POE. Task Order Awarded. Awiting
FONSI to begin construction
H Task Order Awarded.
L Generally rolling terrain with significant elevation changes
in wash areas. Existing TVB’s to be removed (moved to
Douglas, preferably by DB Contractor)
Access road from east end will require significant upgrade
for construction access. Sections of patrol road do not
follow border and are outside of Roosevelt Easement.
BP will be requesting secondary fencing for 4 miles east
and west of Nogales. Flood plain issues on east end of
project, Santa Cruz River and tr butary
Issues with Jurisdictional waters of the US at some wash
locations.
EV Execution Immediate EV Task(s) E & C Planning Engineering and Construction Issues Engineering Immediate ENG Construction Construction Issues
Execution Task(s) Execution

DOPAA M Generally rolling terrain with significant elevation changes

Field Surveys for EA
Testing, evaluation and
determination of Arch
elig bility
in wash areas. Existing TVB’s to be removed (moved to
Douglas, preferably by DB Contractor)
Access road from west end will require significant
upgrade for construction access, no access from east
end. Sections of patrol road do not follow border
alignment. No Roosevelt Easement.
Flood plain issues on west end of project, Santa Cruz
River, Issues with Jurisdictional waters of the US at some
wash locations.
M Current projects for TI resolving Private land access.

Testing, evaluation and
determination of Arch
elig bility
BO completed August 2007.
H Current projects for TI resolving Private land access. Project complete except for
1200 ft
M Current projects for TI resolving Private land access.
Limestone issues. Excludes 2 miles of military
construction in the middle.
L

Requires ROW from BLM

FONSI signed L

Retrofit current PVB

FONSI signed L

FONSI signed L

FONSI signed Feedlot is included in the mileage.

FONSI signed L

Project on hold until resolution L Fence will not be on IBWC Levee.

of fence design is reached
with IBWC

EA being revised to address L IBWC are going to raise the levee.

IBWC concerns

EA being revised to address L IBWC are going to raise the levee.

IBWC concerns
EV Execution Immediate EV Task(s)
Preparation of EA
Preparation of EA
Preparation of EA
Field Surveys for EA
Field Surveys for EA
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EA
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EA
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EA
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EA
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EA
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EA
E & C Planning Engineering and Construction Issues Engineering Immediate ENG Construction Construction Issues
Execution Task(s) Execution
L Fence on levee. Existing chain link fence to be replaced.
Numerous gates required for rescue points along existing
concrete canal on north side. Limited vehicle access
areas. Underground electric along existing levee
alignment. IBWC has future plans for levee rectification in
this area. EA scope is for the 21mi section made up of K-
2A, B, & C. OBP does NOT want Bollard fence
L Fence on levee and at toe. Easy access from east and
west end. Limited access along alignment. Gates required
for access to irrigation structures. IBWC intends to
perform levee rectification in the future in this area. OBP
does NOT want Bollard fence Numerous bee hives
along alignment
L Fence on toe, except in areas where debris from canal
has been cast on toe. Easy access from east and west
end. Limited access along alignment. Gates required for
access to irrigation structures. OBP does NOT want
Bollard fence Bee hives along alignment.
L Fence on toe, except east of POE where the canal is at
toe. Easy access from east and west end. Gates required
for access to irrigation structures. OBP does NOT want
Bollard fence. Bee hives along alignment.
No existing levee structure, IBWC has future plans for
levee rectification in this area. Easy access from west end
Appears to be in flood plain. Low areas may be difficult to
access due to high water table and muddy surface
conditions
L Retaining wall construction on south side of levee. Gates
at existing access ramps. Irrigation pipes running
perpendicular to levee in at pump house locations Easy
access from east and west end. Tie into POE bridge at
west end.
L Fence on toe. Gap in fence at Cibolo Creek. Gates at
existing ramps. Tie into POE bridge at east end. Easy
access from east and west end. Irrigation pipes running
perpendicular to levee in at pump house locations
L Alignment to run north of flood plain and will be
determined following survey. Survey is being scheduled.
Good access from paved roads
L Retaining wall on south end of alignment (poss ble flood
plain). Fence to start at existing water treatment plant
chain link fence. Good access from south end. Will
require some brush removal. Gap at wood bridge
crossing arroyo. Poss ble gray water line from water
treatment plant to river.
L Have access to project area.
EV Execution Immediate EV Task(s)
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
E & C Planning Engineering and Construction Issues Engineering Immediate ENG Construction Construction Issues
Execution Task(s) Execution
L Potential Flood plain issues. Alignment also potentially
isolates a nature observation deck from the town
(including an adjacent USFWS facility)-may require
retaining wall. Generally rolling terrain with significant
elevation changes in wash areas and along river bank in
western half of proposed alignment including arroyos
draining into river and high bluffs along river banks
Access point from west end will require road construction.
Erosion and stability needs to be addressed for fence
segments constructed close to river on bluffes. Minimum
off-set discussed along river, 30 feet from top of bank
/bluff. Issues with Jurisdictional waters of the US at some
arroyo locations. Heavy brush along proposed alignment
L Generally flat with some rolling terrain and some
significant elevation changes in wash areas/arroyos and
bluffs along river bank on west end. Access point from
west end will require road construction. Gates will be
required to access irrigation pumps and oil and gas wells.
Undergro nd irrigation pipes and c l erts need to be
L Potential Flood plain issues. Generally flat with some
significant elevation changes in wash areas/arroyos and
bluffs along river bank. Access point from west end will
require road construction. Good access at center and
east end. Gates will be required to access irrigation
pumps, access roads and at POE. Underground irrigation
pipes and culverts need to be located and addressed in
construction design Optional alignment may be
considered at uncooperative land owner property.
Probable flood plain issues if fence is constructed at
bottom of bluff or close to river. Erosion and stability will
be an issue at fence segments constructed close to river
L Start of levee fencing on west end of Rio Grande Sector.
Terrain generally flat with fence to run along toe of levee
on US side. Good access from east and west end of
proposed fence alignment. Underground irrigation pipes
and culverts need to be located and addressed in
construction design Need to acquire private property
L Terrain generally flat, fence to run north of the existing
irrigation canal on west half of fence segment and move
to the levee toe on the east end of the project. Need to
acquire private property on east end of fence segment,
poss bly including home(s), where yards and buildings
encroach on le ee or mo e fence on le ee IBWC plans
Fence to follow existing levee located east and north of
the existing levee toe on the US side. Propose
purchasing 60 feet or property on US side (east or north
side of levee) either from toe of levee or top of canal
bank. Heavy brush on toe at north end of project. City
L l
Fence t to be located
l th existing
on the d b ildleveed toe
t on thet US
side. Fence to be situated about 30 feet off of levee toe.
Existing gas well and equipment on west end of fence
may need to be relocated. Good access from east and
west end of proposed fence alignment. Underground
irrigation pipes and culverts need to be located and
addressed in construction design. Vehicle access gates
or gaps required for access roads crossing levee.
Pedestrian gates may be required at some irrigation gate
L Fence to be located along existing levee toe on the US
side about 30 feet off of toe. Existing irrigation pump on
west end of fence may need to have gate installed or be
relocated. Fence cuts through refuge at the east end of
project animal access will need to be addressed. Good
f t t d f f
L Fence to be located along existing levee toe on the US
side. Fence to be situated about 30 feet off of levee toe
where possible. Existing irrigation pump on west end of
fence may need to have gate installed or be relocated.
Good access from east and west end of proposed fence
EV Execution Immediate EV Task(s)
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
E & C Planning Engineering and Construction Issues Engineering Immediate ENG Construction Construction Issues
Execution Task(s) Execution
L Start at east side of existing POE fencing. Fence to be
located on the existing levee toe on the US side. Fence to
be situated about 30 feet off of levee toe Good access
from east and west end of fence alignment. Underground
irrigation pipes and culverts need to be located and
addressed in construction design. Vehicle access gates
or gaps required for access roads crossing levee.
Pedestrian gates may be required at some irrigation gate
valve locations. Utility issues, may include but not limited
to underground pipes from water pumps, possible gas
lines, telephone.
L Fence to be located either on toe or 30 feet north of toe
on the US side with the exception of where the fence runs
in a north/south direction. At this location the fence will
run west of the existing irrigation canal. Fence runs
through FWS refuge property on west end of project will
t i l d i i ti i f i Di t
L Fence to be located on existing irrigation canal berm
north of levee on the US side. Underground irrigation
pipes, standpipes and culverts need to be located and
addressed in construction design. Limited access along
segment. Gap at canal crossing. poor access from west
L Fence to be located on toe or 30 feet north of toe on the
US side on west end and north of the existing irrigation
canal on east end. Fence alignment to be moved to east
side of existing FWS refuge property. Good access on
east end from POE. Culvert may be required to bring
fence o er e isting canal Undergro nd irrigation pipes
L Fence to be located on toe or 30 feet north of toe on the
US side on west end, possibly on levee to avoid home in
center and may change to bollard fencing down center of
retention ditch on east end. Good access to fence
alignment from east west and center. Underground
L Fence to be located on toe or 30 feet north of toe on the
US side, possibly move in to 15 feet behind residential
subdivision to avoid encroachment on yards. Good
access to fence alignment from east, west and center.
Underground irrigation pipes, standpipes and culverts
need to be located and addressed in construction design.
Vehicle access gates or gaps required for access roads
crossing fence alignment. Pedestrian gates may be
required at some irrigation gate valve locations. Utility
issues, may include but not limited to underground pipes
L Fence to be located on toe or 30 feet north of toe on the
US side, possibly move in to toe next to cemetery and for
property access to homes. Good access to fence
alignment from east, west and center. Underground
irrigation pipes, standpipes and culverts need to be
located and addressed in construction design. Vehicle
access gates or gaps required for access roads crossing
fence alignment. Pedestrian gates may be required at
some irrigation gate valve locations. Installation of culvert
or bollard to cross existing irrigation canal. Utility issues,
L Fence to be located at toe or on levee along most of the
alignment due to irrigation canal, and existing highway.
Good access to fence alignment from east, west and
center. Underground irrigation pipes, standpipes and
culverts need to be located and addressed in construction
design Vehicle access gates or gaps required for access
L Fence to be located at toe or 30 off toe along most of the
alignment. Old sand pit location on west end may require
fence on levee in this area. Good access to fence
alignment from east, west and center. Underground
irrigation pipes, standpipes and culverts need to be
located and addressed in construction design. Vehicle
access gates or gaps required for access roads crossing
fence alignment. Utility issues, may include but not
limited to underground pipes from water pumps, overhead
electric, gas lines, telephone.
EV Execution Immediate EV Task(s)
NEPA Sector Kick-off
Meetings (9/14/07).
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
DOPAA
Agency Coordination Letters
Field Surveys for EIS
E & C Planning Engineering and Construction Issues Engineering Immediate ENG Construction Construction Issues
Execution Task(s) Execution
L East end of fence to be located approximately at toe in
school area and tie into existing chain link at east side of
POE. West side of POE tie into existing fence at bridge.
Proposed alignment not finalized on west side.
Preliminary recommendations are to construct 30 feet
th f i t l G t f li t
L East end of fence to tie into existing Los Tomates POE
fence at bridge. Fence to be located approximately at toe
in school area and replace existing chain link fencing.
Trees and landscaping may need to be relocated along
school parking lots. Good access to fence alignment.
Underground irrigation pipes standpipes and culverts
M Fence to be located on toe, 30 feet north of toe, north of
existing irrigation canal on the US side, poss bly move on
to levee in residential subdivision to avoid encroachment
on homes. Good access to fence alignment from east,
west and center. Underground irrigation pipes,
standpipes and culverts need to be located and
addressed in construction design. Vehicle access gates
or gaps required for access roads crossing fence
alignment. Pedestrian gates may be required at some
irrigation gate valve locations. Utility issues, may include
but not limited to underground pipes from water pumps,
overhead electric, gas lines, telephone. Levee located
EV Execution Immediate EV Task(s) E & C Planning Engineering and Construction Issues Engineering Immediate ENG Construction Construction Issues
Execution Task(s) Execution
EV Execution Immediate EV Task(s) E & C Planning Engineering and Construction Issues Engineering Immediate ENG Construction Construction Issues
Execution Task(s) Execution
EV Execution Immediate EV Task(s) E & C Planning Engineering and Construction Issues Engineering Immediate ENG Construction Construction Issues
Execution Task(s) Execution
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: USFWS Attendance at Public Meetings
Date: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:24:38 AM

Gentlemen,

We will go ahead and reach out to (b) (6) with USF&W to make sure that they have a
representative during our initial walk through in McAllen and Brownsville on Nov. 26th and the two
meetings on Dec. 11th and 12th.

Let us know if anything changes.

RGV SBInet Team

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:02 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: USFWS Attendance at Public Meetings

FYI and for action.

(b) (6)
Assistant Chief Patrol Agent
RGV Sector
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From:(b) (6)
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 6:34 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: USFWS Attendance at Public Meetings

Good afternoon (b)

(6)
We spoke with our USFWS headquarters point of contact, (b) (6) , and they are interested in
attending the public open houses.

He asked that we coordinate with (b) (6) who I assume is the representative you typically work
with. If that's correct, would you like to go ahead and contact her?

We are still working on our other action items, I'll let you know when I have more information.

(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 4:31 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: IAA

(b)
(6)
It appears that USFWS would like to participate and provided a POC. Please forward this to the sector
lead.

(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) >
Sent: Fri Nov 16 15:53:19 2007
Subject: Re: IAA

(b)
(6)
The Service will send someone to staff the information room. Please
include (b) (6) of our Corpus office on any informational emails.

Thanks,
(b)
(6)

National Section 7 Coordinator

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Dr.
Suite 420
Arlington, VA 22203
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: VF300 Site Visits
Date: Monday, January 07, 2008 6:53:25 PM

(b)
(6)
Who is covering Yuma now that (b) has moved on? This will need to go to (b) (6) and Yuma
(6)
ACPA. They want a flyover as well.

(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jan 07 18:34:57 2008
Subject: FW: VF300 Site Visits

(b) -- more below (2 emails) on the site visits for VF300 to TCA & YUM.
(6)
As you can see from (b) (6) email, the Corps has lept into trying to organize these due to the tight
time frame, but wanted to make sure we weren't stepping too far outside the proper process.

Thanks so much,

(b) (6)
Business Manager, Operations
SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 6:31 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)

Subject: RE: VF300 Site Visits

Thanks, (b)
(6)fine to me, except we were also trying to see Yuma segments on the 23rd/24th, maybe fly
This looks
over CPNWR (DV-1, CV-2, CV-3) also on the 23rd (if that's possible), and then possibly see the River
Cooridor project CV-1 the next day by car or fly it that same day? (b) (6) - input?

(b) (6) is this itinerary okay with you?

(b) after I discuss with (b) (6) I will get back with you tomorrow on SBI attendees, which is
(6)
about all we can speak for. I would estimate about 3-4 from SBI would be attending. I assume
you/(b) (6) will coordinate USACE & Baker resources. I will leave it to (b) (6)
to coordinate with OBP, as well, from the HQ end.

Thanks so much,

(b) (6)
Business Manager, Operations
SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 5:53 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: VF300 Site Visits

(b) (6)

here is a tentative itinerary for next week, and I will bold the areas where I need input/decision from
you.

Mon Jan 14 (FV-1):

Meet at Douglas Station at 7:30am
Work west to east along the Douglas project area. This will probably take all day, and we'll have to
drive in to Douglas for lunch, and back out again to finish.

We will need to coordinate to ensure sufficient 4x4/high clearance vehicles.

Recommend that folks stay at the Copper Queen in Bisbee on Sunday night
http://www.copperqueen.com/

I have left a message with(b) (6) to discuss logistics and getting access to the roads that lead
to the border.

Tues Jan 15 (EV-1):

The whole trip from the Sonoita Station to the border, through the project area, and back to the Station
should take about 4 hours.
The closest facilities are in Sierra Vista which is about 45 mins away.

I recommend spending Mon night at the Copper Queen; traveling to Sierra Vista for lunch (and intro
meeting); and conducting the border visit in the afternoon.
Folks could either stay in southern Arizona, or make the trip to Tucson on Tues night for flights out on
Wed.

Please let me know your thoughts on that concept.

I will continue working with (b) (6) to arrange helicopters for a Jan 23 flight
through the Tohono O'odham (DV-2, DV-3, DV-4) and Bobaquavari (DV-5) project areas.

Please can you help me confirm and coordinate the number of people attending for each trip so that we
can ensure sufficient transportation.

Thanks,
(b)
(6)
Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 800
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: UT-Brownsville
Date: Friday, December 07, 2007 6:12:38 PM

Here is his answer. Does this work for you?!

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

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Dec 07 18:11:38 2007
Subject: FW: UT-Brownsville

(b)
(6)
The fence will border the UTB property, but will not intersect their campus. Simple answer is no.

(b
)

________________________________

From: (b) (6) ]

Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 6:08 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: UT-Brownsville

Sorry, my original email was probably poorly phrased. Our response at the time of this Aug. 10 USA
Today article (re: CBP proposing fence that would cut through the UT-Brownsville campus) was that
there were proposed projects that would border the property, but not cut through it. Are there still
projects that are planned for the area that will border the campus?

Thank you!

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 6:05 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: UT-Brownsville

(b)
(6)
How does the fence laydown affect UT- Brownsville?
(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6) v>
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: Self, Jeffrey (
Subject: Fw: Two Decisions Needed for Del Rio, TX
Date: Monday, October 15, 2007 5:23:27 PM

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

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) Flossman, Loren W
(b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Mon Oct 15 17:21:54 2007

Subject: Two Decisions Needed for Del Rio, TX

By way of update on the real estate for Del Rio,TX, all landowners have
signed ROE for S&E but one. The one who hasn't may not be touched by the
final fence alignment. As a result, we no longer have an immediate need for
condemnation in Del Rio. In order to proceed to get to negotiations with the
owners for the permanent construction rights we need, there are some
questions we need resolved as quickly as possible in the interests of
schedule.

1. Is the fence alignment along the floodplain edge delineation final? (b)
- can you help me with this one?) (6)

2. Will DHS/CBP provide gate access to each of the private owners along the
Del Rio fence segment? This area is primarily rural in use, although near
the City of Del Rio. If we are able to acquire only the swath of land
required for the physical fence and not all of the land from the fence south
to the Rio Grande River, then we will have lower acquisition costs by virtue
of not needing to value the loss of riparian rights. The government
estimates of value can be completed in a quicker time period as well. This
has to be weighed against the risks and concerns associated with private gate
access. Purely from real estate standpoint, we would recommend the gates
because of the lower acquisition cost and more likelihood a landowner would
voluntarily convey what we need. However, the security concerns are the
major driver of the decision. We can certainly acquire to the river if the
project requires it.

3. We continue to have some conflicts with who is in charge of the real

estate effort from this point forward. In Del Rio, we are now prepared to
initiate government estimates of value/appraisals. To the extent that the
appraisers will be meeting with landowners (this is not a requirement for
this project, but is considered nice to have if it does not impact schedule),
(b) (6) of the Del Rio Border Patrol Sector Office has taken the
position that he needs to set up all contacts with the owners for purposes of
negotiations. The e-mail below also indicates the potential for (b) (6) to
re-evaluate the fence footprint and discuss other options with the
landowners. (b) (6) has been a great asset and will continue to be, but we
need to clarify with every sector office that we are moving off
pre-decisional, the fence location is now determined, and we now have a need
to acquire the land interests. USACE needs to be responsible for the
appointments with landowners for contacts related to appraisal and
negotiations since we are going to be held responsible for meeting the
schedule for acquisition.

Request your feedback, direction on the items above.

(b)
(6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 1:15 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: FW: Realty Information

(b) (6) - as requested + (b) (6) has stated that he wants to be the POC for
the appraisers

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:37 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Realty Information

(b) (6)

As we begin to re-analyze the fence footprint and the realty issues in the
M-1
Project for Del Rio Sector, I would like to request some clarification on
land use agreements for those folks that have livestock on the vega.
Basically, what terms are available, length of time, transferrable ect..

Before we begin to outreach these owners about a footprint change we need to

know all the options available.

Let me know,

Thanks

(b) (6)
Del Rio Sector
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Contracting Information regarding J-2
Date: Friday, November 09, 2007 1:11:23 PM
Importance: High

Gentlemen,

FYI Please refer to attached message from (b) (6)

I want to ensure you are on the same page as we are relative to fencing products. In a nut shell, the
USACE owns the designs for all fences designs. Even if we get 20 different contractors, the fence
product we ultimately select will remain the same as they will be provided the original specs of each
fence product. The only design component that may change is the below ground level design based
upon soil composition. This is important as it assures us we will not end of with 20 slightly different
fence appearances.

Regards,
(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 11:03 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Contracting Information regarding J-2

(b) (6)

As per our conversation, I have attached some background......

When we hire a contractor to prepare a product for USACE, the plans/designs and specifications
become the property of the US Federal Government by contact. Therefore, if and when we issue
another contract (i.e. J-2), we can issue the plans and specifications to the bidding contractors during
the Request for Proposal (RFP) stage.

The only new requirement would be that the sub-soil strata would have to be examined and re-verified
to confirm that they are equal, or greater than the original designs and support your operational needs
as stated in the original RFP.

Because soils are not homogeneous and vary from area to area, the contractor would perform soil
borings in the new location (i.e. J-2) and compare against the original soil borings and design criteria
that were utilized in the design process for J-1 and J-3.

If the contractor determined that these boring logs revealed details that did not support the original
design criteria, then the contractor would be responsible for designing a new system to support your
operational needs. This however would NOT be a complete re-design of the fence. The basic system
(above ground level) would in all likelihood, remain the same.

In all likelihood, the changes would probably be limited to the following: The depth and thickness of
the vertical members may have to be increased to achieve the same standards based upon the new
soil conditions because they are less suitable, but the overall performance would remain the same.

The fence would still have to meet the criteria of withstanding a 5-ton vehicle at 40 MPH with a striking
distance of 60 ft. The mesh would stay the same, along with probably the horizontal support members,
anti-perching and anti-digging components.

I believe the information you and(b) (6) received may have resulted from the actual bidding process
itself. We will not be able to simply pick one particular contractor to provide the services for J-2. Such
action is called Sole Sourcing and requires a justification for implementing such action.

A Sole -Service Justification has strict guidelines and requirements to prevent limited competition, as
outlined by the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). Typically, Sole Sourcing Justifications are
utilized for a products or services that is unique or specialized and not readily available on the open
market. But these projects are not unique and there is lots of competition, a SSJ would never fly.

And by issuing the already owed Plans and Specs during the RFP stage, we can ensure that the
fencing will look unified throughout the project sites.

I hope this clarified some of the misinterpretations that you received.

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)
Subject: Maps
Date: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 12:57:16 PM

Do you know if all the maps that have gone to the Hill (showing proposed fence by Congressional
district) have been distributed out to the field? We have a conference call with Ortiz's office and want
to make sure that they have the same map out there to speak from when we are all on the phone
together.

I'm not in the office today, but you can call me on my blackberry!

Thanks!!
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: On a work-related note...
Date: Friday, December 21, 2007 7:12:16 PM

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: PF225 segments for congressional appropriations
Date: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:12:45 AM
Importance: High

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: PF-225 ENV IPT Meeting Summary 1-14-08
Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:17:11 AM

SUMMARY: PF-225 ENV IPT Meeting Summary 1-14-08 saved to I:/Working Folders/Planning and
Analysis/SBInet-OBP/IPT Meetings.

Facilitator: (b) (6) USACE-FWD

Phase I – National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) Document Status -

- Ajo, D-2 – Results of a meeting with Department of Interior (DOI) – No answer on FONSI, no response
from the Park Service. Need a Biological Opinion (BO) from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Pressing forward with the Environmental Assessment (EA) as it is.
- Will need to write another letter to request another extension until end of January 2008.
- January 20, 2008 is the deadline for the Naco and Douglas EA’s.
- (b) (6) will follow up with the FWS.
- E-2A – schedule
o (b) (6) – Construction start information is not available, holding up process.

Phase II –
- Public meetings at RGV are complete
- Only one document is outstanding (not received)
- (b) (6) – Primary EA went out last Thursday (January 10, 2008) for K-2B&C through K-5.
- If the issues of the fence are not resolved and we need to start building fence CBP will use the floating
fence design to build to.
- Gap Filler EIS – Cooperating agency letters - What was the results? Answer: Looking for the LA and
Albuquerque distribution letters.
- Gap Filler – Transmittal letters were sent out in hard copy and on CD.
- Region 9 EPA – No responses back yet from this regions EPA documents.
- Question? What would be the impact of a “negative declaration”? Answer: (b) (6) – It is not an
implication.
- RGV EIS – Hidalgo County – IBWC and CBP discussions are on-going. (b) (5)

- RGV - Need to resolve issues for segments 4-10 with the FWS before construction can begin.
- RGV – Question ? Continue with the EIS as-is or separate segments 4-10 from the EIS (don’t contract
for the construction yet). ACTION: (b) will organize a teleconference to discuss this issue.
- Status table for PF-225 is posted on(6)
the PF-225.com WEB site.
- Del Rio & Marfa – Notices for the open house have gone out. Open house-public meeting for
comments on the EA will be held at Marfa on January 23, 2008 and at Del Rio on January 24, 2008.
- TCA – Public meetings for comments will be held on January 31, 2008.
- YUM - Public meetings for comments will be held on January 30, 2008.

(b) (6)
________________________________________________________________________________________________

(b) (6)
HQ OBP Liaison, OPA Div.
Office of Border Patrol
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: PF-225 ENV IPT Summary
Date: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:13:08 AM

Please make note of any Action Items for BP- OPA.

SUMMARY: PF-225 ENV IPT Summary 1-7-08

Facilitators: (b) (6) m – GSRC (b) (6) USACE – SWF

Phase I –
- Ajo, NM – Meeting tomorrow 1-8-08 with Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) at 1300 hrs. It is unknown if the Biological
Opinion (BO) from FWS will be prepared in time for the meeting. There will be a call today 1-7-08 discussing the
NEPA document.
- Limestone Ridge – The Public comment period on the EA ended yesterday 1-6-08. There could be Jaguar issues.
- East side of E-3 – Moving forward with the MOA (close) and should be signed this week. Construction can begin on
the non-site areas i.e. roads and staging areas.

Phase II –
- Issues in DRT, TCA and EPT
o YUM C-1 and C-2B (staging area) – After Geological testing six archeological sites were found in C-1.
o EPT K-1 and K-2 – Need surveys on properties to determine land boundaries, could take up to a year to get
surveys.
o EPT K-2B – Is it on IBWC land or Water District land? Need PF-225 FETI’s help to resolve.
o Waiting on response letters from LA and Albuquerque.
EA’s for YUM, TCA and Demming went out yesterday 1-6-08.
- (b) (6) CBP to meet with DOI, (b) (6) on Thursday.
- Proposed t meline for Phase II should be out by Thursday.
- Wet lands – Resubmitted five forms on Friday 1-4-08. 37 of 42 will be updated and resent out. 12 were redone
based on aerial photos. Entire package will be sent out again by Wednesday 1-9-08.
- EA review schedule – YUM and TCA EA’s will be placed on the WEB at borderfenceNEPA.com for public review on
January 18, 2008. YUM and TCA public meetings will be held January 30 and 31, 2008 respectively. EPT’s EA
review has been placed on hold.
- Meeting scheduled on Friday January 11, 2008 at 1300 hrs. Need all EA review comments to (b) (6) by Friday
morning before the meeting.
- Public Meetings – MAR, DRT
o Public meetings will held for DRT on January 23, 2008 and MAR will be held on January 24, 2008. EA’s will
be posted on the WEB at borderfenceNEPA.com tomorrow 1-9-08. Comments and input on the EA’s from
the public can be posted on the WEB at PF225.com.
o Public meeting will be held at the Alpine Community Center in Alpine, CA. The phone number is (b) (6)

- Final Best Management Practice (BMP) should be signed by Loren Flossman by COB Wednesday.
- Section 7
o Consolidate spread sheet into one table in regular EXCELL format.

Other Discussions –
- O-19 – Major Archeological Site found – Old Fort Brown (the actual fort)
o Proposed fence will run through the middle of the site along the existing levy.
o Need to reengineer the location of the fence.
o Need to contact the Texas SHPO.
- E-2B –
o Sector wants the Vehicle Barrier (VB) revised and added permanently.
o (b) (6) – Need to put in a temporary VB now and address the permanent VB later. BP needs to send
up the chain for approval.
- Douglas and Naco –
o Revise EA to change all temporary VB to install .8 miles of pedestrian fence and .5 miles of permanent VB.
- Action: (b) (6) OBP
o San Pedro – Need to coordinate with Sectors on the need for alterations to the fences.

(b) (6)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(b) (6)
HQ OBP Liaison, OPA Div.
Office of Border Patrol

(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF-225 FEIT IPT Summary 1-8-08
Date: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 3:01:20 PM

SUMMARY: PF-225 FEIT IPT Meeting Summary 1-8-08

Facilitator: (b) (6)

SDC – A-1 – 250’s segment on Monument Road . One mile under SDC needs to be taken out and
added as an option to the project. Reason: Can’t get the one mile certified as a road so take it out for
not so it won’t hold up the rest of the project. (b) (6) will get answers by next Monday.

ELC – B-4 – RFP DRAFT ready to award by March 17, 2008 based on the baseline schedule but will
slip because the condemnation of land is incomplete.

C-1, C-2A&B and B-4 – Condemnation of land is delayed because the owners identified presently may
not be the actual land owners.

(b) (6)
- Who owns the schedule at USACE? Answer: (b) (6)
- Can we set up a meeting to talk schedule ? Answer: Yes
- Has the schedule been socialized with the Water Districts? Answer: Yes

(b) (6) – We now know all the fence types for all fence segments.

E-2A (6.44 miles)– The Park Service has done their own EA within the Park but has not released it
yet. USACE has asked that CBP include vehicle barrier and pedestrian fence in with their EA because
our EA does not include land inside the Park. They have agreed to do so.

ACTION: (b) (6) RGV PM, USACE – Sort out the EA’s with the Park Service (PS) for E-
2A. PS will allow access to their land so ACE will follow up with approval documentation. Target
completion date was May 1, 2008 but is at risk because of cultural resources in the area.

K-2A through K-5 – (b) (5)

(b) said that all the land was owned by
the Bureau of Reclamation at one time. Now is undetermined(6)
if IBWC owned the lane or the Water
District. Where is the property line? ACTION: USACE - Need a cost estimate acquire land, etc by
COB Thursday.

Phase I – I-1A – Other than condemnation of land in this section, no other issues on Phase I is
apparent. The contractor award drop dead date is February 2008.

Remediation Plans – segments I-1A, J-1 and J-3 – A letter was sent out to the contractor last week to
have him re-look the package. Completion date is anticipated in mid-April 2008.

J-1 and J-3 – There is a west and east. Also need additional resources for the contractor to complete
the scope of work. There are three gates required.

K-1 – Task Order award was estimated for January 1, but that date was not met. ACTION (b) will
update the award date. (6)

Del Rio, Eagle Pass – M-1, M1A, and M-2A (retaining wall) - Question was? – Do we use Amaristar
type fencing design (ornamental fencing) except for E-2A? Has it been approved for use? Answer:
Yes it has been approved by Mr. Giddens.
RGV - O-19 – Fort Brown Archeological site – Proposed fence is a fence on Toe of the levy. Better
proposed option is approximately 1500 feet of floating fence on top of the levy that is at least 16 feet
wide. (b) – submit any changes via the Change Management Process (CMP),. Boeing agreed to
submit(6)
changes.

ACTION: USACE – Look at changes in the Change Management Process and report back the findings.

Real Estate Issues –

- 1. Fence alignments along the levies.
- 2. Land south of the fence in RGV – need to identify unknown land owners.
- 3. New access roads and staging areas – need to complete all outstanding ROE’s..

Project Management Team (PMT) Meeting will be set up for next Monday to discuss these king of
issues and look at the current schedule.

D-2 Issues –
Go forward with the EA and FONSI . DOI to get Special Use Permit by end of January.

(b) (6) – Need to know two things –

- Which access roads are private or public?
- Which assess roads need improvements verses need to be built from scratch?

(b) (6)
______________________________________________________________________

(b) (6)
HQ OBP Liaison, OPA Div.
Office of Border Patrol
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF225 meeting with Loren Flossman and (b) (6)
Start: Friday, January 11, 2008 6:30:00 AM
End: Friday, January 11, 2008 7:30:00 AM
Location: CHief Self"s Office 6th floor

When: Friday, January 11, 2008 6:30 AM-7:30 AM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: CHief Self's Office 6th floor
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
From: (b) (6) on behalf of (b) (6)
To: ADAMS, ROWDY ( ; (b) (6)
Subject: Planned fence miles
Start: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:15:00 PM
End: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:45:00 PM
Location: 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.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)

FLOSSMAN, LOREN W (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Updated: Planning and Coordination IPT
Start: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 1:00:00 PM
End: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 2:00:00 PM
Location: Old Customs Bldg Room B220

Meeting Place has changed for Tuesday, January 9th to the Old Customs Building - Room B 220.
OBP Conference Room 2 will be occupied by Chief Aguilar

The purpose of this recurring meeting will be to interface and coordinate project planning issues (e.g., land acquisition, risk assessment,
environmental, site selection, construction, operations) primarily for:
Outreach- Public Affairs
PF 225 fence project
Rio Grand Valley SBInet project
Northern Border Demonstration Project
Other Issues
TIME 1:00 PM - 2:00 PM
(b) (2)
PORTS: 20

(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ;
(b) (6)
Subject: RE: A-1
Date: Friday, November 09, 2007 2:56:58 PM

I almost feel like the Chargers just won a playoff game, err actually I wouldn’t know how that feels.

From:( ov]
Sent: bFriday, November 09, 2007 2:26 PM
To: (b) (6)

Subject: Re: A-1

One small step for (b) and one giant leap for San Diego Sector....
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)

Sent: Fri Nov 09 14:24:39 2007

Subject: Re: A-1

10-4

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)

Sent: Fri Nov 09 13:22:43 2007

Subject: Re: A-1

Apperantly it had something to do with adjusting the alignment to minimize the earth work quantities.

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) gov>
To: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)

Sent: 11/9/2007 2:13:47 PM

Subject: Re: A-1

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

Seems a lot lower than abticpated...

-----Original Message-----
From (b) (6) >
To (b) (6)
(b) (6)

Sent: Fri Nov 09 13:10:01 2007

Subject: Re: A-1

(b) (6)

This schedule is considered very aggressive. Coupled with the limited access
and rough terrain there are substantial schedule risks associated with this
project. Design must begin on or around December 1, 2007. Mobilization on
both proposed spreads should begin on or around January 1, 2008.
Construction can be phased so the fence is complete by December 1, 2008, with
final road and site cleanup and stabilization continuing into 2009.

I know this schedule overlaps with the EA schedule.

(b) (5)

Full report will be sent electronically today. Please send me the

distribution list for hard copy.

(b) - feel free to give me a call if you have any questions.

(6)
Thank you,

(b) (6)
Engineering Manager

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

2929 North Central Ave (b) (6)
Suite 800 (b) (6)
Phoenix, AZ 85012 (b) (6)

>>> (b) (6) 9/2007 9:14 AM >>>

(b)
(6)
Please shoot back an e-mail with a projected cost and schedule. OBP has a
meeting today and needs that info. Thanks.

(b)
(6)