Anda di halaman 1dari 4

OBP005745

From: (b) (6)


To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: Hidalgo County-IBWC Coordination
Date: Saturday, January 19, 2008 11:38:30 AM

Since (b) (6) wants everybody else to keep him and OCA in the loop....I will forward his emails to OCA
to keep you in the loop...does his engine fire on all cylinders?

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


From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) Giddens,
Gregory <GREGORY.Giddens@dhs.gov>; (b) (6) Flossman, Loren
W <LOREN.Flossman@dhs.gov>; Adams, Rowdy D <ROWDY.Adams@dhs.gov>; (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)


Sent: Sat Jan 19 11:36:25 2008
Subject: Re: Hidalgo County-IBWC Coordination

Thank you. Please make sure my office and OCA are kept in the loop on these discussions. We both
have stakeholders that are very interested in the outcome.

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


From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) Giddens, Gregory <GREGORY.Giddens@dhs.gov>;
(b) (6) Flossman, Loren
W <LOREN.Flossman@dhs.gov>; Adams, Rowdy D <ROWDY.Adams@dhs.gov>; (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)


Sent: Sat Jan 19 10:07:19 2008
Subject: Re: Hidalgo County-IBWC Coordination

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

(b) (6)
Office of Chief Counsel, CBP
(b) (6)

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


From: (b) (6)
To: Giddens, Gregory <GREGORY.Giddens@dhs.gov>; (b) (6)
Flossman, Loren W
<LOREN.Flossman@dhs.gov>; Adams, Rowdy D <ROWDY.Adams@dhs.gov>; (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)


Sent: Sat Jan 19 09:57:03 2008
Subject: Re: Hidalgo County-IBWC Coordination

The issue of S1 waiver has been mentioned briefly but I am not aware of any legal analysis. I haven't
followed all the twists/turns but believe there are 2 basic issues; 1) can cbp fit this within its fence EIS,
likely allowing use of the waiver 2) would the DHS waiver authority extend to a project constructed by
IBWC. I will let (b) (6) and the other real lawyers figure this out.

I know we keep raising this, but we will also need to have a way to explain to Cameron what we are
doing and why. We have promised that to them. And I would like to know if there are options that
OBP005746

would allow for future (after 2008) levee/fence construction downriver.

Thanks,
(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: GIDDENS, GREGORY <GREGORY.Giddens@dhs.gov>
To: (b) (6)
Flossman, Loren W <LOREN.Flossman@dhs.gov>; Adams, Rowdy D
<ROWDY.Adams@dhs.gov>; (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)


Sent: Sat Jan 19 07:50:47 2008
Subject: RE: Hidalgo County-IBWC Coordination

Loren,

We need to gather soonest and chart a path forward, including option of S1 waiver.

Greg G

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:36 PM


To: (b) (6) ; Giddens, Gregory;
Flossman, Loren W; Adams, Rowdy D; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Hidalgo County-IBWC Coordination
(

Thank you for the embellishments

Message sent from my Blackberry

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


From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
GREGORY GIDDENS <GREGORY.Giddens@dhs.gov>;
LOREN W FLOSSMAN <LOREN.Flossman@dhs.gov>; ROWDY D ADAMS <ROWDY.Adams@dhs.gov>;
(b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)


Sent: Thu Jan 17 18:19:15 2008
Subject: Re: Hidalgo County-IBWC Coordination

(b)
(6)
Here's a couple clarifications/corrections in reference to our phone conference.

The first concern discussed with you was the environmental documentation required to proceed with the
OBP005747

construction of a concrete wall instead of a fence. The current draft EA produced by DHS discarded the
option of a wall, so if a wall is to be considered, the EA should be redone to evaluate the impact of the
wall. Then I told you that if IBWC had to initiate and accomplish the environmental process for the wall,
we would not be able to finish it in time to comply with your December, 2008 construction deadline.
Which is different from not being able to accept the responsibility. If necessary, our agency could take
on the environmental process, but we will not be able to meet your time-lines. You replied by saying
that DHS is going to take care of the environmental aspect by revisiting the option of the wall and the
fence for the seven segments in question during the publishing of the EIS, provided the DOI leadership
supports the wall option. The meeting next week with DOI officials should clarify whether or not there's
a way to mitigate the environmental impact of the wall raised by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

The next thing we talked about was the design criteria for the wall. I asked you if DHS was going to
design the wall, you replied by saying that DHS expected the HCDD1 and IBWC to design the wall.

As far as the funding for the project, you informed me that DHS had agreed to provide $3M per mile of
wall to HCDD1 if they executed the construction of the wall. Then, I asked you how was DHS going to
transfer the funds to HCDD1 and you replied by saying that DHS would like to transfer the funds to
IBWC so that IBWC could transfer the funds under the current MOA between IBWC and HCDD1. I then
told you that our current MOA with HCDD1 contains no provisions for reimbursement, I didn't think we
could modify the MOA to reimburse HCDD1 and that our legal counsels would have to discuss that
issue.

For your information, we can't reimburse for the current work undertaken by HCDD1 because to do so is
a violation of the Anti-deficiency Act. The Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits the involvement of the
government in any obligation to pay money before funds have specifically been appropriated for that
purpose.

(b) (6) P.E.


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

(b) (6)

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


All

I spoke with (b) (6) and (b) (6) this afternoon regarding the
Hidalgo County proposal. IBWC has two primary concerns that will need to
be addressed for the project to proceed. First, like CBP/DHS, they do
not currently have authority to appropriate $ to the County even if
CBP/DHS were to send them the funds. Apparently this was a big issue
during the drafting of the MOA between IBWC and the County, and the MOA
specifically states that IBWC will provide no funds for the levee
raising projects Hidalgo has proposed to build on their behalf. (b)
does not believe it is possible to simply amend the existing
(6) MOA.
The second concern they have is with regards to NEPA and the Section 7
consultations that will be required to build the retaining wall. IBWC
can not accept the responsibility for performing the necessary NEPA and
other environmentally-related tasks necessary to build the retaining
wall. I told them we had also pretty much come to the same conclusion
and were now thinking we would need to address the retaining wall in our
OBP005748

EIS and lead the Section 7 consultations with FWS.

Recommend CBP legal counsel consult with IBWC's legal counsel soonest to
discuss the $ appropriations challenges and to identify means of
overcoming. With regards to the NEPA issues, we should have a better
understanding of just how difficult it is going to be to obtain FWS
approval for the retaining walls after our meetings next week with FWS,
IBWC and the County.

I've cc'd (b) (6) and (b) (6) on this e-mail. Sirs, please
correct/modify any points as you see fit.

Thanks

(b)
(6)
(b) (6) P.E., PMP
Secure Border Initiative - Tactical Infrastructure
Program Management Office
Cell: (b) (6)

Anda mungkin juga menyukai