CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: RE - 8 Disks (Redacted) 2 - RE - 2 RRB - (Redacted) 1

From: SELF, JEFFREY (
To: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: Memo to accompany disks
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 7:25:15 AM
Sounds good (b) if (b) n is good with it then go with it.

(6) (6)
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 7:17 AM
To: Self, Jeffrey D
Subject: Re: Memo to accompany disks
That was the problem.....there were varying ROEs used by different sectors and many times nothing
was used. (b) jumped in when he found out that PF225 project was expecting EAs and site
assessments (6)to be done under "our patrol ability to enter onto private lands". So as to not bother you
later, if(b) is good with the latest ROE, can we send it out? Thanks.
(b) (6)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: SELF, JEFFREY D (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 07:13:49 2007
What did we use in the past. Talk to (b) and let him get a look at it.
(6)
Jeff
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: Self, Jeffrey D
Subject: Fw: Memo to accompany disks
Importance: High
Can I get this ROE to the Texas Mobile crew or is there a seperate issue? The Texas Mobile contractors
need to go do site assessments on the 10th. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 06:50:28 2007
Subject: FW: Memo to accompany disks
This should answer your question. I have the disks and DHL mailers in my desk. I can mail it out
today. I just need an accompanying memo, or could send out along with an email. I lack only the
permission to send it. If someone needs it sooner, I could email the file.
________________________________
From: SELF, JEFFREY D

Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 6:08 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) ,
(6)
Need to stand by on this. We will revisit it when I get back from EPT.
Jeff
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Memo to accompany disks
Chief,
I have looked into the Right of Entry issue. It seems that there was no environmental ROE prior to this
version. One (maybe more) of the sectors have developed ROE to use for environmental purposes on
their own. (b)(5), (b)(6)
If you concur, I’ll modify the memo to reflect the above and get it sent out, provided you’ve heard back
regarding the power point also included on the disk.
(b)
(6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY(
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: DRAFT Follow-up Letter
Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:55:32 PM
Sensitivity: Confidential
(b)
(6)
Thanks foe handling this.
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6) BEESON, PAUL A; (b) (6) ; COLBURN,
RONALD S; (b) (6)
ILBERT, ROBERT W; Hill, Randy R (b) (6)
MANJARREZ, VICTOR M; (b) (6)
SMIETANA, JOHN J; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 12 14:43:11 2007

Subject: DRAFT Follow-up Letter
Deputies & Assistant Chiefs,
Good afternoon. With the delivery of the environmental assessment notification letters during the initial
phase of PF225, the next step in the process is to provide the EAs to the agencies and the public.
The attachment contains a DRAFT follow-up letter for this phase of the Outreach project. The purpose
of this DRAFT is to allow you to become familiar with the contents of the letter prior to distribution to
the Public Land Owners, (PLO) within your Area of Responsibility, (AOR).
It is requested that you consider the method of distribution to the PLO within your AOR and have your
method of distribution decisions to me by close of business, June 13, 2007. What will be necessary for
you to include is the names of the PLO within your AOR that you have determined hand delivery as the
best method of delivery, and a list of those that will be delivered through the mail
Mail delivery notification to the PLO will be conducted by the USACE.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Texas Mobile trip plan
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 1:09:56 PM
To all,
The ROE sent by (b) (6) is intended to be used for all environmental and real estate site
survey actions. It is understood that similar documents exist but this version was vetted by CBP Legal
and should be the only ROE used for this purpose. The first subsection explains in detail all of the
actions covered under this document. This will cover all survey actions required for the PF225. The
expiration of the document should be annotated in subsection 2 to read "1 year". If any similar actions
are required beyond one year, then the document needs to be re-issued and re-signed.
We are currently working with CBP Legal on (b) (5)
There will be more information to follow.
For info, I will be reporting to HQ for permanent assignment in July. In the interim, I will be working on
this issue from San Diego Sector.
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tue 6/5/2007 10:09 AM
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
I see that you anticipated my next question. I received the sample ROE from (b) (6) a few
minutes ago. This is what we needed to move forward, thanks tremendously.
Take Care- (b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tue 6/5/2007 9:27 AM
To: (b) (6) ; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Texas Mobile trip plan
(b)
(6)
I understand the time issue and that other ROEs have been used in the past by different sectors.
Because of the huge PF225, P70, Texas Mobile, and the Yuma, Tucson, and El Paso IPTs(that is what is
currently in process, the norhern border is beginning) that are all at varying stages and have varying
levels of sensitivity issues, it was deemed that a standard ROE, that has been vetted will help control
the information. If there are concerns with the vetted ROE then please advise. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) P
Sent: Tue Jun 05 09:18:59 2007
Gentlemen,
Attached are two examples of ROEs. The first ROE, labeled as "Texas Mobile ROE" is similar to what we
used for Operation Jump Start. This is what we prefer to use for initially gaining access to Texas Mobile
tower sites. I want to emphasize that the initial visits to these tower sites is only to determine if the
site is feasible and to ensure that we have not made any grave errors in the selection of the site. While
we do intend to have an environmental contractor with us during the visit, they will only be looking
around to ensure that the area does not host numerous endangered plants, species, etc.; there will be
no digging, boring, etc.
The second sample, labeled "ROE", seems to be a form that would be used once we are reasonably
sure that the tower site is where we want to actually want to place the tower. It seems that it would
take a lot of explaining to get landowners to sign this ROE, when really, it may not be relevant because
there are other factors that would preclude us from placing a tower on the selected parcel of land.
Boeing would like to begin visiting these tower sites for the Texas Mobile Project on Monday, June 11,
2007, that gives us three days to collect these ROEs if we receive guidance by the end of the day. We
can delay the visits but this could jeopardize Texas Mobile timelines.
If there are any additional questions, please let me know.
Take Care,
(b) (6)
Special Operations Supervisor
El Paso Sector
8901 Montana Avenue
El Paso, Texas 79925
(b) (6)
-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: Texas Mobile trip plan
Importance: High
(b)
(6)
Good morning. Received this message last night from El Paso Sector. Please inform on how you would
like to procede and guidance for them. At the time of this message, (4:22 AM), I have not received the
message from (b) (6) with the example(s) of the ROEs which may or may not influence your resonse.
Your response is awaited. I have included (b) (6) and (b) (6) in this message.
Thanks
(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 20:13:54 2007

Subject: FW: Texas Mobile trip plan
(b) (6)
Please advise or provide example of the ROE OBP wishes us to utilize. There are several different ROEs
currently in circulation. I think it wise to standardize the same ROE form for all sectors.
(b) (6) will forward you two examples of our recommendation and will highlight the El Paso
recommended ROE for your consideration in another message. It is short and sweet and in our opinion,
be much more successful in gaining signatures.
Regards,
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief Patrol Agent
El Paso Sector
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 4:50 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Texas Mobile trip plan
Attached is a description/agenda for the planned trip to the Texas

Mobile sector to assess the tower sites (8 sensor and 2 relay), identify
alternates and determine if existing towers at stations and headquarters
can hold additional comm equipment. We want to travel on Sunday June
10th in order to start working on Monday morning.
Please let me know if we need other attendees. This will be a hard and
fast several days so come ready to work.
<<Texas Mobile Tower assessment visit.doc>>
Thank you,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Updated PF225 Spreadsheet
Date: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 6:07:35 PM
Oh yeah!
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 4:18 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: Updated PF225 Spreadsheet
Are you two treehuggers happy now!

From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 16:14:39 2007

Some minor changes: New RE language for SD: "BLM Cooperation Necessary"
Note the date (6-07-07) within the file name. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
<<Fence Summary 06-7-07 GB.xls>>

(b) (6)
Project Manager
USACE-PM-ECSO
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 7:26:39 AM
Sounds good (b) I (b) (6) is good with it the go with it but tell (b) to send only the ROE and
nothing else. (6) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: Self, Jeffrey D
Subject: Re: Memo to accompany disks
That was the problem.....there were varying ROEs used by different sectors and many times nothing
was used. (b) jumped in when he found out that PF225 project was expecting EAs and site
assessments (6)to be done under "our patrol ability to enter onto private lands". So as to not bother you
later, if (b) n is good with the latest ROE, can we send it out? Thanks.
(b) (6)
(6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY D (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 07:13:49 2007
What did we use in the past. Talk to(b) and let him get a look at it.
(6)
Jeff
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: Self, Jeffrey D
Subject: Fw: Memo to accompany disks
Importance: High
Can I get this ROE to the Texas Mobile crew or is there a seperate issue? The Texas Mobile contractors
need to go do site assessments on the 10th. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 06:50:28 2007
Subject: FW: Memo to accompany disks
This should answer your question. I have the disks and DHL mailers in my desk. I can mail it out
today. I just need an accompanying memo, or could send out along with an email. I lack only the
permission to send it. If someone needs it sooner, I could email the file.
________________________________
From: SELF, JEFFREY D

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Need to stand by on this. We will revisit it when I get back from EPT.
Jeff
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Memo to accompany disks
Chief,
I have looked into the Right of Entry issue. It seems that there was no environmental ROE prior to this
version. One (maybe more) of the sectors have developed ROE to use for environmental purposes on
their own. (b)(5), (b)(6)
If you concur, I’ll modify the memo to reflect the above and get it sent out, provided you’ve heard back
regarding the power point also included on the disk.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY ( ; (b) (6)
Date: Friday, June 15, 2007 8:58:17 PM
10-4 we got the original also. Thanks.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jun 15 20:57:04 2007
Subject: Fw: DRAFT Follow-up Letter
(b)
(6)
For your records and update for your PoC list
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jun 15 12:09:17 2007
Subject: FW: DRAFT Follow-up Letter
(b) ,
(6)
Please put me down as the POC for Outreach instead of (b) (6) I’ve been already working with
(b) (6) and PAO (b) (6) on the outreach.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
Yuma, Arizona
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 7:40 AM
To: (b) (6)
Note (b) (6) message, I didn’t know if you’d received it
thanks
(b) (6)
ASSISTANT CHIEF PATROL AGENT
YUMA SECTOR
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:22 PM
To: (b) (6)
FYI

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) BEESON, PAUL A; (b) (6) COLBURN,
RONALD S; (b) (6) FISHER, MIKE J; (b) (6)
GILBERT, ROBERT W; Hill, Randy R; (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D; STEVENS, KEVIN L; (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 13 10:14:07 2007

All,
Good morning. This is an informational message in a proactive effort to assist you in capturing
information that will occur with your inception of “hand delivered” letters that you will be involved with
in the near future. With your decision to distribute letters to land owners/managers by hand, it will be
necessary to document and record the event. In the attachment(s) you will find a word document and
a spread sheet that contains questions that will be necessary to answer and document the information
you and your Outreach Team members have obtained during the visit.
Submission of this information to me electronically should occur on a daily basis until completion of
delivery of all letters.
If you have any question, please do not hesitate to contact me. The format of the documents can be
altered, but the context should remain with the accept ion of additional information you may
recommend to HQOBP. A comment portion to the documents is available for pertinent information that
you feel of value to any particular visit.
Your comments and suggestions are welcomed and anticipated. Please have your suggestions and
comments and alterations to me as soon as physically possible, allowing me time for fabrication and
distribution.
Thanks
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 7:56 AM
To: (b) (6) STEVENS, KEVIN L; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Subject: RE: DRAFT Follow-up Letter

Thanks (b)
(6)
I think the file has all the necessary information.
I think it would be a good idea to send it to the sectors for their concurrence as soon as possible.
(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To (b) (6) ; STEVENS, KEVIN L; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Good morning. If I recall, it was mentioned and the fact that two individuals would conduct the
delivery. The agents would document the hand delivery, to include delivery, time, place, and name of
recipient should be included in the documentation. With approval, I can get this guidance out to the
sectors. I placed a draft word document in the attachment for your comments. This can be forwarded
to the sectors for completion and submission to HQOBP, and then to USACE.
Please inform of your decision on forward movement.
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; STEVENS, KEVIN L; (b) (6)

Good morning.
I spoke with USACE yesterday afternoon. They reiterated that the sectors can deliver letters and
materials.
The sectors have until COB tomorrow to let us know which letters they want to deliver for this round,
and I told USACE that we will provide that information to them on Friday.
However, the 30-day review period for draft EA and FONSI documents can’t start until the letters and
materials are provided. Until USACE can embed someone at each sector, we will need to ensure delivery
by the sectors is communicated back to USACE. I do not recall if we finalized how that would be
accomplished. Did we discuss who the sectors would inform that delivery was complete? Please remind
me.
Thanks.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: SELF, JEFFREY D; STEVENS, KEVIN L; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Gentlemen,
Below is a response from El Centro Sector concerning the future letters for the Public Land
Managers/Owners and the method of delivery desired by the El Centro Sector. They would like to hand
deliver all letters to the PLOs
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:31 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
El Centro requests that all Public Land Owner, (Manager) correspondence be routed through El Centro
Sector for face to face delivery to the recipients.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
ACPA/ELC
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) BEESON, PAUL A; (b) (6) ; COLBURN,
ANJARREZ, VICTOR M; (b) (6)
(b) (6) VILLAREAL, ROY D;
WEINBRENNER, CRAIG L; WELLS, CHRIS L; WINNICK, SETH
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6) STEVENS, KEVIN L; (b) (6)
All,
Please be advised, that the due date for the list of Public Land Owners, (Managers) that you have
determined require mail or face to face recipients has been changed to Thursday, June 14, 2007, at
3:00 PM EST. The intention of the draft is for informational purposes. Location specific letters to your
particular AOR should be anticipated in the future.
Sorry for the confusion
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Cc: STEVENS, KEVIN L; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
DRAFT Follow-up Letter

(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Date: Monday, June 04, 2007 5:20:42 PM
Folks:
I have had several requests for formatting changes from SBI and OBP of late. Some of these changes
have been contradictory in nature and I have done my best to communicate the changes to everyone. I
have one that needs clarification. SBI had requested that a new column (State) be added and that the
mileage subtotals and sector subheadings in the rows following each sector be removed. OBP would
like the mileage subtotals and sector subheadings in the rows put back into the spreadsheet. I need
clarification on this ASAP. Also, in the future, offices requesting changes should coordinate the
changes with myself and the remaining offices. Thanks.
(b) (6)
_____________________________________________
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Updated PF225 Spreadsheet
Attached is the updated PF225 spreadsheet.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Project Manager
USACE-PM-ECSO
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) L
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Texas Mobile Tower Sites
Date: Thursday, June 07, 2007 6:17:08 PM
(b) (5)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6) na
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jun 07 18:15:06 2007

Subject: RE: Texas Mobile Tower Sites
(b)
(6)
This is excellent! Thanks so much for providing the update. Sounds like you’ve had good luck with the
owners and Boeing has plenty of places to start on Monday morning!
In response to your issues:
1) We are working with (b) to provide a good project description. I think you have a great point
(6) sent out to all owners from the SBInet office. I will follow up with
about providing a uniform ROE
(b) (6) and confirm tomorrow. Of course, any additional information you can provide us regarding
the tower locations and shared/neighboring owners if applicable (as indicated in paragraph one of your
note below), would be most helpful.
2) We will definitely provide you with the status of any mail being sent to property owners within
your sector prior to sending.
3) I just had a conversation with (b) (6) and he indicated that ROEs are
required if you’re crossing one property to get to the property where the tower site is located. We will
need to add those owners (as applicable) to your report.
Again, thanks so much for the update. We will provide more clarification to you tomorrow on issue 1
above.
Respectfully,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Business Manager, Texas Mobile
(b) (6)
"You can only have two things in life, reasons or results and reasons don't count."
"Progress is impossible without change; and those who cannot change their minds cannot change
anything."
NOTICE: The Contracting Officer is the sole individual that is authorized to make changes to the
contract. The content of this email is not intended to change the existing scope of contract. If the
Contractor considers any part of this communication to constitute a change in scope, the Contractor
shall notify the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR Clause 52.243-7, Notifications of Changes.
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Texas Mobile Tower Sites
(b) (6)
Attached you will find a breakdown of what we have been able to do with landownership information in
regards to the Texas Mobile Tower sites. In short, we have received verbal permission to enter land for
tower sites 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. We are in the process of trying to contact the landowner of tower 2.
Tower 8 is very close to a property line and we are not sure exactly which parcel the tower is on. Both
of the possible owners have been contacted and both gave verbal permission to enter the property.
The south relay tower is also located in an area where four parcels meet. Parcel data from Hudspeth
County shows that all the parcels belong to the State of Texas. (b) (6) from the Texas
General Land Office stated that the State has mineral rights but his records show that another individual
owns the surface area. All of the property owners contacted so far have been very supportive, most
even encouraging.
I received a call from (b) (6) at the SBInet office in regards to ROEs for Towers 5 and 7. She is
attempting to get the ROEs out as soon as possible. I think we should have all of the ROEs prepared
using the same format so that all of the property owners receive the exact same information. Is it
possible to have the ROEs prepared at the SBInet office? Some of the local property owners have even
expressed their desire to receive ROE correspondence via mail rather than in person. I think having all
the ROEs prepared and distributed from one location will make things uniform and easier to address any
discrepancies that may arise in the future. If this is possible, I would like to find out when the ROEs are
mailed so that I can make another call to the landowner and inform them that they should be expecting
an ROE in the mail. I will continue to make landowner contacts before any ROEs are mailed in order to
comply with directions from OBP. We have also ensured that any property owners we contact have our
contact information.
Another issue: It is my understanding that we will need ROEs for any property that we intend to cross
in order to get to the tower site? Is this correct? This does not seem to be an issue with Towers 1
through 4; I can easily view the parcel via GIS and there are public access roads onto the property. I
will have to do some additional research for the relay tower and towers 5 – 8 as there is no electronic
information available in Hudspeth County.
I will continue to verify locations, get verbal permission, and verify addresses but I wanted to keep you
updated.
Take Care,
(b) (6)
Special Operations Supervisor
(b) (6)
8901 Montana Avenue
El Paso, Texas 79925
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Please advise that were going with what we have already produced.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

To: Self, Jeffrey D
Subject: Fw: Updated PF225 Spreadsheet
Jeff,
Apparently SBInet decided they (b) (6) wanted the chart to be different than what it is. It has
deleted a lot of info columns that we use. How do you want me to fight? I have already stated that
OBP is a stakeholder in the chart and that the master should not have been changed without our
concurrence! Please respond to this one because it will get away without your Chief power.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 18:11:40 2007

I have no problem with the old format – I don’t need it in a specific format myself – it just that(b)
(6)to
himself specifically requested that the pivot table version be the master format, and I hate
have to recreate that every time the laydown changes, or have(b) (6) do any extra work. It’s pretty
easy, though, to engineer different pivot charts tailored specifically to what OBP needs. Or what about
something simple like “color blocking” the rows by sector (alternating bands of grey shading by sector)
– see the attached example. Again—I’m not trying to be difficult, just trying to find a solution that
would meet both SBI’s & OBP’s requirements without too much extra work on anyone’s part.
(b) (6)
Data Manager
SBInet - Facilities & Infrastructure Division
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Email:(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Updated PF225 Spreadsheet
OBP has needs for the spreadsheet as it was. We are also a user of the document for "higher" uses.
Any changes to the "master" document needs to have OBP approval. If a seperate document needs to
be created for either component the master should not be altered.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 17:36:27 2007

(b) (6) had requested use of a pivot table (on a separate worksheet) that broke out mileage by risk
level and by type of land (federal, private, etc). In order to create a pivot table, blank rows, “divider”
rows, subtotal rows, etc., must be removed from the main spreadsheet so that it can be used as a data
“list” from which the pivot table pulls data. It is very easy to set up one that breaks down mileage by
sector, as well. (b) (6) had requested this breakdown because these are things that SBI needs for
external reporting purposes (GAO, White House, etc).
Please see the attached for an example of how mileage could be broken out by sector using a pivot
chart, instead of reinserting sub-total rows in the main spreadsheet. Would this work for OBP’s
purpose?
(b) (6)
Data Manager
SBInet - Facilities & Infrastructure Division
(b) (6)
Alt cell:(b) (6)
Email: (b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6) l]

To: (b) (6)
J
Folks:
I have had several requests for formatting changes from SBI and OBP of late. Some of these changes
have been contradictory in nature and I have done my best to communicate the changes to everyone. I
have one that needs clarification. SBI had requested that a new column (State) be added and that the
mileage subtotals and sector subheadings in the rows following each sector be removed. OBP would like
the mileage subtotals and sector subheadings in the rows put back into the spreadsheet. I need
clarification on this ASAP. Also, in the future, offices requesting changes should coordinate the changes
with myself and the remaining offices. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
_______ ________________________
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Updated PF225 Spreadsheet
Attached is the updated PF225 spreadsheet.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Project Manager
USACE-PM-ECSO
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Date: Friday, June 15, 2007 9:11:35 PM
(b)
(6)
Sorry. Didn't read the distribution list. Better safe than sorry I guess
Enjoy the weekend
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jun 15 20:58:16 2007
10-4 we got the original also. Thanks.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jun 15 20:57:04 2007
(b)
(6)
For your records and update for your PoC list
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jun 15 12:09:17 2007
(b)
(6)
Please put me down as the POC for Outreach instead of (b) (6) I’ve been already working with
(b) (6) and PAO (b) (6) on the outreach.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
Yuma, Arizona
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 7:40 AM
To: (b) (6)
Note (b) (6) message, I didn’t know if you’d received it
thanks
(b) (6)
ASSISTANT CHIEF PATROL AGENT
YUMA SECTOR
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
FYI

From: (b) (6)
SMIETANA, JOHN J;(b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D; STEVENS, KEVIN L; (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 13 10:14:07 2007

All,
Good morning. This is an informational message in a proactive effort to assist you in capturing
information that will occur with your inception of “hand delivered” letters that you will be involved with
in the near future. With your decision to distribute letters to land owners/managers by hand, it will be
necessary to document and record the event. In the attachment(s) you will find a word document and
a spread sheet that contains questions that will be necessary to answer and document the information
you and your Outreach Team members have obtained during the visit.
Submission of this information to me electronically should occur on a daily basis until completion of
delivery of all letters.
If you have any question, please do not hesitate to contact me. The format of the documents can be
altered, but the context should remain with the accept ion of additional information you may
recommend to HQOBP. A comment portion to the documents is available for pertinent information that
you feel of value to any particular visit.
Your comments and suggestions are welcomed and anticipated. Please have your suggestions and
comments and alterations to me as soon as physically possible, allowing me time for fabrication and
distribution.
Thanks
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) ; STEVENS, KEVIN L; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)

Thanks (b)
(6)
I think the file has all the necessary information.

I think it would be a good idea to send it to the sectors for their concurrence as soon as possible.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) ; STEVENS, KEVIN L; SELF, JEFFREY D;(b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Good morning. If I recall, it was mentioned and the fact that two individuals would conduct the
delivery. The agents would document the hand delivery, to include delivery, time, place, and name of
recipient should be included in the documentation. With approval, I can get this guidance out to the
sectors. I placed a draft word document in the attachment for your comments. This can be forwarded
to the sectors for completion and submission to HQOBP, and then to USACE.
Please inform of your decision on forward movement.
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) ; SELF, JEFFREY D; STEVENS, KEVIN L; (b) (6)

Good morning.
I spoke with USACE yesterday afternoon. They reiterated that the sectors can deliver letters and
materials.
The sectors have until COB tomorrow to let us know which letters they want to deliver for this round,
and I told USACE that we will provide that information to them on Friday.
However, the 30-day review period for draft EA and FONSI documents can’t start until the letters and
materials are provided. Until USACE can embed someone at each sector, we will need to ensure delivery
by the sectors is communicated back to USACE. I do not recall if we finalized how that would be
accomplished. Did we discuss who the sectors would inform that delivery was complete? Please remind
me.
Thanks.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: SELF, JEFFREY D; STEVENS, KEVIN L; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Gentlemen,
Below is a response from El Centro Sector concerning the future letters for the Public Land
Managers/Owners and the method of delivery desired by the El Centro Sector. They would like to hand
deliver all letters to the PLOs
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
El Centro requests that all Public Land Owner, (Manager) correspondence be routed through El Centro
Sector for face to face delivery to the recipients.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
ACPA/ELC
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6) STEVENS, KEVIN L; (b) (6)

All,
Please be advised, that the due date for the list of Public Land Owners, (Managers) that you have
determined require mail or face to face recipients has been changed to Thursday, June 14, 2007, at
3:00 PM EST. The intention of the draft is for informational purposes. Location specific letters to your
particular AOR should be anticipated in the future.
Sorry for the confusion
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Cc: STEVENS, KEVIN L; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Subject: DRAFT Follow-up Letter

(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: When do you plan to get to the RRB?
We need to get together and then present this to him in plain terms.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 25 15:31:18 2007
Subject: RE: When do you plan to get to the RRB?
10-4. An interesting thing came up. You'll recall I asked the Sectors to send me the info for only fence
footprint land owners. SDC now has a grand total of 1 land owner, and that is BLM. That sounds sort
of shocking, and initially I thought perhaps we should go back to the way we were doing things...but
after some thought...if we can build within the 60' Roosevelt Reservation we don't have NEARLY the
issues. Obviously there will be some areas where it will be much cheaper to have some more temp
easement for construction, however it may be worth paying a bit more for a company to build within the
60' and roll on through the construction. Also, we can get easement where it is easy without slowing
down construction as long as NEPA documents show the entire area we might use.
The main thing I need is to know what Chief Self wants shown in the reports. I see a huge difference
in reporting a project as red due to an easement we might be able to do without and reporting it as red
due to a fence footprint owner saying he won't sell to us. I need a bit of direction here. The issue is
really not that cut and dried when you consider the RGV with it's owners S of the proposed fence
location, and there are more examples.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Don't know. This is taking awhile longer than expected.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 25 15:18:24 2007
Subject: When do you plan to get to the RRB?
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: 1st set of site visits for Phase II of PF 225
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:58:21 PM
Importance: High
Why none! If they were unidentified, they would not be red.
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:57 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: 1st set of site visits for Phase II of PF 225
How many are unidentified landowners?

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jul 19 12:51:22 2007
No, I missed .91 for TCA
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Entire SWB?

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jul 19 12:49:34 2007
7.14
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
How many miles are RED across SWB? Please respond ASAP!

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jul 19 12:37:03 2007

Subject: FW: 1st set of site visits for Phase II of PF 225
Folks,
Thanks to all of the affected Sectors for your willingness to work on such a short notice. The basic
schedule below refers to the week of July 30-Aug 3. Here is the information (and an explanation of
what is still necessary) regarding this set of site visits. I will be out of pocket next week (back Friday)
so please coordinate the agenda and motel recommendations with (b) (6) I can be reached at
(b) (6) It looks as though Marfa Sector is not affected by this round.
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

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

Subject: 1st set of site visits for Phase II of PF 225
Team:
After a brief discussion with (b) (6) and (b) (6) this morning we have decided to begin the initial
phases of setting up site visits for the Phase II projects in the following order if possible:
1. Yuma (Monday and Tuesday)

2. El Centro (Wednesday)
3. San Diego (Thursday and Friday)
(b) has assured me that the CBP agents will help us determine the closest decent hotel to stay in while
(6)
visiting their respective sectors. As well as help to build a tentative agenda, including driving time and
directions from hotel to sites and travel time from station to station, while we are in their Sectors with
their Station personnel. CBP, please coordinate with the Federal Stakeholders (BLM, IBWC, USFWS,
etc.) to attend these site visits if they so wish. Finally, I would like to request that each Sector provide
us with a name and phone number of a contact at the Sector and at each Station we will be
coordinating with.
(b) and team: I will be out of the office for the next few days, please coordinate with (b) (6) at
(b) (6) or (b) (6)
Thank you in advance for your time and help,

(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Engineering and Construction Support Office
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
I agree
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
We need to get together and then present this to him in plain terms.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 25 15:31:18 2007
10-4. An interesting thing came up. You'll recall I asked the Sectors to send me the info for only fence
footprint land owners. SDC now has a grand total of 1 land owner, and that is BLM. That sounds sort
of shocking, and initially I thought perhaps we should go back to the way we were doing things...but
after some thought...if we can build within the 60' Roosevelt Reservation we don't have NEARLY the
issues. Obviously there will be some areas where it will be much cheaper to have some more temp
easement for construction, however it may be worth paying a bit more for a company to build within the
60' and roll on through the construction. Also, we can get easement where it is easy without slowing
down construction as long as NEPA documents show the entire area we might use.
The main thing I need is to know what Chief Self wants shown in the reports. I see a huge difference
in reporting a project as red due to an easement we might be able to do without and reporting it as red
due to a fence footprint owner saying he won't sell to us. I need a bit of direction here. The issue is
really not that cut and dried when you consider the RGV with it's owners S of the proposed fence
location, and there are more examples.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Don't know. This is taking awhile longer than expected.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 25 15:18:24 2007
Subject: When do you plan to get to the RRB?

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: RE - 8 Disks (Redacted) 2 - RE - 2 RRB - (Redacted) 1

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: RE - 8 Disks (Redacted) 2 - RE - 2 RRB - (Redacted) 1

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

From: SELF, JEFFREY (

To: (b) (6)

Sounds good (b) if (b) n is good with it then go with it.

From: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

From: SELF, JEFFREY D

From: (b) (6)

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

Cc: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)

Sent: Tue Jun 12 14:43:11 2007

Deputies & Assistant Chiefs,

Mail delivery notification to the PLO will be conducted by the USACE.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

We are currently working with CBP Legal on (b) (5)

There will be more information to follow.

From: (b) (6)

Take Care- (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

If there are any additional questions, please let me know.

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

Sent: Mon Jun 04 20:13:54 2007

Cc: (b) (6)

Attached is a description/agenda for the planned trip to the Texas

<<Texas Mobile Tower assessment visit.doc>>

From: (b) (6)

Are you two treehuggers happy now!

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

Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Wed Jun 06 16:14:39 2007

Note the date (6-07-07) within the file name. Thanks.

<<Fence Summary 06-7-07 GB.xls>>

From: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

From: SELF, JEFFREY D

10-4 we got the original also. Thanks.

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

Assistant Chief Patrol Agent

From: (b) (6)

Note (b) (6) message, I didn’t know if you’d received it

ASSISTANT CHIEF PATROL AGENT

From: (b) (6)

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

Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D; STEVENS, KEVIN L; (b) (6)

Sent: Wed Jun 13 10:14:07 2007

Subject: RE: DRAFT Follow-up Letter

I think the file has all the necessary information.

Secure Border Initiative

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

From: (b) (6)

Please inform of your decision on forward movement.

From: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: DRAFT Follow-up Letter

Secure Border Initiative

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sorry for the confusion

From: (b) (6)

Cc: STEVENS, KEVIN L; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)

DRAFT Follow-up Letter

Mail delivery notification to the PLO will be conducted by the USACE.