From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: VF300 Standard Drawings
Date: Friday, January 25, 2008 3:21:39 PM

All,

Please see (b) (6) comments below. They will be included in the El Paso Sector
comments on VF-300 products.

Thanks,

(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 12:47 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: VF300 Standard Drawings

Folks,
Yesterday OBP and SBInet granted us permission to show the proposed Normandy design to the local
ranchers that have been the driving force behind the Cattle-proof components. They agreed that
stakeholder input was appropriate; therefore (b) (6) met with the (b) (6) and (b) (6) this
morning and received their input. The ranchers want everyone to know that they really appreciate the
fact that their concerns were heard and the two bottom rails were added to prevent sick calves from
crossing from Mexico; however, they are still very concerned about the top height of the 6x6 at 40-41”.
They claim that all BLM, State, and DOT right of way fences are at least 48” tall, and they believe that
cows not only can, but will jump the current height. They suggest that 1 more piece of steel be added
6-7” above the 6x6 tube.

(b) (6) explained that he’s certain that his current cattle-proof barbed wire fence will disappear
shortly after installation of the VF. He also stated that he’s sure he could prove impairment in his
ability to earn a living and file a show-stopping injunction if need be. It should be noted that he and his
wife are both lawyers, so legal fees are not a problem for them. The two ranchers stated that they’re
representing the cattle industry and this fence design directly affects more than just their personal lives.

They discussed the option of adding a strand of barbed wire at the top but the ranchers believed it
would be defeated if not removed. We believe that the upcoming O&M fence repair contract could
easily handle these types of breaches in a timely manner, and barbed wire seems like a legitimate fix.
If and when this is proven to be ineffective, other options could then be evaluated. We might want to
consider having the I-beams manufactured in a way that allows a quick and easy way to add a strand
of wire above the tube. (Holes punched, anchor bolts, etc.)

All in all, the locals were pleased with what’s been done thus far, and they’re optimistic that their other
concerns will be addressed in the future.

Thanks,

After review at the Sector level, please see that (b) (6) and(b) (6) are copied on the
forwarding to (b) (6) and the SBInet crew.
(b) (6)
El Paso Sector TI Coordinator
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:58 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: FW: VF300 Standard Drawings

Importance: High

(b) (6)

Please review attachment relative to the VF-300 fencing products.

(b) (6)

Establish communication with (b) (6) and collectively develop your comments. Once completed, please
forward to(b) and I for final review. We will then forward to OBP. Several months ago, (b)
suggested(6)
that an additional piece of metal be applied to the Normandy Style fencing product (6) to
prevent cattle infiltration. If that feature isn’t reflected in the drawings, please readdress and ensure
OBP is aware we want this.

EPT VF-300 involved the following stations:

DNM
LOB
STN
YST I believe YST will have Jersey Barriers placed under the Zaragoza POE (0.03 miles)

Please ensure we have PAIC input from the aforementioned stations as well. I believe these stations
may have previously indicated their preference of the Normandy Style. I have additionally attached the
latest pictures that the USACE (b) (6) provided me.

Regards,
(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:44 AM
To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: FW: VF300 Standard Drawings
Importance: High

All,

As requested, please give the attachment a look and comment to (b) Please note the timeframe
mentioned in his email. (6)

Thanks,
(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:12 PM

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

Subject: FW: VF300 Standard Drawings

Importance: High

All

Attached is the draft toolkit for our standard vehicle fence designs. Please note that we have already
identified a few minor revisions that need to be made (see below). Please review and provide your
comments by NLT COB Friday, January 25th.

Right now, VF is being planned for the Marfa, El Paso, Yuma, Tucson and El Centro sectors

(b) -I assume you will distribute to the sectors for review and comment.
(6)
(b) (6) -please distribute to the appropriate Corps/Baker folks working VF projects.

(b) (6) FWS input is desired as well.

Thanks everyone!

(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:19 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc (
b
Subject:
) VF300 Standard Drawings

1. The following comments will be incorporated into a final set that will be distributed to SBI:

A. Sheet I-1. On line for Vehicle-Gate, change G-1 to V-1G to match sheet number. File
name, G-1.dwg, can remain from my standpoint.

B. Sheet V-1G.

(1). Plan shows fence 5' off of border. Need to revise to reflect 3'.
(2). Sections 1 and 2 show concrete top at 3" below grade. Need to show concrete
coming to grade to avoid corrosion and to keep the sleeves from filling in and locking the posts in
place.

(3). The elevation shows all posts the same height. Need to show staggered post
height to avoid confusion.
 (4). Sections 1 and 2 -- show depth of post & sleeve embedment.
.
2. Final comments by the PDT were requested by COB on 16 January 2008. Any additional
comments will be evaluated; revisions to the drawings made, as required; and the revised set
forwarded to SBI.

<<VF300 STANDARD FENCE DETAILS 1-15-08.pdf>>

The comments shown above are generally minor in nature and, in my opinion, would have very little
effect on the study that Boeing is performing. I don't expect any additional comments that would
change Boeing's path -- just my forecast.

V/R,

(b) (6)

Chief, Design Branch

(b) (6)