CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: Re - 4 A Couple of Issues Clarified (Redacted) 4 - Weekly Reporting (Redacted) 1

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

Subject: Re: A couple of issues clarified
Date: Monday, June 25, 2007 6:34:37 AM
The silence is because we can't even get the higher ups to admit we have a "pretty solid" laydown of
the fence. I will try to get over to the RRB in the afternoon. (b) and (b) have a couple of taskers that
were given to us from the Thursday DDR. Can you look them(6) (6)point them in the right direction
over and
for getting solutions/answers? Thanks.
(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 25 06:31:01 2007
Subject: RE: A couple of issues clarified
Thanks, I will. I think the BP should REALLY CONSIDER taking a look at the birding issue in RGV much
sooner rather than later. I think we can address the issue fairly easily, and though some questions
can't be answered until the real estate issues are solved, someone should really open dialog with the
affected communities and let them know we will think creatively on this issue. We are currently giving
the opposition much ammunition by our continued silence.
(b)
(6)
-----Original Message-----
From:(b) (6)
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 6:28 AM
To: (b) (6)
(b) ,
I will be at the CDR in Crystal City this morning. (b) should be there too. Let me know if you need
(6)
anything. (6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 25 06:23:52 2007
(b)
(6)
It appears that (b) is responding to (b) , so it's from both. He and I took a short term solution to (b)
evening. I asked (b) 6)to shoot me that email, as I don't have time to fight with people
for approval Fri (6) (6)
today to get the reports. (b) has(6)to revisit the stop light with the DC this Thurs, so we've got some
very compressed timelines. (6)We have some serious re-tooling to do with this stop light. The desire from
the powers that be appears to be an 80,000 ft. view with 500 ft. resolution. I think I know how to do
it, but we will need to discuss some technology. I don't think it will be with boards. We probably need
the computer jock that (b) was talking about.
(6)
More specifics - I find that we are getting different levels of reporting based upon how far in the weeds
the sector is diffing coupled with the complexity of the problem on the ground. For example, the
additional owners Marfa reported last week are not fence footprint owners, but owners from whom we
will (may) need to obtain a temporary easement. We should not, in all likelihood, show the same level
of significance to one as the other. Should a project flash over to red because someone wants to deny
us temporary use of a piece of property? I would bet the legal issues are different, and all of this is
prior to real estate folks speaking with the owners. I think we can't look at them in the same way.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 10:03 AM
To: (b) (6)
(b)
Is this a project enhancement from(b) (6)
(6) or from(b) Just checking. Do you need anything?
Let me know. (6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sun Jun 24 08:21:16 2007

Subject: A couple of issues clarified
All,
I have already received some high quality results on the short turnaround request below. This is greatly
appreciated. The following will clarify an issue or two which exist in some geographic areas:
* The weekly report should indicate land owners who fall within the actual footprint of the fence. If
you are reporting land owners from whom we will have to obtain temporary easement for construction,
or if their land lies completely south of the fence (within the US,) please indicate the issue (easement
needed, South of fence, etc.) on your Sector Land Owner Information Spreadsheet (the report with
names and addresses.) I must be able to easily differentiate between owners with land on which the
fence will sit, and owners with access issues.
* For land owners with multiple properties, please indicate an owner only one time per fence
project (on the weekly report.) List them as many times as necessary on the Land Owner Information
Database. (By all means, if an owner has land within the fence footprint in two projects, list him once
per project on the weekly report.)
Thanks for your help,
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 6:20 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Land Owner Information - Short Turnaround
Importance: High
The message below indicates the immediate needs of SBInet and OBP. Your assistance with this short
turnaround item will be greatly appreciated.
The best way to report this information is in the form of the weekly reports and the landowner
information spreadsheets you are already sending to me on a regular basis.
A couple of common mistakes I am seeing on the weekly report is double reporting miles (miles for
people not contacted also reported under the yellow column) and use of the old form. The current form
now has a column with no associated color for landowners who have not yet been contacted. If you do
not have the new form, please let me know and I’ll send it to you.
Please indicate on your spreadsheet of landowner information the reason for no contact with
appropriate land owners (as explained below.)
Please note the due date (b) (6) has noted below. I will be the intermediary for the information.
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject:
All, I need to capture the following information in order to complete the Red, Yellow, Green road map
that CBP is preparing for the Department.
- Provide exact or estimated number of miles of landowner property in rural areas where we have
proposed to build a fence. I know that this can be a problem in certain areas, but I will take any and all
information that you can provide. If you know that a landowner has a very small (residential lot) parcel,
identify them as “urban” and we will try and figure out the dimension of the plot.
- Identify exactly which land owners have not been contacted as of today, and the reason e.g.,
cannot locate/identify registered owner, they have not returned calls/letters as opposed to no contact
made. We will ultimately have to seek legal assistance for those that we cannot locate/identify.
- I need you to forward this updated information to (b) (6) by COB Monday, June
25, 2007.
From: (b) (6)
To: Jeffrey.Self(b) (6) v
Subject: Re: Memo to accompany disks
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 7:17:12 AM
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)
From: SELF, JEFFREY D (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 07:13:49 2007
Subject: RE: Memo to accompany disks
What did we use in the past. Talk to (b) and let him get a look at it.
(6)
Jeff
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:53 AM
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.
(b)
(6)
________________________________
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)
Cc: GIDDENS, GREGOR(
Subject: RE: Need to find out facts immediately
Date: Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:56:31 PM
Chief,
(b) was advised of this and he was going to take care of it. (b) is out of the loop on this and we
(6)
will be told to stand down. (6)
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:53 PM
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Need to find out facts immediately
Isn’t this the same thing that was spinning yesterday, and we have addressed? Why
is it spinning again?
From: GIDDENS, GREGORY

To: (b) (6) 'SELF, JEFFREY D'
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Need to find out facts immediately
Importance: High
FYI.
Greg G
From: (b) (6) ov]

To: Giddens, Gregory; (b) (6)
Subject: Need to find out facts immediately
Importance: High
I just gave (b) (6) and(b) in my office a heads-up on this, and passed on to (b) to start running
(6) When speaking with Hinojosa’s office, I was told of a(6)
this to ground internally. meeting that took place
in Edinburg (sp ?), TX on Monday, 14 May. According to their staff notes, (b) (6) told
media and district staff for Hutchison, Cuellar, KBH, Ortiz, and Hinojosa:
 DHS will build 70 miles of fence in Rio Grand Valley by end of CY08
 DHS will build 370 miles of fence in TX by end of CY08
 DHS will build 700 miles of fence along SW by end of CY08
 No final determinations have been made on property
 Local outreach/input will conclude by June 29
 Local outreach/input MAY impact fence locations
 Fence will be 12 ft tall
I have found the following article in The Monitor which looks a lot more on message, so we need to
know exactly what occurred.
Like it or not, Valley fence to be 70 miles and built by 2008
Michael Barnett
May 15, 2007 - 5:47PM
McALLEN — Federal authorities are planning to raise about 70 miles of the border
fence in the Rio Grande Valley by the end of 2008, area leaders and U.S. Border
Patrol officials disclosed Tuesday.
The announcement followed the first official briefing Hidalgo and Starr county leaders
received on the fence, following weeks of news reports that federal officials have
already mapped out construction locations for the project along the U.S. border with
Mexico.
McAllen Mayor Richard Cortez, flanked at a news conference by Hidalgo County

Judge J.D. Salinas and Starr County Judge Eloy Vera, said leaders were
disappointed by federal officials’ decision.
But they said they had to face reality — the fence is going up.
“We do not need to wait for the future to tell us we have lost,” Cortez said at a news
conference in the lobby of Wingate Inn in South McAllen. “I can tell you, we’ve
already lost.”
Now, border leaders hope to work with federal officials to mitigate what they perceive
as the fence’s negative effects on commerce and the environment.
“We want to make sure that instead of confrontation, we have communication to

better our area,” Salinas said.
The leaders met earlier Tuesday with Reynaldo Garza, acting chief patrol agent of
the Border Patrol’s Valley sector.
Vera, Hidalgo County Commissioner Hector “Tito” Palacios and Palmview Mayor
Jorge Garcia also attended the meeting.
Garza did not attend the news conference following the meeting, but Oscar Saldaña,
the Border Patrol’s spokesman for the Valley sector, called the meeting extremely
productive.
“This is just part of the outreach program, and just one part of our overall security
plan,” Saldaña said.
“We’re talking about what we’re going to do. The when and how is undecided.”
Saldaña said roughly 150 miles of the fence is planned to be built in Texas. Of that,
about 70 miles would be erected between Roma and Brownsville.
All 370 miles of the fence are scheduled to be finished by the end of December 2008,
Saldaña said.
The fence would be sectional, and not form a continuous line across any part of the
Valley.
And it would be mostly constructed in urban areas, near the international bridges, so
as to funnel the traffic of migrants to areas where the federal presence is strongest.
The exact location and building materials for the fence have not been finalized.
Area leaders said they hoped the U.S. Department of Homeland Security would
consult with them to see how to “soften the blow” of the fence’s construction.
They are still smarting after reports indicated the Border Patrol had been going
forward with plans for the fence before officially consulting them.
In February, according to local leaders, Homeland Security Secretary Michael

Chertoff said he would consult with them before any plans for the fence were
finalized.
President Bush signed the project into law last year as part of his administration’s
plan to stem the tide of illegal immigrants and drugs coming into the country.
“I’m very grateful that Chief Garza came down and gave us the details,” Salinas said.
“I wish Secretary Chertoff did the same. Or maybe he didn’t know what was going on.
I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.”
Saldaña, the local Border Patrol spokesman, conceded that his agency initially “did a
bad job” communicating the plan.
“We’re trying to clear the miscommunication and clear the misunderstanding,”

Saldaña said.
“And, obviously, we will take the community’s input into our plans.”
____
Michael Barnett covers law enforcement and general assignments for The Monitor.
He can be reached at (956) 683-4447.
(b) (6)
Office of Legislative Affairs
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Weekly Reporting Requirement
Date: Monday, May 07, 2007 7:38:12 PM
Assistant Chief Scudder,
Attached is a spreadsheet that we came up with in the El Paso Sector. (b) (5)
We are continuing to map and identify more property owners for PF-225 and we will
do the same for SBInet technology once we have a clearer picture of where these
resources may be deployed. Initial contacts with landowners have not created any
controversy but information offered to them has been, for the most part, very general.
We will continue to improve and update the spreadsheet each week. Please do not
hesitate to call if you need additional information.
Take Care,
(b) (6)
Special Operations Supervisor
El Paso Sector
8901 Montana Avenue
El Paso, Texas 79925
(b) (6)
From:(
Sent: bMonday, April 30, 2007 8:54 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Weekly Reporting Requirement
Outreach POCs,
As this process continues, many of the program managers are requiring somewhat specific information
in order to brief the Commissioner and the Secretary. The information you have been and continue to
provide is being used to evaluate not only progress but direction for the project.
SBInet is requesting that all Border Patrol Sectors within the PF-225 footprint, to supply HQ with
quantitative information weekly. Please complete all highlighted information and return it to me by no
later than Monday May 7 th . Updates of this information will be due by the close of business every
Friday until the project is complete.
The information being requested is simply totals of what you have been compiling since your Outreach
Workshop. This should be essentially a fill in the blank. I would ask all SWB sectors to complete this
requirement. They have been asking for information on all of the SWB sectors.
Any questions or concerns then please contact me at the numbers listed below.
Thanks in advance.
PRIVATE LANDOWNERS (all non-federally owned land)
Number………………………..…X
Number contacted……............X
Number of concern……...........X
Number of miles of concern.....X
PUBLIC LANDOWNERS (only federally owned land)
Number………………………..…X
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
Office of Border Patrol
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6.5E
Washington, D.C. 20229
(b) (6)
From: GIDDENS, GREGOR(
To: ADAMS, ROWDY ( ; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: [URGENT] S1BB - 09.21.07 - SBI Update
Date: Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:25:23 PM
Just want to make sure that no PF70 miles are in the 78.4. I think we started PF70 before FY07.
Greg G

From: ADAMS, ROWDY D
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Sep 20 22:20:22 2007
Just got off the phone with (b) (6)
The mile that were complete as of Sept 06 should be the 78.4 number (re-verify mileage with standard
methodolgy and GIS equipment). The 07 number should be the PF70 miles plus the BTD door miles (as
of COB today 66.93 + 1.84 equals 68.77). And the 08 number should be the range, by state, of miles
for PF225.
Correct????

To: ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Sep 20 22:03:12 2007
Thanks to all.
Just trying to buy some time...
See you in the am.
Still in Dallas!
Greg G

Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Sep 20 21:54:48 2007
(b)
(6)
We'll have the package ready (b) worked late on the TPs. Maps for the package (congressional
districts) are finished. The Red(6)yellow green mile map should be done b ut we need to task it in the
morning.
Rowdy
To: HUMPHRIES, DIANA B.; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Sep 20 21:31:00 2007
We need to psuh back and get the deadline moved to 1030.
We need to send up a solid package.
I will be in by 1000 and would like to have a quick review. Plane is delayed and I will land around
0200.
Greg G

From: (b) (6)
To: ADAMS, ROWDY D
Cc: (b) (6) ; GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Sep 20 19:29:12 2007
Subject: Fw: [URGENT] S1BB - 09.21.07 - SBI Update
Hi Rowdy,
Just wanted to clarify, my understanding is we will be bringing some of the materials we were preparing
for the hill to the S1 meeting tomorrow, is that correct,? Do you know exactly what we need to
provide?
We have been given an 8AM deadline tomorrow from CBP Tasking. Tammy and I just want to make
sure we are pulling together whatever is needed.
I know sometimes we just prepare the briefing memo and then just bring the back-up materials to the
meeting?
Thanks!
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Special Assistant to
Gregory Giddens, Executive Director,
Secure Border Initiative
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Sep 20 16:36:00 2007

Subject: [URGENT] S1BB - 09.21.07 - SBI Update
Tasker Name
SBI Update
Lead Office(s)
Required Coordination
Product
Briefing Memo and Background
Notes
Please see meeting details below.
Due to CBP Tasking
8:00 a.m. tomorrow, September 21, 2007
Required coordinators - please provide your input to the lead office as soon as possible.
Tasker information, contact lists, and templates can be found online at

(b) (2)
<(b) (2) . Please ensure that your
response adheres to the guidelines set forth in the CBP Style Book, which can be found at
(b) (2) <BLOCKED::h(b) (2) > . All responses should
be submitted directly to cbptasking@cbp.dhs.gov <BLOCKED (b) (2) > . Please
do not modify subject lines as we use them for tracking purposes.
Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
(b)
(6)
------------------------------------------------
(b) (6)
on behalf of CBPtasking
Office of the Commissioner
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:25 PM
To: (b) (6) e
Cc:(b) (6)
Subject: [URGENT] S1BB - 09.21.07 - SBI Update
Importance: High
SECRETARY BRIEFING BOOK TASKING
Event Date
Friday, 09.21.07 (1430-1530)
Event Name
SBI Update
Lead Component
CBP
Product
Briefing Memo and Background
Notes
Attendees:
S1
TBD
Location: NAC, Secretary’s Conference Room 5110 D
OGC Coordination: Please ensure that briefing materials have been fully coordinated with OGC staff
working in your component.
Meeting Classification: Please include bullet in background section of briefing memorandum if the
meeting or any of the briefing materials are classified. (i.e., “This meeting [or any of the briefing
materials] are classified”).
Please note that all materials being shown to the Secretary must be passed through Exec Sec first.
Please do not bring anything to the meeting ES has not seen (classified or unclassified) without prior
approval. If a presentation is to be made, Lead Component is responsible for providing an appropriate
number of handouts at the meeting. (15 if the meeting takes place in Rm. 5110 D; 25 if in Rm. 5107.)
DHS Briefing Book Standards and Procedures (including links to template and example) are located on
the DHS intranet at:(b) (2) If you are having
trouble opening the link, please copy and paste the address into your Internet Explorer Browser. You
may also hold the “CTRL” button down while clicking the link with your mouse.
When transmitting to BriefingStaffA and BriefingStaffB, please use the following format for the subject
line of your email:
· S1BB – Date of Event (mm.dd.yy) – Description (1-2 words) (Recommended BriefingStaffB

member which should review) [Example: “S1BB – 01.04.06 – FEMA (PPIA, Counselors)”]
· Note: For Deputy Secretary briefing paper, please replace “S2” for “S1”.
Thank you,
(b) (6)
Secretary's Briefing Book
Office of the Executive Secretariat

Office of the Secretary
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: When do you plan to get to the RRB?
Date: Monday, June 25, 2007 3:34:20 PM
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)
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 3:21 PM
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
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 25 15:18:24 2007
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Date: Sunday, June 24, 2007 10:03:10 AM
(b) ,
Is this a project enhancement from (b) (6)
(6) or from (b) Just checking. Do you need anything?
Let me know. (6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sun Jun 24 08:21:16 2007

All,
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

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

Importance: High
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject:
25, 2007.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: A question
Date: Friday, June 01, 2007 2:59:34 PM
(b)
(6)
Is our ROE for surveys and such ready to go?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jun 01 14:46:05 2007
Subject: RE: A question
(b) (6)
I don’t get that from their limited data. From what I know about the SW, it is very likely that he owns a
postage stamp bit of land with a house on it, and leases the rest of the ranch from BLM or the state.
The reason I am suspicious of the ownership is, the PF225 spreadsheet shows it as state land under
lease.
Also, allow me to interest you in the attached file, which you or your various stations may use to record
the appropriate data. Please then verify the accuracy and return it to me each Thurs. (For the contact
info (not the Progress Report), once it has been submitted in the correct format, a simple no change to
landowner contact info will be sufficient for those times that it all stays the same.) The title portion of
the spread sheet may be changed to reflect the particular station, if you opt to go that route. In this
case I will count on receiving the entire batch from you each week.
Thanks much,
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: A question
DGL says he’s a private land owner by the name of(b) (6) . See attached (start your data base)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:49 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: A question
(b) (6)
For that project F-1, is that state land or private? I am getting contradiction between the report and
info on the lay down.
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY(
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: alternative fence
Date: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 9:56:39 AM
(b)
(6)
Stay on this and make sure TCA communicates what they are doing before they get to the point of no
return. Check with (b) and find out if the Fence Lab design will be the only design deployed. It is my
understanding that (6)
that is the case.
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Tue May 01 08:00:39 2007
Subject: RE: alternative fence
(b) (6)
Has this alternative fence been introduced to the SBInet Fence Lab? If this project is part of PF225, the
last direction we were given from S-2 was to utilize Fence Lab solutions. So far, they have 9 fence
types that are currently being tested at the TTI Facility in College Station, Texas. Next week, SBInet
will be concluding vehicle crash tests and BP will be conducting separate vulnerability tests. Any
proposed fence for PF225 needs to be routed through HQ for approval. I believe that this was
discussed at last weeks FEIT and PMT meetings.
(b) (6)
HQ/SBInet Liaison
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 7:09 PM
To: (b) (6)

(b) (6)
I’ll be at the Fencelab testing next week in Texas. The design looks like everything else I’ve looked at.
Is there any way we can see what the material is and what it will look like when it’s built? Basically a
sample prior to the procurement.
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 3:12 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) - We need to get an OK from you or (b) (6) on this so we can start procurement.
(6)
(b) (6)
Chief, Tactical Infrastructure Branch
ECSO
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6) ractor

Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 10:32 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) Her is the revised version with estimated costs and spec on the channel…
(6)
Thanks
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From:(b) (6) ]
To: Montgomery, Tim SWF Contractor
Looks good to me. How about a materials cost-per-mile?
(b
)
________________________________
From: (b) (6) l]

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: alternative fence
This is what we are looking out.. easy, simple, tough, you can see through it, and off the shelf items…
let me know what you think
I need to get procurement underway ASAP unless we have a standard design for military application
that is approved by OBP…
(b) (6)
Tactical Infrastructure Program Manager (Tucson Sector)

101 North 1st Avenue, Suite 3100 | Phoenix, Arizona | 85003 |
(b) (6)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: article
Date: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:07:07 AM
(b)
(6)
All I can say it is being worked.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 8:16 AM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Subject: article
Can you tell me what the following is about?
Like it or not, Valley fence to be 70 miles and built by 2008

(McAllen, TX).
The announcement followed the first official briefing Hidalgo and Starr county
leaders received on the fence, following weeks of news reports that federal
officials have already mapped out construction locations for the project along the
U.S. border with Mexico.
Full Story:
http://www.themonitor.com:80/news/fence_2396___article.html/border_leaders.html
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6) J
Cc: (b) (6) ; Ronald.Colburn(b) (6)
Subject: Re: Article in National Geographic May 2007 Magazine
Date: Monday, April 30, 2007 2:38:07 PM
(b)
(6)
Get the article please read it and make sure this rancher has a viable concern. I don't recall fence in
DRT as a part of 225. Not to say there is none but we don't a fire started where there is no need for
one. Others our sure to feed off of this. Let me know what is correct and then reach out to DRT and
let them know what you find out.
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: Hill, Randy R; (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D

Sent: Mon Apr 30 12:30:47 2007
Subject: RE: Article in National Geographic May 2007 Magazine
Jeff,
I don't know if you are aware of this article, but the interactive map shows a proposed fence in Del Rio
Sector from just west of Del Rio all the way thru Eagle Pass. 35+ miles of that area belong to one
owner-(b) (6) who is a friend of the President and a staunch supporter of the Border Patrol.
However, he is adamantly opposed to the fence concept in this aor. For sure, the map will have the
mayors in Del Rio & Eagle Pass against us-along with the respective city councils.
Though the article is centered on Naco, the SBI messaging in Texas may get more complicated after
folks read this and then look at the map to extrapolate just what this means to Texas. Just FYI.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Article in National Geographic May 2007 Magazine

Importance: High
fy
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Article in National Geographic May 2007 Magazine
Importance: High
(b) (6)
(b) (6) and was shown a copy of the May
2007 edition of National Geographic. It contains an article titled "Our Walls, Ourselves." The article also
contains a map of the Southern Border (pgs 122-23) showing the entire border area between Eagle
Pass and Del Rio with a "Proposed barrier". I haven't read the article yet, but the map could certainly be
misleading to our local ranchers.
Thought you might like to know. The entire article can be found at the web-link below. A link to the
map itself is also included.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Article in National Geographic May 2007 Magazine
Importance: High
Article Title: Our Walls, Ourselves
Pages in Magazine: 116-139
Featured Article Link (Website):

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0705/feature5/index.html
(Click on interactive map on the tool bar located on the left side of the screen
to see the map of the border wall located on pg. 122-123 in the magazine
article)
Link to the map itself below:

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0705/feature5/map.html
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: articles
Date: Thursday, April 19, 2007 7:27:23 AM
Thanks(b) (6) please keep me updated.

From: (b) (6)
To: Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Apr 18 21:16:34 2007

Subject: Fw: articles
Jeff,
We will get with RGV guys tomorrow to find out what they actually spoke about and showed the
landowner. FYI. Apparently S2 was good with the liaison guys showing a map of the Secure Fence Act
laydown and the smaller footprint of the PF225 laydown as an indicator of how we only want to put
fence in the most critical and operationally sound locations. (Without bringing up future fence building
of course). And so it begins....
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Apr 18 20:58:14 2007
Subject: articles
Evening gentlemen.
There have been a number of follow-on articles over the last few hours, and many more to come I'm
sure, but I thought I'd forward this one.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
April 18, 2007, 5:26PM

Feds to meet with Rio Grande landowners about border fence
By LYNN BREZOSKY Associated Press Writer

© 2007 The Associated Press
HARLINGEN, Texas - The first public steps toward building President Bush's proposed border fence in
Texas are beginning with Border Patrol agents gathering Rio Grande Valley landowners to a meeting
about the project.
The first fencing in Texas, designed to help control illegal immigration, will be erected for 2 1/2 miles on
either side of eight bridges between the United States and Mexico, said a landowner in Roma who met
with Border Patrol agents earlier this week.
Bush last May proposed 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, for which Congress has
appropriated $1.2 billion. Landowners and others along the border have complained that it will do little
to control immigration and will cut off water access for people, agriculture, livestock and wildlife along
the border.
Noel Benavides, a Roma alderman, said Border Patrol agents showed him maps and preliminary
information about 40 miles of fencing near eight ports of entry. He said he and several other land
owners were to get more information at the meeting next week.
"They said it was a done deal," he said.
Customs and Border Protection spokesman Mike Friel in Washington said he could offer few details,
other than that CBP was committed to erecting 370 miles of primary fencing along the Southwest
border by the end of 2008.
"At this point we're reaching out to landowners," spokesman Mike Friel said. "We have a commitment to
maintain awareness of what we're doing to secure the border. ... Our strategy is to add the right mix of
personnel and property along the border."
The House Homeland Security Appropriations committee released $425 million of that in late March, said
Kirstin Brost, spokeswoman for the committee.
Some Texas congressmen have urged Homeland Security officials to consider the effects a barrier could
have on irrigation and recreation, as well as on wildlife corridors that state and federal officials have
spent years building up.
"We specifically mentioned they needed to do outreach to local communities," said U.S. Rep. Henry
Cuellar, D-Laredo.
Cuellar said the Roma meeting could only be a step toward a fence on private property, because the
government would have to first obtain rights to the land.
"They cannot start bulldozing private property without eminent domain," he said.
Friel said he was not prepared to speak about government seizure of private property for the project.
"We are committed to an ongoing effort to maintain awareness of our efforts and to partner with
landowners who have land on the international boundary," he said.
Benavides said he and other landowners never thought the fence would really happen.
Benavides objects to the fence. His property on the Rio Grande dates back to a 1760s Spanish land
grant, and he worries about the message it will send to Mexico. His family ties across the river predate
the treaty that made the river the U.S-Mexico border.
The land is also a haven for migratory birds and a place for Boy Scout and other outings, he said.
"The river has been a lifeline all these years," he said. "We don't see the river as a dividing line. We
have canoe rides, we have kayaking. ... You're going to have a fence, you're going to have a locked
gate. Who's going to have the key?"
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Border Fence
Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:19:38 PM
(b) (6)
Can we do whatever possible to make this happen by noon tomorrow, the Chief has an upcoming town
hall down there on this issue. Its a high priority.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:11 PM
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Border Fence
Sir,
Using the information that was previously used to create the proposed PF225 maps, can we draw
down to Mr. Cuellar’s 28 th District and produce a snapshot of this area. Sorry for the late asking, but I
have been swamped all day and did not get a chance to come down and ask in person.
I can get with you first thing in the a.m. though. Short notice, but is this doable ?
(b) (6)
From: GIDDENS, GREGORY (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Is this in work? We need to support Rep Cuellar. He is helping us work through the issue.
(b)
(6)
Let’s check in the am…
Thanks,
Greg G
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:45 AM
To: Giddens, Gregory
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Border Fence
Importance: High
(b)
(6)
Could we get a more detailed map for Rep Cuellar of existing/planned fence for 28 th District of TX by
noon Thursday as requested below?
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Border Fence
(b)
(6)
Articles continue to be released and maps are being shown (according to the article below). The
Congressman will be in Starr County both Friday & Saturday this week.
The Congressman would like to see the drawing before he departs on Thursday noon.
Thanking you in advance for your prompt attention to this request.
(b)
(6)
Houston & Texas News

April 21, 2007, 9:07PM
Landowners, U.S. agents talk about border

fence
Some Texas lawmakers warn of barrier's effects on the region
Associated Press
HARLINGEN - The first public steps toward building President Bush's proposed border
fence in Texas are beginning with Border Patrol agents gathering Rio Grande Valley
landowners for a meeting about the project.
The first fence in Texas, designed to help control illegal immigration, will be erected for 2
1/2 miles on either side of eight bridges between the U.S. and Mexico, said a landowner
in Roma who met with Border Patrol agents last week.
Bush last May proposed 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, for which
Congress has appropriated $1.2 billion. Landowners and others along the border have
complained that it will do little to control immigration and will cut off water access for
people, agriculture, livestock and wildlife along the border.
Noel Benavides, a Roma alderman, said Border Patrol agents showed him maps and
preliminary information about 40 miles of fencing near eight ports of entry. He said he
and several other landowners were to get more information at a second meeting.
"They said it was a done deal," he said.

Customs and Border Protection spokesman Mike Friel in Washington said he could offer
few details, other than that CBP is committed to erecting 370 miles of primary fencing
along the Southwest border by the end of 2008.
"At this point we're reaching out to landowners," Friel said. "We have a commitment to
maintain awareness of what we're doing to secure the border."
The House Homeland Security Appropriations Committee released $425 million of that in
late March, said Kirstin Brost, spokeswoman for the committee.
Some Texas congressmen have urged Homeland Security officials to consider the effects a
barrier could have on irrigation and recreation, as well as on wildlife.
"We specifically mentioned they needed to do outreach to local communities," said U.S.
Rep. Henry Cuellar, D -Laredo.
Cuellar said the Roma meeting could be only a step toward a fence on private property
because the government would have to first obtain rights to the land.
"They cannot start bulldozing private property without eminent domain," he said.
Friel said he was not prepared to speak about government seizure of private property for
the project.
"We are committed to an ongoing effort to maintain awareness of our efforts and to
partner with landowners who have land on the international boundary," he said.
Benavides said he and other landowners never thought the fence would really happen.
Benavides objects to the fence. His property on the Rio Grande dates to a 1760s Spanish
land grant, and he worries about the message it will send to Mexico. His family ties across
the river predate the treaty that made the river the U.S.-Mexico border.
The land is also a haven for migratory birds and a place for Boy Scout and other outings,
he said.
"The river has been a lifeline all these years," he said. "We don't see the river as a
dividing line. We have canoe rides, we have kayaking. ... You're going to have a fence,
you're going to have a locked gate. Who's going to have the key?"
To: David.Aguila (b) (6) (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Who is confirmed for tomorrow"s S1 meeting on the Border Outreach?
Date: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 9:15:17 PM
Chief,
The Commissioner's Office called me today and advised that the Deputy Commissioner wanted me to
attend a 9:30 AM Communications Brief with her and others in prep for a brief with S1 but that was all
that was relayed. The 9:30 was canceled later today.
Jeff

From: AGUILAR, DAVID V (b) (6)
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6) Self, Jeffrey D <(b) (6)
Adams, Rowdy D (b) (6)
Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6)

Sent: Tue May 15 20:00:18 2007
Subject: Re: Who is confirmed for tomorrow's S1 meeting on the Border Outreach?
(b)
(6)
Same here. Had not heard anything on this. Timeand place?
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) AGUILAR, DAVID V; 'JEFFREY.Self(b) (6)
(b) (6)
'Rowdy.Adams(b) (6) (b) (6)
Sent: Tue May 15 19:56:30 2007

First I have heard of it...
Greg G

From: (b) (6) >
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) Giddens, Gregory (b) (6)
Sent: Tue May 15 19:52:03 2007
The Landowner Engagement After Action needs to have CBP and SBI there.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue May 15 19:29:47 2007
Subject: RE: Who is confirmed for tomorrow's S1 meeting on the Border Outreach?
Meeting re: Southwest Landowner Engagement Background (for Wednesday):

(b) (6)
SBInet/Border Fence (for Thursday):

S2 and (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(optional)
Ralph Basham
Greg Giddens
Chief Aguilar
(b) (6)
(on travel)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:27 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: Who is confirmed for tomorrow's S1 meeting on the Border Outreach?
Can you answer? In a mtg w/ (b) . Thx.

(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue May 15 19:25:19 2007
Subject: Who is confirmed for tomorrow's S1 meeting on the Border Outreach?
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device
To: GIDDENS, GREGOR( ; (b) (6) AGUILAR, DAVID ( ; Rowdy.Adams(b) (6) ;
(b) (6) COLBURN, RONALD (
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: CBP Tasking
Date: Saturday, May 05, 2007 11:59:07 AM
Greg,
Understood, we have the desired lay down identified and will produce a new baseline to be briefed.
The LRT question is the result of outdated data being used. First contact by OBP to LRT result in the
request for no fence to be built in LRT. This was based on their operational analysis that removing the
caine met the operational needs more so than the fence at this time.
Jeff

To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; AGUILAR, DAVID V;
COLBURN, RONALD S
Cc:(b) (6)
Sent: Sat May 05 11:39:11 2007
I now understand that the plan has changed and that we are not building fence in Laredo.
We need to take the new baseline to S1/S2 during the Tues fence update.
Also, for the Cuellar session on Mon, we need to ensure this is presented operationally and not as a
result of push-back from Laredo.
Greg G

To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; AGUILAR, DAVID V;
COLBURN, RONALD S
Cc: (b) (6) COLBURN, RONALD S; (b) (6)
Sent: Sat May 05 08:32:50 2007
Jeff/(b)
The (6)
answer regarding fence at Laredo is not correct. Chief explicitly told us he wanted to build fence
according to the 370 miles baseline we had which calls for fence at Laredo.
The attached indicates a change from that position. We have to run that to ground and correct before
the Mon am session.
Greg G

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6) COLBURN, RONALD S; (b) (6)
Sent: Fri May 04 13:30:32 2007
Subject: CBP Tasking
Good afternoon (b)

(6)
Per our meeting with the Chief, attached are updated responses to yesterday’s taskers.
As we discussed, please route this for remaining Border Patrol review once your review is complete.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: ADAMS, ROWDY (
Cc: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY(b
(b) (6) LOSSMAN, LOREN ( ; R(b) (6)
COLBURN, RONALD (
Subject: RE: CBP-FWS Land Swap Option
Date: Friday, October 05, 2007 2:32:00 PM
Hi Rowdy,
Can you put me in contact with some folks from DHS/CBP that administer your
realty program? Once I receive their names, we can put them in contact
with our realty folks to begin these discussions.
(b)
(6)
"ADAMS, ROWDY D"

(b) (6)
To
(b) (6) >,
10/05/2007 02:09 (b) (6)
PM (b) (6)
"FLOSSMAN, LOREN W"

(b) (6)
cc
(b) (6)
"COLBURN, RONALD S"

(b) (6) "SELF,
JEFFREY D" (b) (6)
Subject
RE: CBP-FWS Land Swap Option
(b)
(6)
Thanks for following up on the idea. I have added some OBP folks as well
as (b) (6) and PF225 Project manager.
I think this is a terrific idea for a number of reasons and suits both
our interests. Truly, this a win-win solution to our current situation
in Sasabe.
What are the next steps?
Thanks Rowdy
From: (b) (6) ]
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 1:48 PM
To: Adams, Rowdy D; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: CBP-FWS Land Swap Option
Hi Rowdy and (b) (6)
(b) (6) from Buenos Aires NWR provided us the following information
concerning a potential land exchange (jurisdictional exchange) between
CBP
and the FWS. If we were to make this happen, the exchange would serve
to
resolve two borderland security issues involving the Sasabe fence and
Port
of Entry. You should also know that your field folks originally
proposed
at least part of this some time ago.
We can't make any final commitments at this time but we believe this is
something we could perhap pursue.
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
----- Forwarded by (b) (6) on 10/05/2007 01:29

PM
-----
(b)
(6)
To
10/04/2007 05:16 G(b)
(6)
PM (b) (6)
cc
(b) (6)
Subject
CBP-FWS Land Swap Option
(b) (6)
(b) (5)
(b)
(4),
(b)
(5),
(b)
(6)
4)
(b) (6) , Tucson Sector, Office of

Border Patrol ((b) (6)
(b) (6) , Tucson Sector, Office of
Border
(b) (6)
(b) (6) DHS/CBP Laguna Niguel Office
(b) (6)
I can provide more information, maps, etc, if needed. Thanks for your
support.
(b)
(6)
To: AGUILAR, DAVID(
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Conference Call with Congressman Rodriguez
Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 4:18:49 PM
Chief,
Here’s the information you requested. I will be sending you the Texas Mobile talking points in a
separate e mail.
Jeff
From:(
Sent: bTuesday, June 19, 2007 2:44 PM
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Conference Call with Congressman Rodriguez
Below are the details for tomorrow's conference call. The call is scheduled for 1pm, and the plan is for
all CBP participants to call in from the Reagan Building.
Congressman Rodriguez will be on the call, and at least staff from Congressman Reyes' office (if
not Reyes himself) will also be participating. Congressman Rodriguez's office is coordinating on the
local officials calling in, and I will keep checking back with his office to get their list of invitees.
Just for background: The conference call is at Congressman Rodriguez's request, after his office was
provided advance notice on Friday that letters would be going out to a handful (8, I believe) of
landowners requesting rights of entry to their land in order to perform survey and exploration for
potential technology deployment under Texas Mobile System. Rodriguez's office requested a
conference call with local officials to provide them with a general background on Texas Mobile - since
there is not much that can be shared at this point, it will have to remain at a fairly high-level SBInet
discussion. One of the concerns right now is that it is unclear how much fencing is associated with the
project - some of the (tentative) plans, which overlap with PF225 plans, show planned fencing in areas
where there is already fence. (b) is working with El Paso Sector and SBI to clear this issue up.
(6)
(b) (2)
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Office of Congressional Affairs
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Contractor Protocols
Date: Monday, May 21, 2007 6:40:16 AM
10-4, Thanks.
Jeff
From:(
Sent: bMonday, May 21, 2007 6:40 AM
Subject: RE: Contractor Protocols
We’ve got a draft that I’ll be showing to (b) (6) and the PF225/PF70 folks at 12:30 pm.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 6:38 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Contractor Protocols
Guys,
How are we coming with SOP for the contractors?
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 4:08 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: FW: Contractor Protocols
Jeff,
Think the team can develop a simpler version of the protocol paper, that maybe tries
to cover the complex issue with a series of steps/bullets?
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Contractor Protocols
(b) – I know you’re focusing on the Texas fence issues, but I think we do need the one pager
(6)
describing what the Army Corps, Boeing, etc., will be required to do before and during their work on
the border. If you could have someone draft this in the next week, that would be good. The paper you
provided at the ESC is a bit complicated – I am just looking for a short SOP to be distributed to
contractors. The rest you can provide the sectors from OBP and SBI HQ.
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Cuellar Request
Folks,
Please coordinate all SBInet outreach/communication events through OBP/OPA and if the SWB Sector
Chiefs need to be contacted we will coordinate with the Division Chief of SWB.
Thanks,
Jeffrey D. Self
Division Chief
Operational Planning and Analysis Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Remind (b) per C1, ALL SBInet and fence info is to be coordinated through Border Patrol now.
(6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From:(
Sent: bMonday, May 14, 2007 10:03 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Cuellar Request
It looks like(b) is out today - do you know who I should reach out to to get this coordinated with the
SWB Sector (6)Chiefs, or do you want to reach out to them?
I'm not really sure of the protocol.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
(b) (6) working on setting things up for 11:30. He’s calling the other Hill offices for logistics. Can we
get the local sector chiefs notified to see if they can make it?
From: (b) (6) v]
To: (b) (6)
Chief is pretty much out of commission for most of the day, but (b) (6) schedule looks semi-
open. Checked with Greg's schedule too, and the best time would be between 11-2 at some
point (preferably not ending right at 2, bc Stevens has a meeting then).
Can you figure out from(b) if that works for Cuellar, and I'll put something on both of their
schedules? (6)
From: (b) (6) ]

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 6:17 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Cuellar Request
As a follow-up to Monday’s VTC with Laredo officials, Congressman Cuellar has requested that
we do a larger VTC with the entire TX border delegation, the local BP sector Chiefs, and
Mayors. The goal would be to provide a forum to explain our proposals and receive their input
for incorporation and collaboration. They proposed next Thursday. I told them we are working
a comprehensive plan for outreach to include this very type of events, but said we need to
mature this in the next few days before committing to any details (time, etc).
As discussed, I’m sending this to the IPT to shape message/stakeholders and incorporate this
into the outreach plan, and for OCA to coordinate for appropriate CBP participation.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ; SELF, JEFFREY (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Subject: RE: DRAFT Follow-up Letter
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 6:45:53 AM
Sensitivity: Confidential
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)

Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 6:35 AM
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: FW: DRAFT Follow-up Letter
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:(
Sent: bTuesday, June 12, 2007 3:19 PM
To:( BEESON, PAUL A; (b) (6) ; COLBURN,
b
RONALD S; (b) (6) FISHER, MIKE J;
(b) (6) GILBERT, ROBERT W; Hill, Randy R; (b) (6)
MANJARREZ, VICTOR M; (b) (6)
SMIETANA, JOHN J; (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D; (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)

To: (b) (6) BEESON, PAUL A; (b) (6) COLBURN,
Cc: STEVENS, KEVIN L; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
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)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Draft Notice of Availability for Draft Environmental Assessments
Date: Thursday, June 07, 2007 1:13:57 PM
(b)
(6)
Okay. Just let me know when you all are "a go".
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jun 07 13:12:35 2007
Subject: Re: Draft Notice of Availability for Draft Environmental Assessments
No. This han't been shared yet. I'm proabably not going to be able to handle this until Monday, but it
will be shared with the team.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jun 07 12:47:11 2007
Subject: Fw: Draft Notice of Availability for Draft Environmental Assessments
(b) ,
(6)
Have the other components of the IPT been made aware of this going out (i.e intergovernmental
affairs) so Governor Richarsdson's office doesn't misconstrue any projects.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jun 07 12:42:33 2007

Subject: Draft Notice of Availability for Draft Environmental Assessments
(b) (6)
As we move forward in the preparation of the EA and SEA for Phase I of PF 225, we are required to
place a Notice of Availability (NOA) in local papers notifying the public of the availability of the
document.
I have attached the draft NOA for the Deming SEA that will be used as a boiler plate for the other
documents. Please review and provide comments.
The intent is to have these NOAs ready to go and await specific guidance from CBP/OBP when it is okay
to publish the NOA and release the EAs for public review.
<<Draft_deming NOA_edited (2).doc>>
FYI: I did as final review of the Deming EA on Tuesday and once approval is received from CBP/OPB, it
is ready to be released. We also have a transmittal letter that goes with the draft documents to the
different resource agencies. I shall be sending a draft copy of this letter for review and approval in a
few minutes.
v/r
(b) (6)
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PLANNER
ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT OFFICE
819 TAYLOR STREET, ROOM 3A28

PO BOX 17300
FORT WORTH, TX 76102
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: DRT Weekly Outreach Report
Date: Friday, July 13, 2007 6:51:27 AM
(b)
(6)
I am using the ROE sent out last month. I am signing each of those that pertain
to our fence projects here in DRT.
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: EA Next Step
(b)
(6)
The only change (actually addition) would be to the NOA. I would add that it is the “U.S. Border Patrol
Deming Station”. (in some form or fashion). I don’t know if it is intentional or not but “Deming
Station”…..could be a fire station or a filling station. My 2 cents (free of charge).
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)

Subject: EA Next Step
Good afternoon.
Now that the environmental assessment notification letters have gone out for the first phase of PF225,
the next step in the process is to provide the draft EAs for review and comment by the agencies and
the public.
Attached are two draft files for your review and awareness. The first file is the draft Notice of
Availability that would be posted in local papers. The second file is the boiler plate transmittal letter.
Border Patrol sectors already contacted those agencies receiving letters as part of last week’s initial
notification. Sectors will receive this round of files in advance to determine the appropriate manner of
delivery.
Please provide comments on the draft documents and determine what notification you would want to
perform. All comments are due by 10:00 am tomorrow.
Once comments are incorporated, the list of recipients and the updated letter will be provided to the
sector – per our current protocols.
Thank you.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6) on behalf o (b) (2)
To: ADAMS, ROWDY (
Subject: RE: Emailing: 071021_Feature
Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:02:12 AM
Sorry!!!

Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 7:48 PM
To: (b) (2) ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Cc: DAWSON, ALICE H; CASH, JAMMI E
(b) (6)
Thanks for the information.
Somehow I dropped off the CC line on this one. As Greg’s Deputy. I need visibility on these kind of issues for
questions that will come up at meetings I attend for Greg. I know we are rushing around working on multiple items,
but we need to make sure that the appropriate level of SBI senior leadership and OBP are copied on these things.
This includes meetings, briefings, and other areas requiring coordination.
Thanks
Rowdy
From:( On Behalf Of (b) (2)

To: ADAMS, ROWDY D
Subject: FW: Emailing: 071021_Feature
FYI …
From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D'
(b)(5),(b)(6)
(b) (6)
Office of Chief Counsel
(b) (6)
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED/ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

This communication might contain communications between attorney and client, communications that are part of the agency deliberative process, or
attorney-work product, all of which are privileged and not subject to disclosure outside the agency or to the public Please consult with the Office of
Chief Counsel, U S Customs and Border Protection before disclosing any information contained in this email

Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 6:22 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6) 'SELF, JEFFREY D'
Border Patrol also confirmed they only used old railroad iron if it was offered up by the railroad.
Greg G
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 12:03 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;(b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY
(b)(5),(b)(6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (2)
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;(b) (6)
(b) (6) – USACE does not believe this to be true, but is now verifying.
(b) (6)
Business Manager, Operations
SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 11:54 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
Cannabilized rail, that is new to me and I don't know it to be true. Our rail was purchased through vendors. The
military did not go out cannibilizing and searching for it.
(b) (6)
Get with (b) (6) and see if you can call the BPA vendors to ask them, but my guess is that it was bought
through the steel market.
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;(b) (6)
Importance: High
(b) (6)
Mr. Giddens needs to know ASAP whether this article is based at all on truth.
Thanks!
(b) (6)
SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300)
(b) (6)

To: SELF, JEFFREY D; Flossman, Loren W;(b) (2)
Cc: ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)
Need to know soonest about this accusation. I suspect this was mostly done under NG or other activity. I do not
think the commercial contracts used any old railroad iron.
Thanks,
Greg G
From: (b) (6)

To: Giddens, Gregory; (b) (6)
Subject: Emailing: 071021_Feature
Any truth to this allegation about cannibalizing rails from historic railroads? Ed
October 21, 2007
Stopping the 310 to Yuma

Chertoff Cannibalized Historic Railroad for Cheesy Barriers
American Patrol
It had been reported that the new pedestrian barriers along the
Mexican border were built with Chinese steel and Mexican
panels.
It now appears, based on information from American Border
Patrol, that DHS cannibalized rails from the historic San Pedro
and Southwestern Railroad to build vehicle barriers.
The movie 310 to Yuma starts out in the town of Bisbee
Arizona, which was one of the stops made by the railroad. "It is
stunning that Secretary Chertoff chose to destroy an historic
railroad to save a little money," said Glenn Spencer of
American Patrol. Spencer said the railroad rail barriers are
easily defeated.
San Pedro & Southwestern Railroad - could
have been a scenic history ride for Americans. There is no doubt these rails will be discarded when the
pedestrian fence called for in the Secure Fence Act of 2006 is
finally finished.
Past Features Operation B.E.E.F. Updates
External links may expire at any time.
| |
To: (b) (6) GREGORY.Giddens(b) (6) v; David.Aguila (b) (6) v; RONALD.Vitiello(b) (6)
Cc: Jeffrey.Self(b) (6) (b) (6) Rowdy.Adams(b) (6) (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Feedback from outreach
10-4 Chief, on it.

From: (b) (6)
To: Giddens, Gregory (b) (6) ; Aguilar, David V (b) (6)
Vitiello, Ronald D(b) (6)
Cc: Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6) Adams, Rowdy D
(b) (6)
Sent: Mon May 14 20:34:44 2007
Subject: Re: Feedback from outreach
Greg,
We'll try to gather up the info.
Chief Vitiello and Chief Self,
Based on recent conversations I believe you gents probably already have much of this. Please update
where necessary and give me some bullets that will cover the topic. Don't need "in the weeds" data,
just a quick rundown on how many contacts have been made, what the results are (#positive vs #
negative), and if possible(not as critical but nice to have if available), maybe an estimate of the number
of miles we have OK'd (yellow or green on the sheet) so far.
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
To: AGUILAR, DAVID V (b) (6)
Cc: Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6) ; Adams, Rowdy D
(b) (6)
Sent: Mon May 14 20:23:02 2007
Subject: Feedback from outreach
We - CBP, OBP, and SBI have a 1330 with S1 tomorrow. It is the regular fence update. I believe it
would be good to have any initial feedback from the outreach to landowners handy in case S1 asks how
it is going.
Can you try to have some info ready to be used as part of the discussion if it comes up?
Greg G
To: BEESON, PAUL (
Subject: RE: Fence
Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 4:16:19 PM
I wish I could get out and drive the line...what a life!
Thanks, Jeff
From: BEESON, PAUL A

Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 1:35 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Fence
Importance: High
Jeff,
Here are the “official” numbers for the El Paso fencing we’ve been discussing.
(b)(5), (b)(7)(E)
Paul A. Beeson
El Paso Sector
(b) (6)
To: Rowdy.Adams(b) (6)
Subject: Re: Fence and Outreach
Date: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 4:13:20 PM
Did you get it.

From: ADAMS, ROWDY D (b) (6) >
To: Vitiello, Ronald D (b) (6) >; Adams, Rowdy D (b) (6) ; Self,
Jeffrey D (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 02 14:43:13 2007
Subject: Re: Fence and Outreach
ROn
(b) (6) and (b) (6) spent an hour with the Chief, (b) , Carlos Carrillon et al. They have the
most up to date info. (6)
Rowdy

From: VITIELLO, RONALD D (b) (6)
To: ADAMS, ROWDY D (b) (6) >; Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6) >
Sent: Wed May 02 14:38:33 2007
Subject: Fence and Outreach
Rowdy, Jeff,
Can I get a brief or hard copy of where we are in Southwest Border fencing plans? I have spent part of
today looking up the guidance given to Sectors (OPA). But I need more specifics. Where is the best
place or person to give this level of detail?
Ronald D. Vitiello
(b) (6)
Subject: Re: Fence in Texas
Date: Saturday, May 05, 2007 5:32:29 PM
Rowdy,
Between you and me this is what lit the fuse to this wildfire we're all trying to put out. OBP warned not
to go to the assessor's office yet.
Jeff

To: Giddens, Gregory (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6) >
Sent: Thu May 03 06:29:11 2007
Greg
Army Corps called County Assessor Offices about 5 weeks ago asking for info on landowners. They have
not done anymore of that since they were told to stop.
Last week, Army Corps went to a couple of the sectors to work with BP's Liaison units. I forward an
email on that update.
Rowdy

From: GIDDENS, GREGORY (b) (6) >
To: Adams, Rowdy D (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Thu May 03 00:46:55 2007
Just to confirm - Army has not been freelancing with TON or TX?
Greg G

Cc:(b) (6)
Adams, Rowdy D (b) (6) >
Sent: Wed May 02 07:53:21 2007
Subject: RE: Fence in Texas
It was limited but the rancher ‘network’ is extremely tight. We have been doing some basic outreach
specific to SBI since first of April. The SBInet info has only been passed out over the last 3 weeks or so.
________________________________

To: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6) ; Adams, Rowdy D
Subject: Fw: Fence in Texas
I do think Army activity was limited. We need to run to ground what they did.
Greg G

To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue May 01 15:18:33 2007

The Army Corps activity was limited and several weeks ago.
The issue is timing. Until recently, we did not have a cleared story/plan to do outreach on. We have
just started the outreach and are being charged with not doing outreach.
Greg G

To: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY
(b) (6)
Sent: Tue May 01 15:01:09 2007
Subject: RE: Fence in Texas
(b)
(6)
We have checked with all southern border sectors.
From the Border patrol side: Everything that we are finding is that our people were not involved in this.
It appears that the media is still feeding off of the Army Corps of Engineers independent outreach that
created the original groundswell.
Still checking. Will let you know if we find anything else.
David
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: AGUILAR, DAVID V; GIDDENS, GREGORY
Subject: Fence in Texas
I was concerned to see the attached two articles in today’s Clips. After all the planning OBP and SBI
did to ensure that the issues were handled appropriately, these articles reflect a lot of
misunderstanding. The first one reports a memo from DHS’s office of Intergovernmental Programs (who
is that)? The second one reports that “eminent domain” has been used in meetings with landowners.
While we expected negative reactions, it doesn’t sound like the plan is proceeding as discussed.
Your thoughts?
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Fence Lab Vulnerability Anaysis Test
Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:56:20 AM
(b)
(6)
Looks good, go ahead and send it.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 8:44 AM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: Fence Lab Vulnerability Anaysis Test
Sir,
Please review and comment before I send this to the field.
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
To all,
Border Patrol Fence Lab POCs and select sector fence crew personnel are requested to assist with
fence vulnerability analysis May 8-10 at the TTI Facility in College Station, Texas. Travel has been
authorized by SBInet and the APC Code is 072223 (same as crash test). Attendees will travel on May
7, witness two live crash tests on May 8/9, assist in the vulnerability test on May 10 and travel back
May 11. I will send a list of attendees once I have received feedback from the field.
Last week, BP Fence Lab POCs witnessed and participated in crash testing analysis data collection.
Although this data is important to vehicle barrier and the newly proposed primary fence design, it does
not apply to other types of fencing. In the field, BP regularly encounters alien tampering and vandalism
costing the government valuable man hours and related maintenance costs. Subsequently, BP is
attempting to incorporate more stringent PF225 fencing performance requirements into future fencing
solicitations. In order to accomplish this, we must first establish test and evaluation criteria that more
adequately reflect what BP fence crews encounter on a daily basis. BP will create a list of common
tools used by aliens and smugglers to breach the border fence. These tools will then be used by true
BP subject matter experts (sector fence crews) to perform additional alien tampering simulation. The
tests will be timed and replicated on the 7 remaining fence types. This information will be
disseminated to prospective vendors and assist in procuring a better fence product. The Sloan and
Spanco Fence designs will have already been removed by that date but the Sloan panel material will
be incorporated into the MJ Barrier to be tested on May 8. The Spanco Fence was already proven to
be deficient in other areas so it will not be necessary to conduct further tests.
BP Agents attending the event will be required to be in uniform the day of the vulnerability test.
Uniformed agents will help distinguish BP from other attendees as the event will be video recorded.
BP representatives attending the TTI site visit and crash test last week volunteered fence crew
personnel from the San Diego and Tucson Sectors. San Diego and Tucson Sectors please solicit your
personnel for experienced fence crew members who are interested in traveling that week and
participating in this test. Each Sector should provide three experienced employees who can operate an
assortment of common hand and power tools to include oxyacetylene cutting torches and welding
equipment. Please advise them that the event will be video recorded. I am attempting to ensure that
all tools and necessary safety equipment are on site by the day of the test. If any of the southeastern
Texas sectors can assist with loaning tools and equipment for the test, it would be appreciated.
Transporting welding equipment and safety gear could pose a problem for those traveling great
distances.
(b) (6)
HQ/SBInet Liaison
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Fence Lab Recommendation
Date: Friday, March 23, 2007 11:28:39 AM
(b)
(6)
We already sent out the invite to all Sectors. I think what we are going to fine is that all Sectors will
have challenges in some areas.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 9:48 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Fence Lab Recommendation
(b) Great feedback...thanks!

(6)
(b) For the ED&C IPT....
(6)
Jeff, Regarding next weeks SRR...maybe consider just inviting those Sectors where you suspect the
project will have the most challenges....so we can get folks on the same page and get solutions!! I'm
asking ACE there thoguths on which Sectors those are...
Tks, (b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Fence Lab Recommendation
Importance: High
Gentlemen,
The message below is good feedback from the Rio Grande Valley Sector.
(b) (6)
OBP - Planning Branch
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Fence Lab Recommendation
Importance: High
(b)
(6)
The following are RGV's comments reference the fence lab design samples:
RGV's recommendation is the Jersy Barrier, candidate #6. This fence should work in all RGV stations.
Recommendation- Jersey Barrier, Candidate #6: Cost per mile: (b) (4) Deployment - Estimated at
1.06 mile per day, with a crew size of 126.
PROS
· Design solution floats just below an 8" grade.
· Able to see through fence, will help cameras with visibility issues as to
whether this is an individual on the south side of the fence attempting to cut it or dig underneath it.
· Will not take up too much property to build.
· It would be difficult to dig underneath the concrete barrier.
· Easy to deploy in most terrains.
· (b) (6) (Boeing Representative at the FENCE LAB meeting) advised that
after their first phase evaluation we should be able to mix, match and customize any part of each
individual fence design. We should be able to customize fencing requirements to some degree for
individual station needs.
CONS
· Fence is not high enough (10' 6" height), recommend that it be raised to at
least a 15' overall height. This additional height and a bent top modification will make the fence more
difficult to defeat.
· Fabric mesh - We don't know how easy mesh is to cut and if it can be cut
with regular hand tools or battery operated power tools. Can we substitute the
mesh material with expanded metal? Expanded metal, may not posses the
aesthetics of other fencing alternatives.
· Instead of using two Jersey Barriers, recommend using just one (larger)
barrier similar to the design of the (b) (6) Government Solution.
· This fence system will encounter structural problems with time due to the
elements (i.e. sand, salt-water) if not properly maintained.
REASONS FOR THIS SELECTION: With the recommended modifications this fence should suffice for RGV
Sector requirements.
· This fence at the modified overall height of 15' with expanded metal would
be a strong fence, hard to cut, last for years and be hard to climb over.
· The expanded metal should be easy to see through.
· This fence should be suitable for urban, rural and remote areas of the RGV
AOR.
Please call me should you have any questions.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
ACPA/RGV
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Fence Lab Site Visit
Will do.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: Fence Lab Site Visit
Sir,
Just as a reminder, (b) (6) , Commissioner Basham and (b) (6) are scheduled to attend
Fence Lab Crash Testing next week in College Station, Texas. I’m not sure if the Deputy needs to be
aware or if he is already aware of our involvement. Obviously the vehicle crash tests are valuable to
research of vehicle barrier but we plan on conducting own fence vulnerability test the following week.
Just thought it might be good info to pass along.
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Fence Lab Solutions for TX Mobile (Site Visit to TX Mobile AOR)
Date: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:23:50 AM
Guys,
SWB is good with this. (b) please get with SWB and ask that they coordinate this with the Sector.
(6)
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jun 14 10:02:24 2007

Subject: FW: Fence Lab Solutions for TX Mobile (Site Visit to TX Mobile AOR)
Gentlemen,
Attached is a site visit form pertinent to the Texas Mobile Project and Fence lab, please advise
any issues and your approval of same.
V/r
(b) (6)
SBI PMO ME
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6) ]

Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:23 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Subject: RE: Fence Lab Solutions for TX Mobile (Site Visit to TX Mobile AOR)
(b) (6) ,
Let’s shoot for July 2nd and/or 3rd. You gentlemen are welcome to stay here with us as long as you
would like but I can show you those 3 sections easily in 3-4 hours. If you plan on taking
measurements, it would take a little longer but I can’t imagine it taking longer than one day. If one day
sounds feasible, take your pick of the 2nd or 3rd and we will make it happen.
Take Care- (b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
and I have coordinated our work and travel schedules while we are still here
at CBP in Washington, we could meet with you on Mon-Tues the 2nd and 3rd of July, or Mon-Tues the
16th and 17th of July.
Please let is know if either of these dates would work for you?
Thanks for getting back with us so quickly, we look forward to meeting with you and beginning this
process.
Sincerely,
(b) (6)
Active Denial and Response Department 6422
Sandia National Laboratories
1515 Eubank Blvd. SE
Kirtland AFB
Albuquerque NM 87185
(b) (6)
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:52 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
ROEs will not be a problem for these areas. You are correct; most land is federal property.
(b) (6) - If you gentlemen could agree on a few dates in the near future
that will work for all of you and give me a call, we will reach an agreement and gladly accommodate the
visit. My contact information is in the closing. I look forward to hearing from you.
Take Care,
(b) (6)
El Paso Sector
8901 Montana Avenue
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Fence Lab Solutions for TX Mobile (Site Visit to TX Mobile AOR)
(b)
(6)
(b) (6) has tasked both (b) (6) Project Manager for Fence Lab, and I to coordinate and
identify potential Fence Lab solutions for the PF225 fence areas within the TX Mobile AOR. The specific
lat/longs for each segment are identified in the Excel attachment.
As the fence lab solutions may or may not be suitable for each segment, we would like to kindly ask if
you could host a site visit by the three primary technical experts from the Fence Lab Program, so they
can survey the terrain and general environment and use this information to identify which Fence Lab
solution(s) are suitable for each segment. This info will then be built into a briefing back to (b) (6)
and the SBI Leadership as a first step to solicit feedback and direction on how to proceed.
The Fence Lab Technical Experts are the following: (b) (6) of Sandia National Laboratories
and (b) (6) and (b) (6) of the Texas Transportation Institute. They are cc'ed, and I
have asked them to coordinate with you directly to arrange a date convenient to all. Also, as I
understand it, their survey will be mostly visual, but, again, they are cc'ed for their direct coordination
with you to identify what can be done balancing expediency with any access issues. With respect to
access issues, we looked at the matrix of the three segments, and it is listed that all three are on
Federal land, and therefore, we tend to believe Rights of Entry (ROEs) should not be a problem. May I
kindly as you to verify this? If this is not the case, please let us know what ROE's are needed and
whether or not you are happy to proceed informally with formal ROEs to follow. We will follow your
lead.
Finally, I have filled out a site visit form, which only needs the agreed to date filled in prior to being
returned to (b) (6) for his staffing and coordination prior to their visit. May I kindly ask you to
finalise with your agreed date(s) and return to (b) (6) He is cc'ed.
I apologise for the burden.
best regards,
(b) (6)
Project Manager, Texas Mobile
(b) (6)
Subject: Re: Fencing
Date: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 5:05:05 PM
Rowdy,
Can I get eyes on the paper before it goes forward.
Jeff

To: (b) (6) Giddens, Gregory(b) (6)
Cc: Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jul 03 16:59:55 2007
Subject: RE: Fencing
Greg(b)
(6)
I wanted to update you on the telcon yesterday afternoon with (b) (6)
concerning the 3 ft set back of fence construction. The telcon included
(b) (6) , and (b) (6)
(b) was concerned about the 3 ft set back, where it had come from, was
(6)
it enough to use construction equip on the south side for repairs, etc?
OBP raised their concern of the potential use of too much set back for:
1. Mid-wife shacks, 2. complaints that US was ceding territory, and 3.
Officer Safety/Operational constraints with having to patrol an area
south of the fence (in areas where there might be yards south of fence,
like a river environment).
These were discussed at length, as was the history of the 3 ft set back
(the Douglas incident where OBP/NG was working from a verbal by IBWC to
work from the Mex side of fence). We also discussed current efforts with
the IBWC to formalize the actual location of the International Boundary,
a 3 ft set back and access for the IBWC markers, and our work under PF
225 with the flood plain.
The call lasted about 45 minutes. (b) stated that he was happy with the
responses but wanted a white paper(6) outlining our discussion and steps to
formalize the work being done with the IBWC (both Commissions), which
(b) (6) has as an action item due by noon Friday, July 6.
Rowdy
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 12:48 PM
To: Adams, Rowdy D; Giddens, Gregory; (b) (6) Self, Jeffrey D;
(b) (6)
Sounds good. Yes(b) (6) the deputy COS.
A conference call could likely suffice. (b) (6) could set up the
bridge.
(b) (6)

From: ADAMS, ROWDY D (b) (6)
To: Giddens, Gregory; (b) (6) Self,
Jeffrey D
Sent: Sun Jul 01 10:47:04 2007
Gentlemen
I will contact(b) (6) 1st thing Monday to arrange a meeting to discuss

the set back (3 ft) we are working with on the Deming fence. Is that the
only issue that needs to be discussed? If so, a telcon mayu suffice.
I saw(b) (6) mentionmed in the first couple of emails in this string. Is

that(b) (6)
V/R
Rowdy

To: (b) (6) ; Adams, Rowdy D(b) (6)
Sent: Sun Jul 01 08:10:08 2007
Roger that.
Greg G

From: (b) (6)
To: Giddens, Gregory (b) (6) Adams, Rowdy D
(b) (6)
Sent: Sun Jul 01 06:41:56 2007
Rowdy
I realized I had not sent it to you. You, OBP, SBI, and (b) (6) are
the right mix if it happens next week, which I recommend.
Thanks (b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Sun Jul 01 06:34:13 2007
Thanks Greg. (b) will appreciate this. It was part of a brief

(6)
discussion yesterday when S1 was advised the incursion fence removal had
begun.
Rowdy. I am out next week. Please invite (b) (6) from my office at
(b) (6)
Thanks.
(b) (6)

To: (b) (6) ; Adams, Rowdy D
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Sun Jul 01 06:31:30 2007
(b)
(6)
Rowdy,
Please work to set up the mtg for next week and include (b) I am not
critical to the mtg. (6)
Thanks,
Greg G

From: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 30 22:27:14 2007
Roger. I agree completely (b) (6) would definitely like to have the
discussion. I would like to sit in, but am out this coming week.
I recommend you offer to get together with(b) (6) this coming week or the
following. If he choses the following, please count me in!
Best,(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: Adams, Rowdy D; Self, Jeffrey D; (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 30 22:23:02 2007
(b)
(6)
We are building no closer than 3 ft.
Probably good idea to get OBP, you, Adam, and SBI together to discuss.
Greg G

From: (b) (6)
To: Giddens, Gregory (b) (6) >
Cc: Aguilar, David V (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 30 14:37:02 2007
Subject: Fencing
Greg:
Given world events, I just left a meeting with(b) (6) and others here at
the NAC. I understand that removal of the approximately one mile of
fencing that was several feet into Mexico has begun.
As we go to the cost of removing and replacing the section of fencing,

the question that has come up is what space margin or set back are we
using between new fencing and ground based systems and the MX-US border?
A related question is what is the thought process/reasoning for any
particular space margin / setback we are using?
My recollection regarding the BGMR is that the set back would permit
vehicle access on either side of the fence to permit any needed future
repairs without entering Mexico.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Rear Admiral, RDML
Military Advisor to the Secretary
(b) (6)
To: GIDDENS, GREGOR(
Subject: RE: Fencing Brief to HSC
Greg,
Should I be in uniform.
Jeff
_____________________________________________
From: (b) (6) On Behalf Of GIDDENS, GREGORY
To: (b) (6) ; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Subject: Fencing Brief to HSC
When: Friday, May 11, 2007 2:00 PM-3:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: EEOB
10 May-
Scheduled per email below:
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 11:50 AM
To: (b) (6) J
Cc: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Fencing Briefing
Please send me full name, dob and social as soon as you can,
Thanks!
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
We will meet in room 427. (b) (6) (cc’d here) will coordinate access.
Do you think it might be helpful to have someone handling outreach attend (i.e. (b) or (b) or
whoever is working it)? (6) (6)
(b) (6)
Homeland Security Council

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

To: (b) (6) .
Cc: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6) ; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
(b) (6) and Jeff Self will be there at 1400 tomorrow, where do you want them to meet?
(b) (6)
Deputy Chief of Staff
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Much more fence focus. Pretty much want to discuss the outreach strategy and how we are planning
on meeting the 70 miles (not that concerned) and the 220 miles (much more concerned especially
given that this could affect the ability to implement Comprehensive Immigration Reform). We just need
assurances of what the actual timeline is.
It will be myself, (b) (6) and likely someone from OVP and OMB.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Fencing Briefing
Just want to confirm that the session will be more fence focused on status and plans and general
discussion? Also, who will be attending?
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) J
Cc:(
b
Can we do 2pm?
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6) -
Greg has a 1000 on the Hill but other than that we can have him there and someone from OBP.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fencing Briefing
Hey guys,
Any word on who and when we can do this briefing on Friday? We will already have someone people
over for OJS in the morning if you want to do it on the heels of that?
Thanks
(b) (6)
Director of International Programs and Border Security Policy
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Thank you.
From: (b) (6) ]

To: (b) (6) J
Please send me full name, dob and social as soon as you can,
Thanks!
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
We will meet in room 427. (b) (6) (cc’d here) will coordinate access.
Do you think it might be helpful to have someone handling outreach attend (i.e (b) (6) or (b) or
whoever is working it)? (6)
(b) (6)

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

To: (b) (6)
(b) (6) and Jeff Self will be there at 1400 tomorrow, where do you want them to meet?
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6) ]
To: (b) (6)
Much more fence focus. Pretty much want to discuss the outreach strategy and how we are planning
on meeting the 70 miles (not that concerned) and the 220 miles (much more concerned especially
given that this could affect the ability to implement Comprehensive Immigration Reform). We just need
assurances of what the actual timeline is.
It will be myself, (b) (6) and likely someone from OVP and OMB.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) .
Subject: FW: Fencing Briefing
Just want to confirm that the session will be more fence focused on status and plans and general
discussion? Also, who will be attending?
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) A
Can we do 2pm?
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Greg has a 1000 on the Hill but other than that we can have him there and someone from OBP.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6) v]

To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fencing Briefing
Hey guys,
Any word on who and when we can do this briefing on Friday? We will already have someone people
over for OJS in the morning if you want to do it on the heels of that?
Thanks
(b) (6)
Director of International Programs and Border Security Policy
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: ADAMS, ROWDY ( ; SELF, JEFFREY (
Subject: RE: File
Date: Friday, May 11, 2007 5:19:38 PM
(b) ,
(6)
That file saved with formatting problems. I’ve fixed and resent.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: ADAMS, ROWDY D; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Subject: FW: File
(b) ,
(6)
Here is the chart data of what we believe to be most if not all of the public land projects across
PF225. Roy will bring you a larger print asap. Or you can print 11x17 up there also.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: File
Here it is.
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Following up re 25 June PF225 "Green Miles" discussion with Mr. Giddens
Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 4:54:05 PM
OK...what do you want?

To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Wed Jun 27 16:24:05 2007
Subject: FW: Following up re 25 June PF225 "Green Miles" discussion with Mr. Giddens
I miss you…..
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D;
(b) (6)
Subject: Following up re 25 June PF225 "Green Miles" discussion with Mr. Giddens
Importance: High
We had a discussion with Mr. Giddens on Monday addressing PF225 "Green Miles" and how aggressively
to pursue publicly-visible planning over the near future. I wanted to summarize my understanding of
the guidance provided, especially because there was some final discussion in the room after the Corps
of Engineers (USACE) phone call in to the meeting dropped off.
Three main points for guidance:
A) For some time yet, PF225 planning teams (often OBP + USACE individuals working together) have to
pass a two part message to those they are talking with: we are working with specific proposed locations
and planning construction there in full detail, but we also have not yet committed construction $$
against final decisions on these proposed locations. This two-part message is not easy to make
consistently clear, but this is the guidance nonetheless.
B) As for the ~90 or so "Green Miles" (part of this is PF225 Phase I and part of this is in PF225 Phase
2): SBInet wants USACE to go full speed in finishing the planning for these green miles, completely
visible to the public where needed. SBInet wants any and all formal/legal implementing documents
completed and delivered to SBInet/CBP/DHS ASAP - all environmental documents, all real estate
documents, all construction documents, etc. Spotlight is on USACE to get this done, so that PF225 and
SBInet can use these documents to drive rapid CBP/DHS execution decisions.
C) As for the remaining ~130 miles (all Phase 2, just over half in RGV and just under half elsewhere):
SBInet wants USACE and OBP together to also move out directly on the planning here, also completely
visible to the public where necessary. The SBInet goal for USACE is that by the end of July, a
OBP/USACE team will have talked to nearly every private landowner touching the planned laydown.
These conversations will be thorough enough to fully support all USACE planning requirements (real
estate and construction, as well as environmental), while still allowing OBP personnel to tell landowners
and local officials that a final decision has not been approved but the planning to support this approval
is getting done rapidly. The spotlight here is on both USACE to get its specialists in scheduling mode
with sector TI coordinators immediately, and OBP to match up and fully support these rapid and full-
scale conversations with the many local landowners and officials.
Does this capture Monday's conversations correctly and completely?
Regards,
(b) (6)
PF225 DepPM/BizMgr
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Grazing license
I'm still the POC.

From: (b) (6)
To: Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6) >
Sent: Tue Jun 12 15:06:31 2007
Subject: Fw: Grazing license
(b)
(6)
I know you are traveling but have you had a chance to review this? Also who will be taking your place
as the "go to" for SBInet? Thanks.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 11 17:38:31 2007
Subject: FW: Grazing license
Sir,
(b) (5)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6) .gov]

Sent: Mon 6/11/2007 5:20 PM
To: (b) (6) B.
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Grazing license
(b)
(6)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
(See attached file: GrazingLicense.doc)
Office of Assistant Chief Counsel

6650 Telecom Drive, Suite 100
Indianapolis, IN 46278
(b) (6)
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AND/OR ATTORNEY/CLIENT

COMMUNICATIONS AND, AS SUCH, IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS
INTENDED ONLY FOR THE CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT AND ANY
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) OFFICIALS WHO HAVE AN OFFICIAL
"NEED TO KNOW." ABSENT THE EXPRESS PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE ASSISTANT CHIEF
COUNSEL (INDIANAPOLIS), IT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR RELEASE, DISCLOSURE, OR USE
BY ANYONE WITHIN OR OUTSIDE OF CBP OTHER THAN THE AFOREMENTIONED OFFICIALS.
To: (b) (6)
Cc: David.Aguila (b) (6)
Subject: Re: House Border Caucus Member Meeting
Chief,
Yes, I will be there.
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: AGUILAR, DAVID V(b) (6)
Sent: Tue May 08 20:00:12 2007
Subject: FW: House Border Caucus Member Meeting
Jeff,
Will you be available on Thursday to handle this?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: Aguilar, David V; Giddens, Gregory; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: House Border Caucus Member Meeting
Importance: High
As tentatively discussed at the IPT last week, the House Border Caucus Members (TX, CA, NM, AZ)
would like an SBI/SBInet/fence update on Thursday during the 1:30 - 3:00 time frame. Staff anticipates
at least 30 minutes for members to get an overview brief and then time for questions. Can we get
confirmation from CBP principals asap (please include OFO personnel as appropriate) and we can
discuss messaging in greater detail?
Respectfully,
(b)
(6)
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
To: AGUILAR, DAVID ( (b) (6) E
Cc: Adams, Rowdy ( ; Colburn, Ronald (
Subject: RE: House BSFIT Approval letter
Date: Friday, March 23, 2007 7:46:24 AM
10-4 Chief.
From: AGUILAR, DAVID V

Cc: Adams, Rowdy D; Colburn, Ronald S
Subject: FW: House BSFIT Approval letter
Jeff(b)
(6)
(b) (5)
Need to have a two to three option (prioritized) list, with rationale and decision points
by COB Monday.
David
From: AGUILAR, DAVID V

To: (b) (6) Giddens, Gregory; Ahern, Jayson P;
(b) (6) Aguilar, David V; (b) (6)
Cc: Colburn, Ronald S; Adams, Rowdy D

Subject: RE: House BSFIT Approval letter
Greg,
Border Patrol will get back to you on options. Our Planning and Analysis Unit will be the lead on this
for OBP.
David
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:22 PM
To: Giddens, Gregory; Ahern, Jayson P; (b) (6) Aguilar,
David V; (b) (6)
Cc: Colburn, Ronald S; (b) (6) ; Adams, Rowdy D
Subject: Re: House BSFIT Approval letter
Options:
(b) (5)
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
SBInet PM
(b) (6)
Sent by Blackberry

From: GIDDENS, GREGORY (b) (6) >
To: Ahern, Jayson P (b) (6)
AGUILAR, DAVID V
(b) (6)
Cc: COLBURN, RONALD S (b) (6) Adams,

Rowdy D (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Mar 22 17:18:14 2007
Subject: Fw: House BSFIT Approval letter
Will need to work with all of you and your staffs on laying out some options.
Greg G

To: (b) (6)
COLBURN, RONALD S; (b) (6)
'Rowdy.Adams@dhs.gov' (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Mar 22 17:13:14 2007
We will have to sort through that and provide some options.
Greg G

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)
COLBURN, RONALD S;
(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Mar 22 16:49:42 2007
(b) (5)

From (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)
COLBURN, RONALD S
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Mar 22 14:46:38 2007

Subject: House BSFIT Approval letter
(b) (5)
(b) (6)
Deputy Assistant Commissioner
Congressional Affairs
Department of Homeland Security
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6) J
Subject: Re: IBWC
(b)
(6)
The Sectors should continue to coordinate with IBWC. Any issues that are identified need to be worked
by PMT 225. We will then contact the Sector with the reults.
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Wed May 09 12:20:47 2007
Subject: FW: IBWC
Jeff,
Marfa is also asking the question about “if HQ is handling the IBWC (pushback) or is it still in their
purview”? This relates to that #7 tasker question we had. I believe San Diego is also inquiring because
of the BLM in their area. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: IBWC
(b)
(6)
Marfa has a question concerning IBWC.
1. Wants to know if DC is coordinating efforts at the national level with this office, (IWBC)?
The locals will derive the push backs, and concerns related to the flood plain.
2. Is the fence able to pass the high flood plain test, (also known as the 100 year flood plain)?
It is understood that the testing of the fence type is ongoing in Austin, but they will need to answer
these questions with the locals.
If the locals push back, is the support going to come from the national level?
Need this as soon as possible
Thanks
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: IBWC Meeting in EL Paso
(b)
(6)
Where’s the information on this so I can get it to EPT?
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: IBWC Meeting in EL Paso
Chief (b)
(6) from your Office planning on attending the IBWC meetings in El Paso? The “high level”
Is anyone
meeting is on the 26 th of June and (b) (6) (SBInet) is organizing that one. I believe
Congressman Cuellar is planning on briefing/speaking with those participants. I have asked (b) for an
agenda, list of attendees, etc. Chief Self has identified (b) (6) (6)
as an attendee but no final
decisions have been made.
The 28 th of June is the “low level” meeting where SBInet will brief up the IBWC on PF225 and other
projects. (b) (6) is organizing that meeting. I have also asked him for an agenda, etc.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: IBWC Meeting in EL Paso
Is anyone else going to want to attend on the 26th to represent OBP?

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) >
Sent: Tue Jun 19 12:31:35 2007
(b)
(6)
I meant to copy you on the one I sent to(b) . (b) (6) will attend the 26th for the BP as it is high level.
(6)
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6) ]

To: (b) (6)
Are you planning on just attending the meeting now on the 28th? Rowdy is out this week again and I have some
questions but will have an agenda out some time tomorrow.
Thank you,
(b) (6)
Branch Chief, Infrastructure
SBInet, Program Management Office
(b) (6)
Warning: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. It contains information that may be exempt from public
release under the Freedom of Information Act (5U.S.C. 552). This document is to be controlled, handled,
transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to Sensitive But Unclassified
(SBU) information and is not to be released to the public or other personnel who do not have a valid "need-to-
know" without prior approval from the originator. If you are not the intended recipient , please contact the
originator for disposition instructions.
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: IBWC Meeting in EL Paso
(b) (6)
Just got off the phone with (b) (6) of the IBWC on the confirmed meeting dates and Times.
06-26-07 1:30pm El Paso IBWC Offices - a strategic meeting with some action items ie
1. An update on the Deming Fence Issue
2. Other Areas of Interest regarding disputed fence locations
3. Process for resolving issues
That is probably more than can reasonably expected to be addressed at one meeting.
I would think that representation should include but not limited to IBWC, SBI, OBP, ACE, DOS (?), DHS Intl
Affairs, CBP INA, and DOI. I think I can flesh out the agenda just a bit more this evening and forward in an email
for your cut.
06-28-07 8:00am El Paso Hotel conference room TBD - A working Group type meeting for the nuts and bolts
issues that IBWC/OBP/SBI/DOI agree are critical to the success of building fence.
(b) ACE, DOI, and OBP were going to provide an agenda that would be centered on moving PF-225 forward
(6)
quickly.
Does that seem like a reasonable course?
Rowdy

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D
Sent: Mon Jun 18 10:10:48 2007
(b)
(6)
Haven’t hooked up with Rowdy yet but we will get you something shortly. I believe the mtg is scheduled for the
26th in El Paso. I know that (b) is working on an agenda for the worker “bee” level meeting.
(6)
(b) (6)
Director, Integration Management
Secure Border Initiative PMO
Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)
Subject: IBWC Meeting in EL Paso
(b) and Rowdy,

(6)
When is the IBWC meeting in El Paso now? And the particulars if you have them. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
To: VITIELLO, RONALD(
Subject: Re: (b) (6)
Date: Friday, May 04, 2007 6:29:22 PM
10-4 but that C word is not a good word for anyone to be saying right now.

From: VITIELLO, RONALD D
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D
Sent: Fri May 04 16:41:41 2007
Subject: FW: (b) (6)
I need some guidance on this. Let’s talk Monday.
Ronald D. Vitiello
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: BEESON, PAUL A

Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 11:40 AM
To: VITIELLO, RONALD D
Importance: High
Ron,
This is in reference to the vmail I just left at your number. I will send a memo up later today that
updates the latest efforts on the PDF document and recommends that we move forward with land
condemnation for this fence. In my view he landowner has been stringing us along and is seeking
either inducements we cannot legally provide or exorbitant dollars that far exceed the value of the land.
I’m not opposed to paying the money but at some point we have to say enough and I think we have
reached the point. I am trying to get a meeting with the principals for the landowner (b) (6)
but we don’t think that will change matters.
We believe we have exhausted all reasonable measures and that we must move toward condemnation.
In order for us to complete this project and get it included in the fencing totals for this year we must
move quickly. Otherwise we will most probably be forced to cancel the project with JTFN and lose the
support.
I’ll give you a shout when I get back in the office to discuss.
Paul A. Beeson
El Paso Sector
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: BEESON, PAUL A; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Importance: High
Chief and Deputy,
FYI
(b) h did an excellent job articulating the efforts of the PDT relative to this issue. I recommend you
(6)
forward this to OBP and seek their direction on the land condemnation issue. Please advise.
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief Patrol Agent
El Paso Sector
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Please review the attached. This is my first shot at something like this, so please let me know if you
see anything I have overlooked or need to correct before submission.
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Laredo Sector: Carrizo cane letter,ROE, and owner list
(b)
(6)
I have no issue with this. We discussed this in El Paso and it sounded pretty straight forward. We are
going to follow our process correct. Lead time for the Sectors, Cogressional notification and so on?
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Wed Jun 13 17:28:48 2007
Subject: FW: Laredo Sector: Carrizo cane letter,ROE, and owner list
Chief, I recommend that we move forward in approving these ROE letters for cane removal in the
Laredo area. I am prepared to do so, unless you or Chief Self object?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6) ]
To: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Subject: Laredo Sector: Carrizo cane letter,ROE, and owner list
(b) (6)
USACE is seeking approval to begin mailing Rights of Entry for Survey
and Exploration in support of the Laredo Sector Cane Eradication EIS.
Attached you will find six files related to this effort:
Cover Letter, ROE Laredo Environmental Assessement.doc

ROE Laredo Environmental Assessement.doc
CaneEradicationLaredoSampleROEMap1.pdf
Porciones SortUnique.xls
Abstracts SortUnique.xls
Public Scoping Meeting Handout.doc
Cover letter, ROE, sample map, and Public scoping meeting handout are self
explanatory. Note that the ROE is a USACE product and is nearly identical to
the recently BP approved PF225 ROE for Survey and Site Assessment. If it's
determined that the BP version is to be a few modifications should be made to
make it clear that the cane eradication effort isn't the same as border
fence. In fact, I will provide a mark up the BP PF225 ROE.
The landowner spread sheets do require a bit of explanation.
Porciones and Abstracts are essentially the same thing except porciones were
the original land grants given by the Spanish Crown. Both are basically
large surveyed areas within which smaller tracts are established. The
problem in Webb County (and other counties along the Texas/Mexico border) is
that county records do not capture any division of the abstract/porcion. The
county can tell you that XX number of people own land within the
abstract/porcion but they can't tell you where it lies. Imagine if told you
I live on Main Street along with 400 other people but didn't provide you the
exact address. That's basically the situation we find in Webb County
abstracts/porciones.
All the abstracts/porciones in the spreadsheets are adjacent to the river.

Our plan is to mass mail ROE, English and Spanish, to all landowners (around
1,100) associated with the abstracts/porciones and request that landowners
with property directly adjacent to the Rio Grande sign the ROE and identify
their property on the map attached to the ROE.
If there are any questions please contact me,
(b)
(6)
To: GREGORY.Giddens(b) (6)
Subject: Re: Letter language
Date: Thursday, May 03, 2007 9:23:45 AM
10-4 Greg will do.

Sent: Thu May 03 09:20:36 2007
Subject: Fw: Letter language
I would like you and the Chief to attend the session as well.
We have to stop the swirl so we can back focused on the real work.
Thoughts?
Greg G

To: (b) (6) BASHAM, W RALPH
Sent: Thu May 03 08:53:40 2007
Regardless, we need to strike the balance between the right tone and the facts.
I look forward to getting time on your calendars early next week to talk, with OBP there as well, about
the work that has been done in this area and our plans for moving forward. Doubtless, we will need to
make improvements/changes, but I believe framing out what we have been doing is the right place to
start.
V/R,
Greg G

From: (b) (6)
To: Giddens, Gregory (b) (6) ; BASHAM, W RALPH
Sent: Thu May 03 08:31:45 2007
Changes being made. BTW, I understand that "field" was one of S2's edits, to the talking points, but
maybe that was notg orrect

To: BASHAM, W RALPH;(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu May 03 08:01:43 2007
Sir,
Thanks much. You phrased it well.
Also, I just got off the phone with (b) . He wants us to work on getting accurate stories out regarding
(6)
our efforts to consult and do outreach.
He also offered the help of the Stakeholder Response Team that is ran out of DHS to support our
efforts.
He was concerned that we are not nimble enough to anticipate and react with our DHS and CBP PA
machine. This has been a struggle for us and we will renew our efforts in that regard.
V/R,
Greg G

From: BASHAM, W RALPH
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu May 03 07:54:38 2007
I tend to agree. It is, in fact a CBP/DHS plan to place new technology and provide additional
infrastructure for the Border Patrol.

To: (b) (6) BASHAM, W RALPH
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 02 20:35:02 2007
Subject: Fw: Letter language
Sir,
I understand the need to indicate the plan is just that, a plan and not set in stone.
However, pushing the plan as initial analysis of Border Patrol field staff would not be accurate.
I respectfully request we indicate it is a CBP plan and not just field input.
Greg G

From:(b) (6)
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY (b) (6) v>
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 02 20:05:50 2007
Subject: RE: Letter language
Sorry but we have already forwarded the letter, including most of your revisions, to S2. If you have
further concerns, you probably will have to send them directly.
________________________________
From: GIDDENS, GREGORY(b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
I think we need to be careful about soft we are on the plan 4 months after S1 announced we would
have 370 miles of fence by the end of CY08.
Also, the memo indicates the plan is just input from the field. That is not correct. I believe we should
not single out the field offices. If the memo goes out as is and we are called to meet with members or
staff, we could not agree that the plan is just the "initial analyses conducted by Border
Patrol field staff" as indicated in the memo. It is more than that. I think we do the field and ourselves
a dis-service by not saying it is the CBP plan. In addition, that statement is not accurate.
Greg G

From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 02 19:03:48 2007
Subject: FW: Letter language
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Language and tone are good, marked improvement over last draft

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 02 18:16:32 2007
Subject: FW: Letter language
_____ _____________________
From: (b) (6)
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY
Cc: (b) (6) AGUILAR, DAVID V
Subject: Letter language
Importance: High
On April 20, 2007, you were sent an email regarding the construction of
fencing in your state. We are concerned that the language in this email
was misleading and, as such, has raised many questions and concerns
among its recipients. We would like to provide clarification on this
email's content.
As you know, the Congress required construction of fencing along certain

portions of the southwest border. Taking into account the provisions of
the Secure Fence Act as well as initial analyses conducted by Border
Patrol field staff, U.S. Customs and Border Protection developed a list
of potential fencing locations. From this information, maps were
drafted to serve as a starting point for a dialogue with state and local
officials, landowners, and other local stakeholders. No final decisions
have been made on where all of the fencing will be constructed.
Fencing is an important component of our effort to secure U.S. borders,

but we recognize the potential impact that fencing could have on your
communities and are intent on honoring Secretary Chertoff's commitment
to work with you and other members of the community to address relevant
fencing issues and concerns.
In the coming weeks, your local Border Patrol sector leadership will be
reaching out to you to discuss with you our initial analysis and any
thoughts or concerns you may have on the matter.
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Lower Rio Valley
Date: Friday, May 11, 2007 11:54:57 AM
(b)
(6)
Thank you. I understand that Rowdy was going to brief you on this, if you need more info let me know.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

To: Self, Jeffrey D
Subject: Fw: Lower Rio Valley
The second note I mentioned.....
If you can just let me know what the status of the situation is, I would appreciate it. Or if you're not the
right POC, let me know who is.
P.S. Congrats on your promotion?
************************************************************
(b) (6)
Director
Department of the Interior
Law Enforcement, Security, and Emergency Mgmt
(b) (6)
***********************************************************
----- Forwarded by (b) (6) on 05/11/2007 07:37 AM - ----
(b) (6) To (b) (6)
05/10/2007 01:30 PM cc
Subject Lower Rio Valley
Talked to two sources in the SBInet office in DC. No decisions have been made on the fence
locations. More will be released next week. The Commissioners Office did make a decision that the
fences will be constructed along the leaves and not down along the river. The information that FWS
has heard came from the Army Corp. They turned into BP a massive design for fencing all along the
river. BP does not want that and will not approve those proposals. BP wants strategic tactical fences
along 70 miles of the river. The majority of this will be on private lands. They will let me know how
much is being considered on Interior lands.
(b)
(6)
Southwest Border Coordinator
Law Enforcement, Security & Emergency Management
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: Self, Jeffrey ( ; (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Names for MATOC contracts
(b)
(6)
I just spoke with (b) (6) on this and the expertise they are looking for has to do with knowledge of
PF225. What they will be doing in Tulsa is reviewing the contractor’s proposals to be added as
MATOCs for the ACOE. That means the Corps will have a list of pre-approved contractors to choose
from that will bid on the PF225 projects. We don’t have anyone that is has in-depth knowledge of
PF225 and apparently this request has been sitting on someone’s desk, not (b) (6) and the Corp has
asked him to follow-up since no response has come from any other SBI folks.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
Acting Associate Chief
Office of Border Patrol / Headquarters
Facilities & Tactical Infrastructure Branch
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: Self, Jeffrey D; (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: Names for MATOC contracts
(b)
(6)
Is this request from SBInet for "an expert" in your realm? I guess there is a very short turnaround. Please advise.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 09:41:59 2007
Subject: FW: Names for MATOC contracts
Good morning,
Don’t know if you have been briefed on this request yet, but there is an extremely short turn-a-round for POC
submissions on this. The bid packages for the PF22’s RFP MATOCs will be reviewed the week of June 18th. In
discussion at the PMT, we believed a representative from Contracting, Asset Management, and OBP would provide
the expertise required for governmental (client) input and oversight of the process. We would like for you to
identify an individual who could travel to Tulsa for this weeks meetings (18 – 22). Also, this individual would need
to be available for a back-brief on June 29 and July 23. This brief will identify to the PMT those companies that
were chosen and the reasons for those choices.
Please let me know if this request is amenable to you and I apologize for the short turn-a-round as these names need
to be submitted within by 11:00 am today.
Thank you,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Warning: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. It contains information that may be exempt from public
release under the Freedom of Information Act (5U.S.C. 552). This document is to be controlled, handled,
transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to Sensitive But Unclassified
(SBU) information and is not to be released to the public or other personnel who do not have a valid "need-to-
know" without prior approval from the originator. If you are not the intended recipient , please contact the
originator for disposition instructions.
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sorry, BB battery down over the weekend.
Initial reveiw of proposals: 18 -22 June
First briefing, after determining competitive range - approximately 29 June
Final briefing prior to award of base contracts - week of 23 July.
All work will be in Tulsa OK.

This is for the first half of the proposals. (we are phasing 6 or 7 contracts in first phast and 8 or 9 in second phase)
(b) (6)
ECSO
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Names for MATOC contracts
Give me the dates and location real quick.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jun 01 16:51:16 2007

Subject: Names for MATOC contracts
(b) - we REALLY needed to have the other 2 names for the source selection TODAY (we have the CBP rep
(6)
from (b) (6) still need the OBP and Contracting rep).
We also need the names of ALL participants planning to attend the 2 briefings. We needed these names TODAY
as well.
I have discussed with (b) (6) , we can accept names thru 1000 hrs next Monday the 4th, but if beyond this we can
not incorporate into our process. PLEASE HELP get the names.
Sorry for the push, but we have run out of time.
(b) (6)
ECSO
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6) Ronald.Colburn(b) (6) ; (b) (6) L
Subject: Re: Mayors and Fence
(b) (6)
I am aware of this tasking and although true is your statement that not a lot of outreach was done with
the communities in Texas to build fence in the past I would think much had been done in the past in
the other states.
In addition in the last couple of weeks we have talked to land owners but he major push to talk with
the community leaders was suppose to be spear headed by SBInet in coordination with OBP.
Jef

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Tue May 01 12:34:57 2007
Subject: Mayors and Fence
Jeff,
I know that you are aware of this but I thought I should send this anyway. The article below appeared
in today's Houston paper. The Secretary tasked us with providing information on our outreach efforts
that we(Border Patrol) have conducted with city officials regarding the fence issue.
We have not directed anything be done in this regard at the headquarters level. We reached out to the
sectors to learn what they have done and received pretty much the same answer. DRT has done a lot
of work with city officials in the past, prior to the Secure Fence Act.
Fence plans anger mayors on border (Houston Chronicle -- TX)

S. Texans say federal officials didn't consult with them as planned
Houston Chronicle (TX)
By James Pinkerton
May 1, 2007
Houston Chronicle
MCALLEN — South Texas border mayors and economic leaders expressed anger and disappointment
Monday after learning new details of the location of 153 miles of controversial fencing in and around
border cities — including some downtown areas.
''I am totally disappointed," said Laredo Mayor Raul Salinas, who heard Sunday night that 19 miles of
fencing in his city would begin downtown. ''I remain steadfast in opposition to the building of a fence."
''It is absolute idiocy," said McAllen Mayor Richard Cortez, who contends that illegal immigration can only
be stemmed with a guest worker program. "A fence by itself is only going to delay people from
crossing."
Cortez and other South Texas officials said U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials vowed to
consult with them about locating the fencing projects.
Calls to DHS officials were not returned Monday.
South Texas border leaders learned some of the details of the proposed fence last Friday, at a meeting
where Valley officials circulated a confidential April 20, 2007, memo from the DHS outlining the location
of 370 miles of a primary ''pedestrian fence" to be completed by 2008.
The memo included a map that indicated fencing projects in Presidio, Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Laredo,
Roma, Rio Grande City, Los Ebanos, Hidalgo, and Progreso.
The memo explained that DHS officials have already ''designated the locations along the southwest
border where it is operationally necessary to construct pedestrian fence."
But Cortez, as did other border officials, said they had been previously assured by DHS officials they
would be consulted about the fence's location.
Their first concrete details emerged in the last two weeks, they say, when landowners in Hidalgo and
Starr counties reported that U.S. Border Patrol agents showed them maps outlining parcels of private
property on the Rio Grande the government plans to fence.
"We were told by the secretary of DHS they would be consulting with us before the fence went up, and
it has not happened," said Steve Ahlenius, president of the McAllen Chamber of Commerce.
The memo, sent to state homeland security officials, explained that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and Customs and Border Protection officials ''will soon begin contacting landowners with property on the
international boundary to discuss surveys, environmental assessments and land use."
Sent by DHS's office of Intergovernmental Programs, the memo included a map and background
information but requested the document not be made public. ''We ask that you please not publicly
distribute," the memo said.
''It looks like the whole Rio Grande Valley is going to be fenced in," said a dismayed Bill Summers,
longtime president of the Valley Chamber of Commerce.
Summers said a fence could hurt the ''billions" in trade that moves across the Texas-Mexico border
communities, where residents have built long-standing social and cultural ties.
The planned border fencing is a key component of the $7.6 billion Secure Border Initiative, an array of
fences, vehicle barriers, ground sensors, drone aircraft and thousands of additional Border Patrol agents
designed to bring operational control to the 2,000-miles Southwest border by 2011.
Last week, the head of the Secure Border Initiative told the Houston Chronicle land acquisition would be
decided on a case-by-case basis.
Congress ordered fencing along 700 miles of the border last year, but the plan is extremely unpopular in
South Texas communities dependent on international trade and commerce.
(b) (6)
Branch Chief
Analysis Branch
Operations Planning and Analysis Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY (
Subject: Re: Messaging
Date: Sunday, May 13, 2007 2:41:17 PM
I'm concerned were stepping over each other as we try to clarify the community relations messaging
per the guidance from above. The guidance was pretty clear that border patrol is the lead on
community outreach and that the messaging task in support is designed for that purpose.
Additionally, opa has PF225 public affairs guidance for media relations purposes that should guide our
media relations. I'm ok with references to each but I don't want to confuse the fact that this attached
doc is community relations messaging - with border stakeholders in mind. Of course, both docs should
support each other.
I don't necessarily see a problem with guidance for the outreach doc. The objective should outline the
goal: something like: to establish and solidify awareness among border communities of our border
security strategy and strengthen partnerships through transparent dialogue every step of the way in
implimenting sbi.
Those are my two cents worth... Please let me know if I can assist further.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Sun May 13 06:33:26 2007
Subject: Messaging
Good morning (b)

(6)
In (b) (6) review of the messaging, he asked that we add guidance in front of the messaging similar to
a PAG. Using the P28 PAG as a template, I drafted the proposed language that precedes the message in
the attached file.
Please review and correct the language as necessary, and provide your revised version to (b)
(6)
(b) (6) also stated that we have no need to develop and/or refine the high-level/Beltway version of
the message. (b) reinforced that the purpose of this effort was to focus on Border Patrol outreach at
(6) and there was no need to focus on a second version.
the sector level,
Let me know if you have any comments or questions.
(b) (6)

(b) (6)
To: (b) (6) GREGORY.Giddens(b) (6) S(b) (6)
Subject: Re: New Week / Cuellar
(b)
(6)
This task is in the process of being completed. With the late notification to OBP we request a due date
of COB 5/3. We need to coordinate/vet our response with OCA, SBI, PAO and the field.
Thanks,
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Thu May 03 19:29:58 2007
Subject: Fw: New Week / Cuellar
Jeff,
Please see the tasker below. I'm told you are now handling TX fence issues and this should have been
tasdked to you. As you can see, this was due COB today. Please let me know how quickly you think
you can answer these questions so that I can give the requestor an ETA.
Thank you,
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) <DHS Detail>
Sent: Thu May 03 14:09:40 2007
Subject: New Week / Cuellar
SBI,
Attached are anticipated questions from Laredo officials and a working list of planned and necessary
invitees for the Monday morning video teleconference being organized by Rep Cuellar. Please respond
to the questions and evaluate the invitee list to ensure we have the right CBP and DHS representation.
Rep. Cuellar also requested IBWC representation.
DHS has requested this information by COB today. I apologize for the short turnaround on this tasker -
please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
(b)
(6)
------------------------------------------------
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ; Giddens, Gregory
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: New Week / Cuellar
Importance: High
Attached are anticipated questions from Laredo officials and a working list of planned and necessary
invitees for the Monday morning video teleconference being organized by Rep Cuellar. Internally, we
need to task out these questions and I would expect a need for high-level approval. Also, please
evaluate the invitee list to ensure we have the right CBP and DHS representation. Rep Cuellar also
asked that we invite IBWC representation.

From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Apr 30 16:00:39 2007

Subject: FW: New Week / Cuellar
Greg,
Please see the request below, with suggested times for a conference call with local leaders in Laredo
and Rep Cuellar. I spoke to (b) (6) and he agreed that we could do 9 AM (est) next Monday, as
opposed to this week. (b) wanted to be sure to have you participate so we demonstrate top-level
(6)
involvement, and recommended that we need to approach this from a high-level to let people know
that we are in the listening and outreach phase for construction to begin months from now with most
details tbd. I suggest to you that we get program, and local BP and ACE personnel on the phone as
well. Thoughts?
To: GREGORY.Giddens(b) (6) ; (b) (6) ; Rowdy.Adams(b) (6) ; Jeffrey.Sel (b) (6) ;
(b) (6)
Subject: Re: NM land situation
Greg,
We spoke to ACE yesterday and gave them the green light to go to the Assessor's office to identify the
land owners. We asked that they take an agent with them. We also asked that any further actions
needing to be taken that they first notify us.
Don't want any miss steps right now.
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6) Adams, Rowdy D (b) (6) ; Self, Jeffrey D
(b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 09 11:38:14 2007
Subject: NM land situation
All,
Are we including an assessment of the land in NM where we will likely build VB that are retrofitable to
fence? It probably needs to be factored into the discussions. I could easily see us getting asked how
feasible it is to build the retrofitable fence in NM if we have to do so as a contingency.
Thanks,
Greg G
From: GIDDENS, GREGOR(
To: (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY (
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: P70 AAR
Date: Thursday, October 18, 2007 6:22:38 AM
Will,
I do not think it will be that beneficial and not worth the investment we will have to put in it….
We have gleaned some lessons learned from PF70 (manage materials collectively, not use the NG,
have more contracts that are more incentive based) but at the heart of it we made the PF70 target
because we kept to the meat and potatoes of PM. We will be pressed to make PF225 happen as
well. We have been given extreme timelines and it will not be a comfortable ride.
Greg G
From:(
Sent: bWednesday, October 17, 2007 7:06 PM
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; ADAMS, ROWDY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: P70 AAR
Greg, Rowdy,
(b) (6) brought the folks who created the DHS Lessons Learned and Information Sharing (LLIS)
system (DeticaDFI, essentially an AAR process) to meet with (b) and me a few weeks back to give
us a presentation of the system. CBP has access to and can(6) use it, but apparently no one is really
aware of it. We thought we should consider enlisting them in doing an AAR of P70 to capture lessons
learned to hand off to P225, etc. They’d like to meet with us next week to present the process and
functionality of the system. We (DHS) own the system, so it would be at no cost to us (I’m sure that
down the road they’d love to get some follow-on consulting work out of the deal). I know we’ve all
talked about doing some sort of AAR, and I’m thinking this might provide a useful process to it. Would
you all like to meet with them, should I reach out to (b) (6) or what are your thoughts?
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Director, Office of Policy and Planning
Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) G
Subject: RE: PF 225
Date: Friday, March 16, 2007 12:03:27 PM
(b) (6)
As per our discussion, I aware of the situation and working it.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: PF 225
Importance: High
Jeff,
FYI- The Tucson Sector ACE representative stated at the PDT meeting yesterday that you were
mentioned as the OBP representative for the Permanent Fencing 225 Mile Project at a recent meeting
in Ft. Worth, TX. He raised the concern that SBInet was attempting to direct the placement of fencing
without OBP direction. They were looking at placing fencing in areas that would not be our operational
priority such as on the Organ Pipe, and in Sonoita’s AOR. I understand the fact that they are looking in
all areas that may already have existing EAs or environmental information that would facilitate the
process.
I wanted to see if the Sectors would be able to have input on the fencing locations if we are allocated
more fencing than we initially requested.
Thanks
(b) (6)
Tucson Sector
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF 225 brochure
Thanks. This is great.

(b) (6)
Director
Border Security Media Division
Office of Public Affairs
(b) (6)
From:(
Sent: bWednesday, April 18, 2007 12:12 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
These are being printed for use by the sectors while making contacts to the stakeholders. Any way we
can help just ask.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: PF 225 brochure
(b) (6) and (b) ,

(6)
Following up on today's story about the Border Patrol reaching out to land owners in Texas, I
have been made aware of a brochure that has been prepared for use in meeting with the land
owners.
I'd like to get a copy of this brochure as it would be tremendously helpful in crafting Public
Affairs Guidance on this issue. Reaching out to land owners will gain significant attention
I've already received follow up media interest in the below article.
In light of these developments, I'm drafting Public Affairs Guidance as a first step in dealing
with this from the media perspective. Any assistance would be helpful.
(b) (6) I want to confirm you can attend the 2:30 meeting today in room 7.5B. Thanks for
your participation.
Thanks.
(b) (6)
Director
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF 225 Communications IPT
Are these good to send out to the Sectors ?
Jeff
______ __________________________
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
'SELF, JEFFREY D'; (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF 225 Communications IPT
Good afternoon.
Attached for your awareness are two sets of approved talking points on fence.
The first, larger set was reviewed and approved up through the DHS Deputy Secretary. I may have
provided these to everyone previously. These talking points represent our basic message for fence
outreach.
<< File: Dep Sec Approved Talking Points.doc >>

The second set of talking points, which overlaps with the first, addresses the “consultation” process. A
degree of input from the community is a part of building tactical infrastructure. Since we have promised
to obtain input from the local community, it is important that we identify what that means.
<< File: Additional Messaging - 20070619.doc >>

We can discuss any questions on these talking points at tomorrow afternoon’s meeting.
Thank you.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF 225 message
I am good with it being the initial response leading up to the roll-out of the specifics (whenever that
may be).
I have attached some thoughts for the construction of our Sector PAO statement.
The Border Patrol has been actively involved from the start with defining which areas along
the international boundary are the most operationally significant for achieving the
Department of Homeland Security’s mission of securing America’s borders. There are many
components used to achieve this security and their applications vary from area to area.
Components such as all-weather border access roads, remote video surveillance camera
systems, ground radar and fencing projects help provide the Border Patrol Agents with the
edge in gaining and maintaining security of the border area. The landowners and land
managing entities of these areas and the surrounding areas are currently being consulted
with regarding the application of these types of components.
This is the long winded statements but I wanted to give you enough to be dangerous. The
message will need to be applicable to all sectors and give an across the board response when
handling the beginning waves of media and local calls.
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

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

Subject: PF 225 message
Following up on our meeting. For today, I'm prepared to say the below until we get closer to
formal discussions when we can be more specific...
Landowners on the border in many cases are the first to feel the effects of illegal cross border
activity as border crossers, smugglers and criminals leave behind trash, vandalize and commit
crimes on their property. CBP is committed to working with affected landowners to ensure
they are fully aware of our efforts to gain and maintain effective control of the border.
CBP Border Patrol continues to reach out to landowners with property on the border as part
of an ongoing effort to maintain awareness of CBP's efforts to gain effective control of the
border through the Secure Border Initiative. SBI calls for the right mix of personnel,
technology and infrastructure and in some cases, the deployment of these components may
affect some landowners along the international boundary. We see landowners as partners
in our strategy to gain effective control of the border and we are making every effort to keep
them informed as we move forward on implementing SBI.
Any concerns?
(b) (6)
Director
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF 225 Phase I - Agency Coordination Letters
(b)
(6)
The letters were not attached. I see the "letters" in the messages below but they cannot be opened. I
am not sure if the forwarding process cut them out.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF 225 Phase I - Agency Coordination Letters
Good morning (b) (6) Per (b) please review the letters and provide comments back to (b) (6) . Please
(6)appropriate sector POCs.
forward the information to
(b) please ensure we are good to release.

(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 23 09:37:15 2007

Subject: PF 225 Phase I - Agency Coordination Letters
(b)
(6)
Attached are agency letters I have prepared for signature thus far based on the Organ Pipe letter you
provided comments to. I took a guess on the OBP POC at the Sector based on what is currently on
their web site. Please review and provide comments as necessary. Once I receive your comments, I
shall go final on these and prepare for signature and distribution. You have seen those for the Ajo
already.
Ajo:
(b) (2)
Calexico
(b) (2)
Deming
(b) (2)
El Paso
(b) (2)
Santa Teresa
(b) (2)
I still owe you letters for Nogales.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PLANNER
ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT OFFICE
819 TAYLOR STREET, ROOM 3A28

PO BOX 17300
FORT WORTH, TX 76102
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF 225 ROE for Survey and Exploration
What acquisition?

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 12 15:29:59 2007
Subject: Re: PF 225 ROE for Survey and Exploration
(b) (5) (b) wrote me a few minutes ago asking the

status of acquisition and I didn't know. (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 12 15:25:53 2007
Subject: Fw: PF 225 ROE for Survey and Exploration
(b) ,
(6)
Is this the enviro ROE?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 12 15:24:44 2007
Subject: PF 225 ROE for Survey and Exploration
(b)
(6)
Do you know the status of BP's ROE for Survey and Exploration effort ?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF 225 Roll Out
Date: Friday, April 20, 2007 11:57:11 AM
That is correct from the Border Patrol side.
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 11:55 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF 225 Roll Out
Good afternoon.
Attached are the state maps of fencing for the PF 225 roll out.
For Congress and State we are using the maps that do not show the SFA.
For the Border Patrol, we are using the maps that show the SFA. The Border Patrol will include the
maps as part of their PowerPoint presentation, which will not be left with anyone, only showed at
individual or group meetings.
Please let me know if I am mistaken.
More to follow.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF-225 AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH
They should focus on the owners with land adjacent but identifying all is important.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 25 17:35:17 2007
Subject: PF-225 AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH
(b) (6) ,
I just received a call from (b) (6) in regards PF-225 Community Outreach. His question is do
they (Yuma Sector) need to reach out to all land owners in the area of the Colorado River or just the
ones that have land along the river. There are just a few private land owners that have land adjacent
to the river but several land owners within the River area IE, other side of the levee.
If you have any questions, please give me a call and I can explain.
Thanks, (b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Acting Assistant Chief
CBP-Office of Border Patrol
1300 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 6.5E
Washington, DC 20229
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF-225
Date: Friday, June 08, 2007 7:28:31 AM
It probably was an add on but the sector should've seen it before. Do they want it?

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jun 08 07:23:59 2007
Subject: FW: PF-225
(b)
(6)
I checked the latest version of the lay down that (b) sent me and Yuma does have fence along the
Colorado River Corridor. Has there been any change(6) that you know of?
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 6:41 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF-225
Gents,
Chief Colburn asked that I reach out to you to ascertain whether the proposed 15 miles of primary
fence along the Colorado River, here in Yuma, is actually part of PF-225. That fence was not part of the
sector's original plan but it is suspected that it came in play earlier this year when OBP was required to
identify additional fence placement to meet the 370 mile requirement. This will be important to know in
that a large portion of the Colorado River in our AOR is tribal land.
Thanks
(b)
(6)
To: VITIELLO, RONALD ( (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY(
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Lay Down Justification
Chief's
Allow me to clarify. Not only will this serve as a tracking mechanism but it is also to serve as a historical
record of operational needs being conveyed to SBI, SBInet and ACE that can't be met for one reason or
another. We're trying to track what were getting vs. what we need and why we need it. Sorry for the
confusion.
Jeff
From: VITIELLO, RONALD D
To: (b) (6) ; SELF, JEFFREY D; ADAMS, ROWDY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Lay Down Justification
Sirs,
We expect to clarify these issues today (0900). RGV has indicated that as per their more detailed
evaluation, by PAICs with planners, (WED) along with some elaboration on additional capacity increases,
they will be returning to plans inclusive of construction on the levy. Let's meet and unify our
consultation to RGV and offer our assistance in developing their requirements. What is the planning
deadline? To whom?
Ronald D. Vitiello
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; VITIELLO, RONALD D
Subject: Re: PF225 Lay Down Justification
Guys,
We do need to build the proper justifications, but we also need to clear up some serious
misunderstandings between us and SBI on how this all came about. The message below indicates that
RGV moved their requirements from the levee to the riverbank, making the project untenable for Army
Corps. As I understand it, RGV planners had always wanted the fence on the riverbank and built their
oplans around that, and the change to the levee came after the engineers advised RGV that the
riverbank wasn't doable.
Also, SBI needs to understand that some of the changes from the TI bible came about after we asked
the sectors to identify more miles of fencing tha could be built to help with the project.
If my understanding is inaccurate I'll accept the hit, but we cant allow people to misrepresent how this
unfolded and lay the issues at the feet of our field planners.

To: VITIELLO, RONALD D
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu May 10 06:36:41 2007
Subject: FW: PF225 Lay Down Justification
Ron,
Can you get this out.
Jeff
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: PF225 Lay Down Justification
Sir,
Per Chief Aguilar’s direction, HQ is requesting justification from the Laredo and Rio Grande Valley
Sectors regarding their changes to the PF225 lay down. These changes are substantially different from
the Tactical Infrastructure Requirements Document (also known as the TI Bible). These sectors need to
provide further clarification on changes to their operational requirements which will in turn, assist HQ in
supporting their positions.
Laredo Sector requested that no fencing be placed in their AOR due to their ongoing EIS for the Carrizo
Cane Eradication Project. Further clarification is needed on other potential issues that could possibly
impact operations, access and relations with the City of Laredo and other agencies.
Rio Grande Valley completely changed their fencing alignment by moving fence from the levee to the
riverbank. Army Corps of Engineers has raised numerous issues to include: building on the flood plain,
possible treaty violations, lack of access roads to support construction and the presence of endangered
species. From discussions with the RGV TI folks, they are aware of all of these issues but are more
concerned about the concession of land to Mexico. It is possible that the obstacles involved with the
realignment will be “show stoppers” based on the parameters of the project. If it gets to that point, will
the sector support building the fence back north onto the levee? Either way, a detailed explanation will
be necessary to support the sector requirement.
(b) (6)
SBInet Liaison
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Phase 1 Project Assessments
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:47:43 PM
(b)
(6)
I'll have an answer for you tomorrow in the early (b)
(6)
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:56 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: PF225 Phase 1 Project Assessments
Jeff, As we began discussing yesterday and continued today!!…..last week during the Dallas
PF225 Kickoff Meeting we recognized we will not have adequate time to obtain Right of
Entry documents signed by the property owner to meet the very short timeline for PF225. It
was recommended that the person (USACE/CBP Engineer) performing the Phase 1 project
evaluation could under existing authorities “review and assess potential changes along the
border” by riding with a Border Patrol Agent on the course of a routine patrol to make a
visual inspection of the area that will be impacted by the Border Fence.
For the Phase 1 investigation (Look & See), the “engineer” riding with the agent will stay in
the patrol vehicle, not be taking any samples or engaging with public/landowners etc. If and
when it becomes necessary for a Phase 2 investigation (Suvery & Sample), a signed Right of
Entry will be required.
At the kickoff meeting closeout last Friday this process to obtain Phase 1 information was
briefed to several SBI/OBP Execs including (b) (6)
(b) (5)
I request you precede with these Phase 1 investigations and have the agents
manage any “risk” on a case by case basis during these patrols so we can move this project
quickly thought the critical System Requirement Review (SRR) phase.
With your concurrence I will pass along this process to right CBP folks so everyone knows
the intent and scope of this activity. I’d like to have these “ride-alongs” done by 22 March
07 to support the SRR scheduled for 27 March 07.
Pls advise soonest. Thanks, (b)

(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Phase I access roads.
Great! (b) and I were discussing the need for these conversations to take place.
(6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF225 Phase I access roads.
Just wanted to let you know our Districts are contacting Sector POCs to ensure that Phase I access
roads have been considered in the outreach effort. This will dovetail with the collection of outreach
data from the sectors.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF225 Q&A
Date: Saturday, April 21, 2007 9:23:58 AM
(b)
(6)
I think that you are correct. Your addition and the fact that the BP is the path for any concerns or
problems should they arise. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) L
Sent: Sat Apr 21 08:54:55 2007
Subject: PF225 Q&A
Good morning gents.
There is a question on the PF 225 Q&A I want to run by you.
Q: Will there be a designated official from the government (Border Patrol, DHS, etc.) accompanying the
contractors?
A: Not at all times.
While we will not always be there, I’d like to tell them that they are not going to be left out in the cold.
In our answer, could we add something along the lines of:
However, you can always contact the Border Patrol if you have questions or concerns.
Please let me know what you think/suggest alternate language.
Thanks.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF225 spreadsheet
He is the 2nd in charge of SBInet. The agents that drink the koolaid work for him. Yeah, (b) needs
to get that fixed and ASAP. Let me know if you haven't heard anything by noon. (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 10:57:41 2007
Subject: PF225 spreadsheet
(b)
(6)
Just so you know, I have not heard back from (b) (6) yet regarding my request for the spreadsheet
update. I suspect that the battle over the spreadsheet is not over, and will reengage at the meeting
this afternoon. I plan to go in and tell whoever it is with a problem that OBP must have the product as
it was prior to the recent changes. I have been told by Chief Self in no uncertain terms that is exactly
how he wants it, and I personally need it yesterday. A little insight into who (b) (6) is might be
useful, though I can not allow it to change my message.
(b)
(6)
From: SELF JEFFREY (
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Spreadsheets
Let me explain.
$#^%*&&_&)*&*%%$&(*(()_+(__&$%$$#@$#&^^&&&)*)_(_)(*^**&&)(*_$%$#@%**)(*%%#@$%&)(())(*&$#$#@,
this is how it was explained to me.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY
D
Fencing in the Sonoita AOR is a waste of tax payers money and goes against the National Strategy. Maybe I don't get it.
(b) (6)
Deputy Chief Patrol Agent
Tucson Sector
(b) (6)
Honor First - Excellence in All We Do
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:52 AM
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Importance: High
(b) (6)
Can we please have an extension to COB Friday to finalize Sector approval? We have operational concerns about the
proposed fencing in the Sonoita AOR. We need to brief the Deputy on Friday.
(b) (6) will not be back until tomorrow. (b) and I will be in Phoenix, and (b) is in El Paso.
Thanks
(b) (6)
Tucson Sector
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:51 AM
To: (b) (6)
SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Subject: PF225 Spreadsheets
To all,
The Project Fence 225 System Requirements Review meeting yesterday was attended by various entities associated with
the fence project to include the POCs from each sector (Marfa was the only sector not represented). The attached
spreadsheets outline every project proposed for PF225. Each project was identified by Army Corps. and placed according
to "achievability"
in either the PF75 or PF150 spreadsheets. PF75 projects are considered "low hanging fruit" that have minimal real
estate/environmental/engineering issues. The more challenging projects were listed under PF150.
Several columns were added to allow each sector to list concerns and issues for each proposed project. Please review the
spreadsheets thoroughly and fill in all requested information pertaining to your sector projects. For any pertinent
comments not applicable to the categories listed on the spreadsheets, you can use the additional comment tab and list in
bullet form. Note: the priority column requires all projects within you AOR must be numerically prioritized.
The Sector POCs were given these instructions yesterday during the meeting. They were tasked with briefing their sector
chain of command, reviewing each project listed within their AOR and commenting on the attached forms before
submitting back to me by COB tomorrow.
Every sector listed on the project list must provide comment and submit the additional information requested on each form
(to include Marfa and Loredo). If no comments are received by COB tomorrow, the spreadsheets will be submitted to the
PMT as is.
I am in the process of switching over to Microsoft Outlook so please copy your responses to(b) (6)
Regards,
(b) (6)
OBP/SBInet Liaison
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: AGUILAR, DAVID ( (b) (6) COLBURN, RONALD (
Subject: RE: PF225 summary per PM review today
(b)
(6)
Here's the problem I see with this. As PMT 225 make these changes they need to keep in mind the
historical messaging that has gone out. We have consistently told the Nation, the Hill, S-1 and S-2
that we will build 225 miles of fence in 08. Now we're saying we will build 213 miles in 08. We can
speak to the fact that we our ahead of schedule and built 12 miles of the 08 225 project in 07 but I
don't think we will get much mileage out of it. We're going to be viewed as not being true to our word
and not up to the task of securing our borders and possibly being told that we're going to 225 miles in
08 regardless of how much fence we built in 07. Please speak to(b) (6) this.
Jeff
From: (b) (6) RY B.

To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: FW: PF225 summary per PM review today
Not that you didn’t have anything else to worry about but here’s the issue I spoke to you about. After
talking with(b) (6) it appears that they are just moving fence segments from one project to
another. They moved two pieces out of the PF225. One segment was placed into the “existing fence”
project category and the other was put under the P70 project. The three projects (PF225, P70 &
existing fence) still add up to the required 370. However, the PF225 is now listed as 213. Should I
make an issue of this? The fence will still be built, just as part of a different project.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 summary per PM review today
(b) why don’t we place the Douglas segment back on the list since this was next in priority on the
(6)
overall list and it will give us those few miles to be built in the low hanging fruit category? We can then
present it to OBP for their signature as long as these meet their prioritized requirements.
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) t
Subject: PF225 summary per PM review today
(b) (6): This is my understanding of PF225 distances and segments; please check my understanding
and provide concurrence.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: ADAMS, ROWDY (
Subject: RE: PF70 Question
Date: Thursday, November 08, 2007 4:12:20 PM
Rowdy - I believe it was you who added the three individuals; they were not on the original list; my
understanding is that (b) concurs with the assessment that these individuals had very little
(6)
involvement in PF70 (sounds like their heavy lifting has been with PF225; not PF70) and therefore
should not be part of the tier 1 recognized group. Based on what I am hearing, it appears it would be
inappropriate to include them in the PF70 unit citation. Please let me know as soon as possible if you
concur. Thank you.
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:57 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF70 Question
No bother. I was on stage until just moments ago.
1. What is the issue with the titles? My inclination is to provide the titles as a way of recognizing what
the individual part was to the overall effort.
2 (b) (6) and(b) were doing the coordination with the BP Field components from 6th fl. The
(6)who should be recognized was left to (b) (6)
original question of as program manager for PF70. As
the government person responsible, it is his decision who should be recognized. Although (b) (6) was
heavily involved in the effort, she was not privy to all the component pieces. I agree with (b) (6) to a
tier 2 move from the perspective of Knowing what part she played (basically providing a person to
assist).
Headed to airport. Call if you wish to discuss further....
Rowdy

From: (b) (6)
To: ADAMS, ROWDY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Nov 08 11:04:23 2007
Subject: PF70 Question
Mr. Adams,
I know you are planning on calling(b) (6) later regarding our PF70 question, but we thought that maybe
we should just email you.
Issue (1): The normal Unit Citation has a position title under the recipients name. (b) (6) would rather
not have their PF70 titles listed and would like your thoughts on the subject before we submit
Issue (2): In the process of getting proper PF70 titles, it was brought to our attention that (b)
and (b) (6) had very little involvement with PF70. (b) (6) has
relayed to us that these individuals only attended a few meetings at the very end, and that maybe
these guys were inadvertently added because of their immense involvement with PF225. Additionally,
(b) (6) only contribution was one report (reportedly). It is our suggestion that these
individuals be moved to Tier 2 or removed completely.
I apologize for bothering you during your seminar, but we are being told that the engravers are on
stand-by waiting for our list of honorees, in order to facilitate a timely return of the plaques.
Please advise.
Thank you,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Director of Mission Support

Dept of Homeland Security
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:51:23 PM
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)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Preliminary Final Maps
That’s a good idea. We have to stay on top of the “living” laydown.
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Preliminary Final Maps
(b)
(6)
Looks like USACE has a way to get the laydown for P225 to Boeing after SBInet gives the approval. I
would also like to review these USACE maps with (b) and make sure it is still the same fencing that
the Sectors agreed to on our P225 spreadsheets. (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) J
(b) and (b)

(6) (6)
Looks like (b) may have an efficient way to share over at least PF-225 fence information to Boeing.
(6)
Is this a feasible method for us to share info about PF-225 and PF-70 fence info for the multiple
sectors?
Thank you,
(b) (6)
CBP SBInet Project Manager
Ronald Reagan Bldg Room 7.5B
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

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

To: (b) (6)
Cc: scott.recinos@cbp.gov
(b) (6) & (b)

(6)
The link below will get you access to the PF225 maps with hybrid fence laydown locations we are
planning to cover in our NEPA documents. The vehicle Barriers we plan to address are the 462 mi (+/-
) called for in the TI handbook.
Please limit the distribution of this information. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Thanks
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6) ]

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Preliminary Final Maps
The most current project maps have been uploaded to the USACE ftp site. IPT leaders, if SBI gives
final approval on the 4-26-07 list this week, these maps can then be distributed to your IPT teams.
(b)(2),(b)(6)
The maps are located in the Maps 1-5 zip folders
(b) (6)
Project Manager
USACE-PM-ECSO
(b) (6)
To: COLBURN, RONALD(
Subject: RE: Presentation that CBP will give tomorrow in Phoenix -- FYI
Date: Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:06:49 AM
10-4 Chief.
Jeff
From: COLBURN, RONALD S
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:56 AM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: RE: Presentation that CBP will give tomorrow in Phoenix -- FYI
Jeff,
I agree. To the Border Patrol's advantage, we won't change our message. SBI, and politics of the day
may "win out" sometimes (PF-225 & P-37), but our message should not change, even if they brief it.
That way, there is clear record and delineation as to where the program goes "off the path."
I forwarded your thoughts to Ron Vitiello, since he will be there.
Ron C.
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:11 AM
To: COLBURN, RONALD S
Cc: (b) (6) ; AGUILAR, DAVID V
Subject: FW: Presentation that CBP will give tomorrow in Phoenix -- FYI
Chief Colburn,
The attachment is the presentation being used by Greg to brief the Arizona State House. When Greg
and I briefed Senator Sessions on Tuesday we used the Border Calculus Slides on page 20,21 and 22. I
have concerns with using the border calculus slides, please see the following:
When we speak to Border Calculus we brief that fences will be built in the urban areas to display traffic
in the rural and remote areas where technologies will be deployed to detect, identify, and classify
allowing agents to respond and resolve. The problem with briefing Border Calculus is that we know
through P225 meetings and the SRR the likelihood of building fences in the urban areas is minimal due
to the high cost of purchasing the land and access issues. What we know and what we're saying are to
different things. My concern is that we're going to held to what we're saying. My suggestion is that we
go easy on speaking to Border Calculus. Just a thought.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ; 'GIDDENS, GREGORY'
Subject: Presentation that CBP will give tomorrow in Phoenix -- FYI
Hello and good afternoon
I wanted to send you a copy of the presentation that Greg Giddens will be giving tomorrow in Phoenix
to the House and Senate leadership and minority (see attached). As you will see, it is very similar to the
presentations that we have given to the Governor and to you.
On another note, I know that the CBP Chief of Staff has been talking to the Governor's Chief of Staff
re: an upcoming tour for you and the Governor, to see some of the Secure Border Initiative
deployments. I don’t believe that there has been a date identified, as yet, but as soon as I know
something, I will pass this along to you (wanted you to be sure that you didn’t think that I had
forgotten about this!)
Hope that you are well and look forward to seeing you sometime soon. In the meantime, pls let me
know if you need additional information.
(b) (6)
Special Advisor to the Commissioner
(b) (6)
To: COLBURN, RONALD( S (b) (6)
Cc: AGUILAR, DAVID (
Subject: RE: Project 225
Date: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:39:27 PM
Chief,
First I heard of it was yesterday. My take on it is that it just creates an additional obstacle that we will
have to overcome. Just my thoughts. The PMTs thought process is that they need it to make the Dec.
08 deadline.
Jeff
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:23 PM
Cc: AGUILAR, DAVID V
Subject: Re: Project 225
This is the first I've heard of a half-mile to a mile off-set for barriers in AZ.
Ron

From: (b) (6) L
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: AGUILAR, DAVID V; COLBURN, RONALD S
Sent: Thu Mar 22 16:59:06 2007
Subject: Re: Project 225
Jeff,
Regarding the pedestrian fence vs what they are building. I was told that they feel that keeping a
standard fence style will cost less in the long run than changing to pedestrian-only fence in urban
areas. As I understand it, their design is a pedestrian fence with a support structure that will stop
vehicles. As far as I'm concerned, as long as what they build will work for pedestrians, if the
superstructure also stops vehicles it would just be a bit of overkill in areas where vehicles can't travel.
As long as the fence style meets our operational needs, we shouldn't press too hard to have them try to
put up two different types.
On the ESC and the strategy, they did approve the laydown that the team had recommended for the
southern border followed by the northern border, maintaining the option to do the South/North mix if
politics change. .
Don't think we've talked about the union/training issue. We should discuss that with LER.
I'm concerned about them skipping sections for speed and deciding not to go for the ROEs, but I'm in
agreement with Chief Aguilar that there may be some things they will need to learn for themselves. I
think we need to sit and talk about the 1 mile offset because of the political issues we've been
discussing lately.
Thanks for the update,
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: AGUILAR, DAVID V; COLBURN, RONALD S
Sent: Thu Mar 22 16:07:44 2007
Subject: Project 225
Chief,
Situational Awareness Report:
(b)(5), (b)(6)
(b) (5)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Project List UPDATED
(b) ,
(6)
Looks good. Can you print 7 sets of these for today’s meeting? Thanks.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Project List UPDATED
Importance: High
With update
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: Project List
(b)
(6)
The following are the miles of fence by sector which appear to be good for a quick start.
MAR – 9.4 miles, with another 1.5 miles requested (Request with USACE for inclusion)
EPT – 37.06 miles

Included in the above:
6.32 miles of total is within New Mexico – Gov. Richardson has expressed objections.
1.5 mi. (H-2B) – 1 owner not yet contacted, however Roosevelt Easement exists for construction,
located within NM
1.11 mi. (J-1 EPT-STN-1) – 5 owners unsure, however Roosevelt Easement exists for construction,
located within NM
19.76 mi. (K- 2B&C) – Some portion of this project is of definite interest to (b) (5)
though their land ownership ends north of the construction zone. This project may
actually be 10 miles longer. I have emailed the CORPS regarding coordinates.
3.36 mi. (K- 5) – The land owners are proving very difficult to find due to court records issues in the
county court house. Still, Sector does not see red flags.
TCA – 15.51 miles

9.3 mi. (E- 3) – Potential Jaguar corridor
YUM – 10.63 miles

(An additional 4 or so miles at the S. end of the Colorado River Corridor may be easily constructed,
though the majority of the project is owned by (b) (5) )
ELC – 4.52 miles
SDC – 9.92 miles

2.33 mi. have been identified as needing the cooperation of (b) (NOT a given for projects within San
(6)
Diego Sector.)
4.05 mi. (SDC-BLV-1, SDC-BLV-2, SSDC-BLV-3) Identified as containing T&E species issues. (1.21
mi. of this project included in 2.33 miles listed above)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: ADAMS, ROWDY (
Subject: Re: TRO for all projects in Arizona
Date: Saturday, November 03, 2007 7:14:52 PM
I love you. Thanks. (b)

(6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Nov 03 19:11:54 2007
(b) (5)

From: (b) (6)
To: ADAMS, ROWDY D
Cc:(b) (6)
Sent: Sat Nov 03 17:13:43 2007
Subject: Fw: TRO for all projects in Arizona
(b) (5)
Thanks. (b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Sent: Sat Nov 03 16:42:36 2007
(b)(5),(b)(6)
Thanks,
(b) (6)
Office of Chief Counsel, CBP

(b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
<Jeffrey.Self(b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; B(b) (6)
Sent: Sat Nov 03 10:53:07 2007

(b)(5), (b)(6)
Rowdy
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6) Adams, Rowdy D(b) (6)
Sent: Sat Nov 03 10:44:18 2007
FYI

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Nov 02 18:57:44 2007

Subject: RE: TRO for all projects in Arizona
Sir,
(b)(5),(b)(6)
Thanks
(b) (6)
Tucson Sector
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 3:16 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Subject: FW: TRO for all projects in Arizona
Importance: High
Sirs,
(b) (5)
Thanks
(b) (6)
Tucson Sector
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Could you pass this info along to whom ever needs it.
TF DBK averages (b) a day for P&A. For equipment rental it is(b) a day and
(4)
this includes construction EQ, pick-ups, phones. This totals (b) (4) a day.
Thanks
(b) (6)
CDR, TF Diamondback
(b) (6)
From:(b) (6)
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 10:43 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

(b)(5),(b)(6)
Thanks
Please note new cell phone number below
(b) (6)
ECSO
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 6:04 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

All - need a rough order of magnitude cost for impacts to fence projects in
your aor. Need it by daily cost impact
(b) (6) - can you provide cost impact for ng?

Please reply back to all. Need a rough estimate tomorrow.
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
CC: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Nov 01 17:34:14 2007
Thanks.
(b)(5), (b)(6)
Thanks
E(b
)
--------------------------
From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
CC: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Nov 01 17:21:28 2007
Subject: TRO for all projects in Arizona
(b) (6)
Can you all create an estimate for all the costs that we will incur for the
stop work on all projects in Arizona . Please consider costs associated with
the contractors staff and equipment, and security for material (if any) and
the staff you all hired to cover Title II services. (b) (6)
have requested that the number be determined as a "cost per day" and
seperated per project.
He mentioned he needed an estimate by tomorrow. Thanks, (b)

(6)
(b) (6)
PF-225 Program Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
819 Taylor Street (4A05)
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Property Acquisition
(b)
(6)
I'm not saying your wrong, all I can say is that this situation is bigger than you and me. The lease
option was decided at the highest levels.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Property Acquisition
Importance: High
Sir,
(b)(5), (b)(6)
Food for thought,
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Requirements meeting
Date: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:01:37 PM
(b)
(6)
Put him where you benefit the most from him. Your call.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 12:49 PM
Cc: (b) (6)
Great, We’ll get them connected into the business rhythm…I’ll assume (b) will work with the FEIT.
(6) Mgmnt) keep them informed
I’ll have the other IPTs (Real Estate, Environmental, Design/Construction,
of relevant issues and we’ll make sure your team has the opportunity to see all the IPT minutes. Tks

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:27 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Requirements meeting
(b)
(6)
Primary for these meetings will be (b) (6) and Secondary will be (b) (6)
Thanks, Jeff
From: (b) (6)

To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Jeff, Per our PF225 org chart OBP has an important role on the Fencing Engineering and Integration
Team (FEIT)….that group meets every Tuesday for 1 hour….see the attached minutes from last week’s
mtg. We need you to assign an OBP rep to that group soonest. That rep can also serve as your
“alternate” should you have to miss a PMT mtg. In general the more of your folks we get involved in
this project the better chance things will go well…. Pls let me know who you are able to assign??
For the meeting today….just show up….we’ll see review the current technical requirements and see
how the ride-along surveys are going…bring you alternate if able.
Tks, (b)
(6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: Requirements meeting
(b)
(6)
Do I owe you something at today's requirements meeting other than me showing up?
Jeff
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: RGV Op Plan
(b)
(6)
I am trying to read this on bb. Is this the document that shows where you will need gates and how you
operate "south" of the fenced areas in those places where the fence will be built off of the line? What I
could read seems on track.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 14:18:02 2007
Subject: RGV Op Plan
(b)
(6)
Attached you will find RGV’s plan to address operational requirements when the proposed fence projects
are completed. Please call should you have any questions.
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 25 15:18:24 2007
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY(
Subject: Re: SBI Meeting in EPT
(b) (5)
This secondary meeting is to help set-up future interactions for PF225
projects. (b) (6) was setting up this secondary meeting.

From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Thu Jun 28 11:03:59 2007
Subject: SBI Meeting in EPT
(b)
(6)
Just received a call from (b) (6) in MAR about a supposed meeting in EPT today with the Corp
and IBWC concerning fencing. He believes that it is imperative that MAR be part of any discussions (or
their concerns known) relating to fencing along the Rio Grande. Is this meeting about the Rio Grande
or replacing the EPT fence in Mexico (Deming Corridor)?
Thanks,
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: SBInet Border Fence mtg. w/ S1
10-4 Chief.

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Wed May 09 20:02:43 2007
Subject: FW: SBInet Border Fence mtg. w/ S1
Jeff,
In addition to the other things on your plate tomorrow, I need you to attend a meeting with S-1 at the
NAC at 10am tomorrow. You will be attending with C-2 and Greg Giddens and the topic will be fence.
Can you take it? If so, please meet C-2 and Greg at the 14th street entrance at 0930 so you can travel
over with them and pre-brief enroute.
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: 'GIDDENS, GREGORY'
Subject: RE: SBInet Border Fence mtg. w/ S1
We will leave here for the NAC at 9:30. If you're sending someone, he can ride with Greg and me.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
I'm confusing myself. I just got a message from (b) (6) indicating 0930 for the meeting. Is that the
time its scheduled?
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
I read it the same way. I'll arrange for someone to attend from this office.
Greg,
If I remember correctly, you and Jeff Self are supposed to be on the Hill from 1 to 3 tomorrow. I
assume you will break from there and go to the NAC? If so, I may just have Jeff go over with you. If
Jeff is unable to make it I will ask Ron Vitiello.
Let me know and I'll make the assignment.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: GIDDENS, GREGORY
I read this to mean that you should send someone. See if you agree.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: SBInet Border Fence mtg. w/ S1
Looks like it is on. Ill confirm when this mtg was actually moved

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 09 19:33:08 2007
Subject: Fw: SBInet Border Fence mtg. w/ S1
FYI
--------------------------

From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 09 19:02:01 2007
Subject: Re: SBInet Border Fence mtg. w/ S1
I spoke w/ (b) (6) earlier today -- This mtg was changed prior to 4:00 this afternoon. I believe
it was changed prior to today -- re: (b) attending for Basham (b) (6) approved) and since (b) (6)
were unable to attend - per (b) (6) (6) - we asked that a surrogate attend.
Since Greg is confirmed to attend and a CoS approved CBP member can attend w/ representation from
the Chief's office the meeting was not rescheduled for tomorrow. S1 is on intl travel beginning Friday so
this seems toi be the "best/possibly only" time.
(b) does prefer to have Basham and Greg in every meeting; not necessarily the Chief.
(6)
Hope this helps clear things up.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 09 18:29:32 2007
See below from CBP – apparently we switched timing on ref SBI meeting tomorrow; our new time runs
afoul of previous Commissioner plans to be on Hill. Need to respond to CBP on meeting status per
below.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: SBInet Border Fence mtg. w/ S1
(b) (6)
Thank you so much for your help on this
At this time the principals for this meeting (Comm. Basham and Chief Aguilar/(b) (6)
are both unavailable to attend and from our understanding, if they are unable to attend this
meeting it should not take place. The Deputy Commissioner is able to attend if necessary.
The meeting was originally scheduled for 330pm tomorrow in which the Commissioner was available to
attend, but since it was changed at 4pm this evening he has since become unable to attend.
Please let me know if this meeting will still take place or will be cancelled due to the lack of principals.
I appreciate any guidance you can provide, sorry for asking at such a late hour !
Thank You
(b) (6)
Office of the Deputy Commissioner

(b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ; VITIELLO, RONALD (
Subject: Re: SBInet Fence/Communication Messaging - Giddens, (b) (6)
10-4 Chief.

From: (b) (6) NL
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; VITIELLO, RONALD D
Sent: Wed May 16 20:57:09 2007
Subject: FW: SBInet Fence/Communication Messaging - Giddens, (b) (6)
Jeff, Ron,
Please be prepared to attend the below 9am meeting with me tomorrow in the Deputy Commissioner's
office.
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ; GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: SBInet Fence/Communication Messaging - Giddens, (b) (6)
PLEASE BE SURE TO BRING YOUR UPDATES TO THE OUTREACH PLAN AS WELL AS THE TALKING
POINTS.
Thank You
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Subject: SBInet Fence/Communication Messaging - Giddens, (b) (6)
Importance: High
THE ABOVE SUBJECT MEETING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW (5/17) @ 9AM, PLEASE
ADJUST YOUR CALENDARS ACCORDINGLY.
Thank You
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: RESEND of Earlier EMAIL: REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR SBInet OUTREACH
Date: Sunday, May 06, 2007 2:34:21 PM
(b) (6)
At the time of this writing, we are setting up an information bank in our Sector Website. Each Station
will be able to input their contact/stakeholder information into this site where data totals, as well as
other pertinent information will be easily accessed for this weekly report.
I do not have a total number of private land owners that may be affected or have interest in SBInet. I
am not sure who needs to be included in this number. I’ll contact you Monday so I’ll be clear on the
response. However, I have received a partial set of numbers from some of the Ranch Liaison Unit.
45 private landowners have been contacted

7 have identified a concern
6 miles of concern area
I have received a partial accounting on public lands:
3 entities
1 contacted
? concern
May be 20 miles of concern area
I have sent this to meet the deadline, I am sure to have everyone’s numbers to send Friday.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: RESEND of Earlier EMAIL: REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR SBInet OUTREACH
Outreach POCs,
Thanks in advance.
Number………………………..…X
Number………………………..…X
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: SBInet Rollout
(b) (6)
I have no problem with getting him the information and even having him participate in the
Communications IPT but he should not be getting any word out to the tribes. All messaging concerning
SBInet are being formulated and sent by the IPT.
Thanks,
Jeff
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: SBInet Rollout
(b)
(6)
(b) (6) came to talk with me about SBInet. He works in SPEC Ops and handles Native American
issues. He would like to get a schedule of locations where SBInet plans to deploy resources. His
concern is the same as what we have been dealing with over the past three weeks - getting the RIGHT
word out to the tribes before something blows up.
He already knows about P28, P37, PF225, etc. He is mostly interested in northern border locations. We
all understand that future SBInet planning is akin trying to nail Jello to the wall. Having said that, can
we get a tentative roll-out schedule for SBInet for the next 2-3 years? Point me to whoever I need to
speak with. (b) (6) s only interested in locations and is not concerned about what may actually be
deployed.
Just FYI - Chief Adams has agreed to make an SBInet presentation to the National Native American Law
Enforcement Association this October in Memphis.
Thanks.
(b) (6)
Branch Chief
Analysis Branch
Operations Planning and Analysis Division Office of Border Patrol
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: C2 TASKER - SBINet/Border Patrol
Wait for guidance and take (b) (6) and (b) (6) with you. Good luck. So you know this a big
one has the attention of the S1.
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Thu May 03 07:31:59 2007
Subject: RE: C2 TASKER - SBINet/Border Patrol
Jeff,
Need some guidance. I have been scheduled for a meeting with the Chief at 2:00 today on this
subject. Should I have something put together for this meeting or should I wait for what ever guidance
that comes out of the meeting?
(b) has brought me up to speed on the PF 225 project.

(6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: C2 TASKER - SBINet/Border Patrol
Importance: High
Guys,
Here's the tasker. Coordinate with SBInet and tap their resources. Also this is just part of it, the
Deputy also mentioned developing protocols. You'll here more tomorrow from the Deputy.

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; AGUILAR, DAVID V; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Wed May 02 14:22:44 2007
Subject: C2 TASKER - SBINet/Border Patrol
OBP,
Two taskers resulted from this morning's SBINet/Border Patrol meeting with the Deputy Commissioner
and both were assigned to OBP with Jeff Self as the lead. I am sending these out formally for tracking
purposes.
1. The Deputy Commissioner requested that BP develop an 8-week calendar focused on outreach
priorities to get the correct mission out to the interested parties (state/local, congress, etc.) regarding
this initiative. She suggested staging townhalls, meetings, etc. She has requested that this calendar be
completed Friday, May 11, 2007.
2. The Deputy Commissioner also requested an analysis summarizing difficulties and/or resistance with
regards to laying fence on the Texas border. Border Patrol has the lead on this and will work closely
with SBINet to complete this tasking. She has requested this analysis be complete by Friday, June 1,
2007.
Please copy (b) (2) on your response to these taskers, or just send me a note to let
me know when they have been submitted to C2's office.
Thank you!
(b)
(6)
------------------------------------------------
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6) Jeffrey.Self(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Seeking some time on the Commissioner"s schedule on Monday
Yes and no. The Deputy Commissioner wants to look at the status of the Texas Sectors and what
factors led to our decision for determining that status.
Look at the green was for Gregs benefit to go to S-1 to ask to start in those areas.
As for the 15th...it depends on who you talk with. In the ESC, C-1 couldn't remember. Greg says it
was due the 10th.
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jun 07 11:49:47 2007
Subject: Re: Seeking some time on the Commissioner's schedule on Monday
Jeff,
The traffic light deadline for tomorrow is to indicate which lands the Sectors have already determined as
green lights (low hanging fruit).
The total red, yellow, green classification is due on the 15th.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Adjutant to the Deputy Chief
HQ Office of Border Patrol
(b) (6)

From: SELF, JEFFREY D (b) (6) >
(b) (6) ; Giddens, Gregory
(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jun 07 09:29:21 2007

Subject: RE: Seeking some time on the Commissioner's schedule on Monday
(b) (6)
I'm open on Friday so whatever you have I'll take. In addition to this subject the Deputy Commissioner
wanted me and Greg to brief the Commissioner on the Traffic Light on Friday.
Jeff
________________________________
From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6) Giddens, Gregory
Cc: (b) (6)
Friday is tight, but let’s see what we can do…the easiest way might be for you to give me some times
that would work for all of you and I’ll see what works here…please advise..thanks..mcd
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: SELF, JEFFREY D(b) (6) v]

To: (b) (6) Self, Jeffrey D; Giddens, Gregory; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Yes for me!
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: Self, Jeffrey D; (b) (6) Giddens, Gregory; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Is Friday an option (b) (6) , Greg, Jeff?
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)

To: (b) (6) ; Giddens, Gregory (b) (6) ;
(b) (6) >
Cc:(b) (6) Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 21:09:36 2007
All,
I will be with Mr. Giddens and Chief Aguilar on the Hill at this time.
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6) Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 19:15:41 2007

If I understood (b) (6) correctly, we need to get C1 or C2

briefed for concurrence as soon as possible and then Chief Self would
ensure Mr. Giddens was included in the information loop.
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
That time will not work for me. We will be headed to the Hill for a
hearing.
Sorry,
Greg G

From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 15:12:13 2007

Would Chief Self be available tomorrow, Thursday, June 7 at 1:30pm?.

This is the time I had originally proposed for Chief Aguilar to do the
brief...that time is still available...please advise...thanks..mcd
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
GIDDENS, GREGORY;
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) is currently on a teleconference with (b) (6)

MCA) and Chief Jeff Self (HQOBP) concerning the Open House
Community Outreach suggestion (Texas) and he's asking Chief Self to get
time on the C1 or C2 calendar.
(b) (6) doesn't specifically need to be there as Chief Self

can provide the brief but as an FYI (b) (6) will be in the office
on Monday.
(b) (6) has also asked that Chief Self brief Greg Giddens on the
concept.
(b)
(6)
((b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) E
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 16:40:48 2007
Ok, just let me know...i have tentatively blocked the time on Thursday
of this week...if it doesn't happen then, we'd be looking at when he
returns from travel on June 18...mcd
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
The only day that (b) (6) was available this week was Monday.
The Chief should be in all week. Both the Chief and the (b) (6)
will be in this Monday, but I think C1 is out.
I'll find out if the Chief wants to meet C1 without the Deputy on
Thursday.
(b) can you field that one?

(6)
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 10:28:16 2007
(b) (6)
Commissioner Basham is available on Thursday, June 7 at 1:30pm for 30
minutes...are you able to check the Chief and Deputy Chief's calendars
and let me know if this time will work?...thanks (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From:(b) (6)
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 3:58 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
I will be in on Monday and will follow up as well...
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 15:55:01 2007
Subject: Fw: Seeking some time on the Commissioner's schedule on Monday
Hi (b) (6)
Can you pls coordinate directly w/ obp on this as I will be out next
week? This will be an important meeting but shouldn't take a full
hour...
Thanks
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 15:31:39 2007

Great -- (b) (6) will make it happen.

From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 15:20:53 2007

Subject: Seeking some time on the Commissioner's schedule on Monday
As a follow up to some of communication and outreach activities in

support of sbinet, Chief Aguilar and (b) (6) would like to
schedule some time on the Commissioner's schedule on Monday (perhaps 30
minutes) to review recent communications activities/media reports and
discuss next steps (including a proposal to conduct "open houses") and
DHS engagement. Is this possible?
Thanks
(b)
(6)

To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 11:31:58 2007

Subject: Re: News Articles
(b) (6)
I absolutely like the idea of an "open house"! This would insure

balanced audiences and interested parties represented.
Let's gin this up for proposal to the Commissioner for early this week.
We do not need too much detail for the Commissioner. We should keep it
at the conceptual level. Next step would be for us (CBP) to market this
to DHS.
Let's try to get on the Commissioner's Schedule Monday.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: Aguilar, David V (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 11:03:43 2007

Chief,
I see a couple of balanced messages in these articles, but also some

clear attempts to take statements out of context and present
misrepresentations of the facts. The fact that this event was
controlled by folks with a specific agenda made it difficult, at best,
to hope for much better than we got. Given the dynamics Chief, I think
you did well to keep the misinformation as limited as you did.
The key issues, and easiest targets for our detractors, seem to be the
perception of government secrecy, unwillingness to provide specific
information, and the ongoing perception (fueled by those with agendas)
of a huge wall stretching for miles rather than the picture we've tried
to paint of small sections of fence where it make sense.
Bottom line for me is that the folks with the political agendas are
looking for an oppotrunity to "bust this thing wide open and expose the
government for the lairs they are", and our continued overcautious
approach is feeding their cause.
We need to find a way to "bust it open" with us putting forth the facts
before our opponents can put out any more myth. We have to take the
wind out of their sails.
During a recent meeting, the Army Corps folks suggested a format for
outreach that I believe we might want to put on steroids and try in an
effort to couinter these politics. Its an "open house" specific to the
topic.
The open house would be a very public event. We would advertise it to

the public, let media attend freely, and invite specific groups (such as
the Texas Border Coalition mayors). We would have "stations" set up
with experts from SBI, Army Corps, and BP. Rather than a format where
people can "take the stage" and grandstand, folks could go to the
stations and get information and ask questions.
I propose that each station would be of a full disclosure nature. We

would have maps, and maybe even aerial photos, of areas where our
preliminary analyses indicate we might want to put fences and different
tactical infrastructure and technology. Our experts would explain the
thought processes behind the initial site selections. Our people would
also press home the fact that we will collaborate, and any hand-outs
would have the appropriate messages (intiial operational analyses, no
final decision, etc) attached.
Army Corps stations would have their experts on hand to explain the RFP,
engineering issues considerations, and steps that need to be done as we
move forward.
SBI could talk to what is coming in the realm of the "virtual" fence.
We would have to get DHS to support us on this because it would mean
putting maps and a lot of info into the public realm, but I've come to
believe this may be the only way to put this fire out.
The keys to success of this concept would be in creating an environment

of open communication in a format that can't be controlled by those with
political or special interest agendas.
Thoughts?
(b)
(6)
From: AGUILAR, DAVID V(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 00:00:58 2007
Subject: Fw: News Articles
FYI

From: (b) (6)
To: AGUILAR, DAVID V; (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jun 01 22:17:58 2007
Subject: News Articles
Chief Aguilar,
Below are two similar articles (b) asked that I email them to you
(6) working before we were back at the
since he could not get his laptop
office. The first is the AP article that was in the Brownsville Herald,
Houston Chronicle, and ABC News. I probably shouldn't express my
opinion, but my favorite line comes out of the second article below
which states, "After his speech, Aguilar was rushed out of the McAllen
Convention Center to a waiting motorcade."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Border Patrol chief meets with officials in the Valley
By LYNN BREZOSKY, Associated Press <mailto:>
McALLEN (AP) - The chief of the U.S. Border Patrol told angry mayors,
businessmen, and environmentalists Friday the 700-mile border fence was
law, and if his agency and local officials reach an impasse on where the
fence should go, "then it's up to someone to make a decision."
Chief David Aguilar's address to the Texas Border Coalition - which was
hastily arranged late Thursday after numerous cancellations by Homeland
Security officials - was sprinkled with conciliatory "ifs" and "mays"
about the location of the fence. But Aguilar made clear that the federal
government would have the final say.
"The mission of securing this country is mission one," he said.
When David Guerra, an executive with a bank that does a lot of business
with Mexicans, asked what recourse local leaders would have if the
government went against their concerns, Aguilar said, "I think as a
banker you know that sometimes things come to an impasse - and then it's
up to someone to make a decision."
Local officials have been fuming over what they consider the secrecy
concerning a fence they say will cut farmers off from water, harm
wildlife, ruin recreational areas and send a hostile message to Mexico,
Texas' biggest trading partner.
Within months of getting Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's

assurances that decisions on the fence's location would not be made
without their input, coalition members intercepted a confidential U.S.
Customs and Border Protection memo that included a map of the fence.
Customs and Border Protection has since said things were badly handled
and that the map is preliminary.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican who voted for the fence,
got an amendment passed in the pending Senate immigration bill that
would require Homeland Security to take locals' concerns into
consideration when siting the fence.
But local leaders told Aguilar on Friday that poor communication

persists, with all their information so far coming from intercepted
memos, including a request for proposals for the fence contract.
"What is your plan in Texas? Where is the fence going to be built,"

coalition leader Mike Allen said.
"I can't tell you today," Aguilar said. "If I told you where the fence
was going that would mean we'd never partnered with you."
He said there were "no confidential memos."
But John McClung, president of the Texas Produce Association who

attended a separate fence meeting Friday between landowners and the
Border Patrol, said agents rolled out maps of private property marked
with lines showing exactly where the fence was being considered. The
lines were drawn on the levees, which can be as much as 1 1/2 miles
inland from the Rio Grande.
"When you listen to the chief of the Border Patrol say this morning that
this all is subject to consultation with localities and then you go to a
site meeting and you see big rollout maps with lines drawn on it you
begin to wonder what their definition of consultation is," he said.
Allen, former president of the McAllen Economic Development Corp., said

he was insulted to learn that the Border Patrol was not publicizing the
landowners' meetings.
"We'd like to know what you're negotiating," he said. "Let us know where
these meetings are. We'd like to go to them," he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------
McALLEN - U.S. Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar met with elected
officials from the Texas-Mexico border Friday but failed to allay
concerns that the federal government is keeping quiet its plans for the
proposed border fence.
"I'm not confident (they're keeping us informed). We've been burned so

many times," Laredo Mayor Raul Salinas said.
"Look at everyone we got here today. We're knocking on the door, and
this is a wakeup call."
Aguilar's appearance came at a Texas Border Coalition meeting, an event

that brought together conservationists, landowners, farmers and elected
officials in an attempt to devise a strategy to oppose fence
construction. Aguilar, the highest-ranking Border Patrol official in the
country, was not originally scheduled to appear but called to say he was
coming Thursday night, said Eddie Aldrete, one of the meeting
organizers.
Aguilar spoke for about 30 minutes, taking questions from the audience
and explaining the government's plans for border security.
"A wall or a fence is a tactical tool. It's not a solution," Aguilar

said.
"This is not an issue solely of illegal immigration. ... We have to

begin to think, 'Should we start securing our border now, or wait until
something happens?'
"This country is at war," Aguilar added, referring to the so-called

global war on terror. "We're fighting a war unlike anything this country
has seen before. We're fighting an ideology."
After his speech, Aguilar was rushed out of the McAllen Convention
Center to a waiting motorcade.
"You can look at it two ways," Hidalgo County Judge J.D. Salinas said of
Aguilar's appearance. "This could be a public affairs thing to try and
calm the locals down, or they really care and want our input.
"Personally, I think they have good intentions."
Following Aguilar's departure, meeting attendees discussed how they

should try to reduce the 135 miles of fence designated for Texas, as
detailed in a map drawn up by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
DHS officials have called the map, which was part of a confidential memo
leaked to the media last month, "preliminary."
While some landowners argued for taking their concerns to Border Patrol
individually, the consensus among elected officials was for a unified
opposition.
"The bigger we are, the more input we will have," McAllen Mayor Richard
Cortez said.
"If you know somebody at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or the farmers
associations ... call them."
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief / HQOBP
1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Room 6.5E
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: GIDDENS, GREGOR( ; ADAMS, ROWDY (
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: SHORT NOTICE TASKER DUE COB TODAY _ _ COS Sweet Tasking - S1 Event Participation
Date: Friday, October 19, 2007 5:04:58 PM
SBInet Program
1. Technical Event for Project 28 Conditional Acceptance: December
SBI TI Program
1. PF225 Construction Commences: December
SBI Transportation
1. The Continuing Resolution has put on hold our plans to conduct operational evaluation of
medical escort/guard service in the San Diego area followed by full deployment of a medical escort
program.
2. If there is a SBInet demo contemplated we should consider showing how BP apprehension

supported by new SBInet tools is supported by contracted transport to detention or as a VR.
Sir(s),
Above are the events provided by SBI Program Managers per DHS COS request. Please
review/approve.
(b) (6)
Once approved by SBI leadership could you please forward to SBI ExecSec (b) (6)
Thank you,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

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

Subject: FW: SHORT NOTICE TASKER DUE COB TODAY _ _ COS Sweet Tasking - S1 Event
Participation
It could be risky based on how testing goes but a possible tech event for S1 participation could be a
visit to P28, Tucson, mid-to-late December assuming we have Conditional Acceptance 9 Nov. Final
Acceptance Testing should be ongoing 15 Nov to EOM December. He could visit Tucson HQ and view
ongoing testing, potentially view a vehicle with MDT, etc
(b) (6)
Chief of Staff
SBInet Program Office
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
I agree it could be risky timewise--I would suspect maybe mid-to-late Dec might be a suggestion, as
it's the only game in town at the moment--as long as S1's schedule could be flexible....
(b) (6)
SBInet
1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington DC 20229
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) N
Cc: (b) (6)
Importance: High
All: I talked to (b) (6) . It could be risky based on how testing goes but a possible tech event for
S1 participation could be a visit to P28, Tucson late Nov to mid-December assuming we have
Conditional Acceptance 9 Nov. Final Acceptance Testing should be ongoing 15 Nov to EOM
December. He could visit Tucson HQ and view ongoing testing, potentially view a vehicle with MDT,
etc. Need everyone’s input by 3:00 PM today. Thanks! (b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Chief of Staff
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 11:39 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc:(
b
Subject: SHORT NOTICE TASKER DUE COB TODAY _ _ COS Sweet Tasking - S1 Event Participation
Importance: High
Ideas? I’ll check with each of you after lunch or respond to this email. (b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Chief of Staff
(b) (6)

To: (b) (6) )
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: COS Sweet Tasking - S1 Event Participation
We should look for a transportation linked event as well as tech and TI.
Greg G

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (2) ; GIDDENS, GREGORY
Sent: Fri Oct 19 11:15:38 2007
Subject: RE: COS Sweet Tasking - S1 Event Participation
FYI, the deadline is COB todayJ.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6) On Behalf Of GIDDENS, GREGORY

To: (b) (6)
Cc (b) (2)
Subject: FW: COS Sweet Tasking - S1 Event Participation
Importance: High
Hi (b) (6)
Greg left this one in his box, needs to be tasked out, maybe to (b) and (b) (6) ?
(6)
Thanks!
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:55 PM
To: (b) (6)
; GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: COS Sweet Tasking - S1 Event Participation

Importance: High
Hi Everyone –
COS(b) (6) was tasked by the DHS COS ((b) (6) with coming up with 6 CBP events total that S1 could
participate in – 3 in November, 3 in December. He’s asked me to generate some ideas for him to present to COS
(b) (6)
Some parameters are below:
* Naturally, they want it by COB tomorrow – any help on accomplishing that deadline is MUCH appreciated.
* Can be either a pre-existing event (ie INATR Trade Symposium) or an event that could be made for S1’s
participation.
* I’ve attached the form that S1’s scheduling office uses for events – though it doesn’t have to be exactly in this
format, similar information should be included in your entries.
* Understandably, COS (b) is very keen on S1’s participation in events that relate to S1’s goals and priorities
(6)be aware of as you think about particular events.
(attached). Just something to
Can you all assist with some ideas from within your division? Please submit your ideas to (b) (6) in
the Commissioner’s Office (cc’ed), she will compile a single document that(b) (6) can present to(b) (6)
Thanks everyone as always.
Thanks all,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Stakeholders
Yet another exclamation point! It is a good day No?!
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Stakeholders
Thanks (b)
(6)
From my perspective, the number that we have contacted is impressive!
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: Stakeholders
(b)
(6)
There are 778 stakeholders identified thus far for PF225 and 341 hsve yet to be contacted.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY (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)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 09:18:59 2007
Subject: RE: Texas Mobile trip plan
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)
El Paso Sector
8901 Montana Avenue
(b) (6)
From: (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)
El Paso Sector
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
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: are you around this morning?
Will do.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri May 25 07:16:59 2007
Subject: are you around this morning?
can you meet me at 8 AM at the 14th street visitor's entrance, and then join me in an 8:15 meeting
with (b) (6) about processing/approving these PF225 letters?
(b)
cell (b) (6)
(6)
To: (b) (6) ; GIDDENS, GREGOR( ; (b) (6)
COLBURN, RONALD (
Cc: (b) (6) VITIELLO, RONALD ( ; (b) (6)
Subject: Re: planning for Saturday"s town hall meeting in Brownsville, Texas
(b)
(6)
I agree, when and where?
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6) COLBURN,
RONALD S; SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6) VITIELLO, RONALD D;
(b) (6)
Sent: Tue May 08 20:35:47 2007
Subject: Re: planning for Saturday's town hall meeting in Brownsville, Texas
To clear up confusion...when I said (b) or myslef and (b) would be there...it was in reference to
(6)
the pre-brief. I wasn't committing anyone (6)
to Brownsville.

To: (b) (6) COLBURN, RONALD S; SELF, JEFFREY
D
Cc: (b) (6) ;
VITIELLO, RONALD D; (b) (6)
Sent: Tue May 08 19:08:13 2007
We need to ensure Ron has all the lastest nuances on the fence issue....
Greg G

From:(b) (6) K
To: (b) (6) COLBURN, RONALD S; SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6) J;
VITIELLO, RONALD D; (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY
Sent: Tue May 08 19:04:36 2007
Subject: planning for Saturday's town hall meeting in Brownsville, Texas
Hello folks:
OK, I have had a couple of conversations with (b) (6) in Senator Cornyn's office (she is the main
coordinator of the upcoming town hall meeting). Here is an update with respect to this Saturday's event
with the Senator and Chief Colburn in Brownsville:
-- Entire event will be "open press"

-- At 12:45 pm, Chief Colburn arrives along with the county judge, judge pro-tem, and county
administrator
-- At 12:55 pm, the Senator arrives and has a "meet and greet" with Chief Colburn and the
judges/administrator
-- 1:00 pm: Town hall meeting begins
-- Senator: 10 -- 15 minutes of remarks
-- Chief Colburn: 10 --15 minutes of remarks
-- Open forum for questions and answers. Some of the questions that will likely come up are:
-- Seized land/eminent domain
-- Long delays at the POEs. Concern of some local citizens that CBP's border security efforts will
further slow down the flow of legitimate trade and travel
-- The cane issue
--At least one attendee is one of the "big property owners who is very upset"
-- The event will conclude with 15 minutes of "press availability"
Given the importance of this event, and the risks and rewards associated with it, I highly recommend
that we come together on Thursday for a "murder board" to ensure that CBP/OBP message, as delivered
by Chief Colburn, is on course. Thoughts?
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Unisys folks who need to visit theTucson CBP Stations with us
Date: Saturday, July 07, 2007 4:15:12 PM
(b) (6)
Was there another issue with this?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Sat Jul 07 16:13:06 2007
(b)
(6)
Plwase forward this to all boeing personel
No boeing or their subcontractors will visit any current infrastructure or future infrastructure projects
without a BP escort. We will facilitate the visits with boeing on monday.
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jul 06 20:23:13 2007
Subject: Fw: Unisys folks who need to visit theTucson CBP Stations with us
Additional attendees for the road infrastructure visit.

From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jul 06 20:02:51 2007
Subject: Unisys folks who need to visit theTucson CBP Stations with us
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 3:35 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Standard COP
(b) (6) and I will be there Wednesday morning. We both have conflicts
on Friday, I will determine if someone else can join on Friday.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6) | Chief Architect | Federal Systems Unisys | 3199
Pilot Knob Road | Eagan, Mn 55121 | (b) (6)
Mobile
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY
MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail
and its attachments from all computers.
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 10:37 AM
To: (b) (6)
I totally agree that you should be with us.

Are you able to support the schedule next week?
I am staying at the Tucson Airport Embasy Suites.
The HNTB A&E folks are meeting me Wednesday morning in my lobby at
6:30AM.
HNTB is the A&E firm subcontracted to L-3 Com GSI, "(b) (6)
We need to have someone on your team call in to the 2:00 PM CST
telecons. The telecon is where these types of trips are mentioned.
I wish you guys had been involved with the site trips I have already
been on. I have visited all the Texas Mobile, Yuma and Tucson POEs. I am
looking at their physical Infrastructure upgrade needs such as extra
cameras, lights, fenceing etc..
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Does Boeing plan a second trip to each station for Unisys to ask their
facility questions before we send our proposal to Boeing?
When do I get to review the communications in each station? I need to

understand the network to be able to configure the routers in the C3 and
on each tower. It was very disappointing to see the Microwave network
at the Fort Hancock station hanging on a wall when I was told it was not
yet available from Boeing.
Tom

Mobile

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Our trip next week does not involve meetings to discuss which type of
COP the Border Patrol Stations will be getting. Per the Boeing Tucson
Sector Specification S333-104001-1 dated May 31, 2007, the Border Patrol
Stations are listed as getting Standard COPs. The purpose of our trip to
Tucson next week is two fold, one set of folks, Road Civil Engineers,
will be traveling through the desert looking at road infrastructure. The
remaining four of us will be going to all the Tucson Sector Border
Patrol Stations to see what their Station's infrastructure currently is.
I will be looking at the following:
Questions about stations:

Is there space on the station tower for one or more solid microwave
antennas? Number? Is there space at a appropriate height?
Is there space and power(including backup) in the equipment room/shelter
for several microwave radios and network equipment? Estimated number?
Is the tower structurally sound for adding additional antennas?
Antenna height? Tower Lat/long?
Is there communications fiber to the station? Is there available
communications fiber near the station? Distance? Owner? Is OIT
already working with owner?
Contact info for station OIT responsible person.
Is there space for a new tower and shelter if required? Power
available?
Is there a visible obstruction that would limit microwave
communications? Approx height? Direction?
Is there a nearby restriction for building a tower? Airport, etc...
Is their space in the station to physically locate a Standard Cop
Workstation and any associated racks.
Here is our aggressive agenda for the trip
Wednesday 11th
7 AM - 8:30 AM, Tucson Border Patrol HQ
9 AM - 10:30 AM Tucson Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
Lunch
1 PM - 2:30 PM Casa Grande Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
4:30 PM - 6 PM Ajo Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
Thursday 12th
9 AM - 11 AM Nogales Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
Lunch
1:30 PM - 3 PM Sonoita Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
Friday 13th
8:30 AM - 10 AM Wilcox Border Patrol Station
Lunch
1 PM - 2:30 PM Douglas Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
4 PM - 5:30 PM Naco Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Design & Integration
Electrical Systems Engineer
Boeing, SBInet Program
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
It is important to work together as a team to provide CBP the best
solution. The COP is very complex yet flexible in its design. We need
to understand the requirements before we decide if they get a full COP,
MDT Workstation or WebCop. Each of these will require different
resources. A rule of thumb is 1M for a video stream. The more images
you display on a single screen, the higher the bandwidth.
It is important that Unisys attend the communications meetings with the

customer because they impact the design. I cannot give you a "cheat
sheet" that you can dial the bandwidth requirements. We need to show the
bandwidth of the SBInet network as well as the bandwidth requirements
for CBP OneNet. Unisys is building the network across OneNet.
I have had discussions with L3 on network redundancy. We need to show

weighted routes so we can recover from a tower failure automatically.
We also need to show disaster recovery with a mobile communications
subsystem.
I will be in Tucson next week. Can I get the schedule of your meetings?
Tom

Mobile

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6) , please coordinate with (b) (6) who has the best handle on
getting your question answered.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 9:14 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Standard COP
(b) (6)
Good Morning Hope you had a nice 4th.
Quick question,
Pertaining to the Standard COP, whenever a Standard COP is utilized, are
the two 19" racks, like those in the P28 FOB required also or were those
racks necessary to support the system out in the Remote area?
The reason for the question is I will be going to the CBP stations out
in the Tucson Sector next week and I will look at their current space
availabilities to see if we will have to provide a Command & Control
trailer or if we can use existing facility space. For the Standard COPs,
do you know or could you estimate the required operational bandwidth
needed? I'll find out what their current backbone is and I'll be looking
to see if a Comm tower is located their also.
Also, when I was at the Port of Entrees, I was asked what the Web COPs
bandwidth requirements were. Some of the Ports were worried that with
their current bandwidth usage, their current internet system may not be
adequate to support both the Web COP and their current hardware usage.
The AZ Port of Entrees currently feed all their Video feeds up to the
Tucson OFO's Video Command Center.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Date: Saturday, July 07, 2007 4:49:35 PM
That is exactly what they have been told. If any sector has problems with the SBInet and it's minions
please make sure to bring it up. Jeff has been very clear to them on that point. I know (b) and
Rowdy put out a specific message to them about it also. (6)
So is the early August date the most probable?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jul 07 16:46:19 2007
I imagine that they are going to want to go out to the nation. Sector does'nt want any contrator on the
nation without someone very familiar with ti along. +t saves on miscommunication with th TON if we do
the talking.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jul 07 16:15:11 2007
(b) (6)
Was there another issue with this?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jul 07 16:13:06 2007

(b)
(6)
Plwase forward this to all boeing personel
No boeing or their subcontractors will visit any current infrastructure or future infrastructure projects
without a BP escort. We will facilitate the visits with boeing on monday.
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jul 06 20:23:13 2007
Subject: Fw: Unisys folks who need to visit theTucson CBP Stations with us
Additional attendees for the road infrastructure visit.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jul 06 20:02:51 2007
Subject: Unisys folks who need to visit theTucson CBP Stations with us
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 3:35 PM
To: (b) (6)
(b) (6) and I will be there Wednesday morning. We both have conflicts
on Friday, I will determine if someone else can join on Friday.
(b)
(6)
Pilot Knob Road | Eagan, Mn 55121 |(b) (6)
Mobile

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
I totally agree that you should be with us.

Are you able to support the schedule next week?
I am staying at the Tucson Airport Embasy Suites.
The HNTB A&E folks are meeting me Wednesday morning in my lobby at
6:30AM.
HNTB is the A&E firm subcontracted to L-3 Com GSI, "(b) (6)
We need to have someone on your team call in to the 2:00 PM CST
telecons. The telecon is where these types of trips are mentioned.
I wish you guys had been involved with the site trips I have already
been on. I have visited all the Texas Mobile, Yuma and Tucson POEs. I am
looking at their physical Infrastructure upgrade needs such as extra
cameras, lights, fenceing etc..
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b) (6) ,
Does Boeing plan a second trip to each station for Unisys to ask their
facility questions before we send our proposal to Boeing?
When do I get to review the communications in each station? I need to
understand the network to be able to configure the routers in the C3 and
on each tower. It was very disappointing to see the Microwave network
at the Fort Hancock station hanging on a wall when I was told it was not
yet available from Boeing.
(b)
(6)

Mobile

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Our trip next week does not involve meetings to discuss which type of
COP the Border Patrol Stations will be getting. Per the Boeing Tucson
Sector Specification S333-104001-1 dated May 31, 2007, the Border Patrol
Stations are listed as getting Standard COPs. The purpose of our trip to
Tucson next week is two fold, one set of folks, Road Civil Engineers,
will be traveling through the desert looking at road infrastructure. The
remaining four of us will be going to all the Tucson Sector Border
Patrol Stations to see what their Station's infrastructure currently is.
I will be looking at the following:
Questions about stations:

Is there space on the station tower for one or more solid microwave
antennas? Number? Is there space at a appropriate height?
Is there space and power(including backup) in the equipment room/shelter
for several microwave radios and network equipment? Estimated number?
Is the tower structurally sound for adding additional antennas?
Antenna height? Tower Lat/long?
Is there communications fiber to the station? Is there available
communications fiber near the station? Distance? Owner? Is OIT
already working with owner?
Contact info for station OIT responsible person.
Is there space for a new tower and shelter if required? Power
available?
Is there a visible obstruction that would limit microwave
communications? Approx height? Direction?
Is there a nearby restriction for building a tower? Airport, etc...
Is their space in the station to physically locate a Standard Cop
Workstation and any associated racks.
Here is our aggressive agenda for the trip
Wednesday 11th
7 AM - 8:30 AM, Tucson Border Patrol HQ
9 AM - 10:30 AM Tucson Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
Lunch
1 PM - 2:30 PM Casa Grande Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
471-6489
4:30 PM - 6 PM Ajo Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
Thursday 12th
9 AM - 11 AM Nogales Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
Lunch
1:30 PM - 3 PM Sonoita Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
Friday 13th
8:30 AM - 10 AM Wilcox Border Patrol Station
Lunch
1 PM - 2:30 PM Douglas Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
4 PM - 5:30 PM Naco Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
(b) (6)
((b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
It is important to work together as a team to provide CBP the best
solution. The COP is very complex yet flexible in its design. We need
to understand the requirements before we decide if they get a full COP,
MDT Workstation or WebCop. Each of these will require different
resources. A rule of thumb is 1M for a video stream. The more images
you display on a single screen, the higher the bandwidth.
It is important that Unisys attend the communications meetings with the

customer because they impact the design. I cannot give you a "cheat
sheet" that you can dial the bandwidth requirements. We need to show the
bandwidth of the SBInet network as well as the bandwidth requirements
for CBP OneNet. Unisys is building the network across OneNet.
I have had discussions with L3 on network redundancy. We need to show

weighted routes so we can recover from a tower failure automatically.
We also need to show disaster recovery with a mobile communications
subsystem.
I will be in Tucson next week. Can I get the schedule of your meetings?
(b)
(6)

Mobile

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6) , please coordinate with (b) (6) who has the best handle on
getting your question answered.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 9:14 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Standard COP
(b) (6)
Good Morning Hope you had a nice 4th.
Quick question,
Pertaining to the Standard COP, whenever a Standard COP is utilized, are
the two 19" racks, like those in the P28 FOB required also or were those
racks necessary to support the system out in the Remote area?
The reason for the question is I will be going to the CBP stations out
in the Tucson Sector next week and I will look at their current space
availabilities to see if we will have to provide a Command & Control
trailer or if we can use existing facility space. For the Standard COPs,
do you know or could you estimate the required operational bandwidth
needed? I'll find out what their current backbone is and I'll be looking
to see if a Comm tower is located their also.
Also, when I was at the Port of Entrees, I was asked what the Web COPs
bandwidth requirements were. Some of the Ports were worried that with
their current bandwidth usage, their current internet system may not be
adequate to support both the Web COP and their current hardware usage.
The AZ Port of Entrees currently feed all their Video feeds up to the
Tucson OFO's Video Command Center.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Updated PF225 Spreadsheet
Jeff just said to make sure we did what could to make it work. Lots of help. Please just work close
with (b) (6) to get those out to the right people. Thanks again.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 11:49:19 2007
Subject: Updated PF225 Spreadsheet
(b)
(6)
Got it. It looks alright, though I will give it a good going over. I am shooting off the email to the
Sectors as soon as I get back from a quick lunch. I know you were going to call Jeff, so I’ll hold off
until then in case you have instructions. Please give the following email a quick look. Also, I left you a
voice mail, which you can ignore.
(b)
(6)
All,
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will be mailing out Environmental Assessment notification
letters to the appropriate Native American tribes in your respective areas of operations, as well as to the
appropriate State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO.) The letters will explain site location of possible
infrastructure insertion. These assessments do not imply that work will definitely be done.
It is recommended that you conduct a Risk Assessment based on your relationship with recipients to
identify the appropriate method of notification. Your analysis should determine the mode of
communication e.g. face-to-face meeting, telephonic notification, etc. Our objective is to reach out to
the recipients in advance of the letters, to explain the purpose. This will require immediate response, as
the letters are mailed via Federal Express, and will arrive the day after they are sent. USACE mailed the
Santa Teresa project letters yesterday, June 5, 2007. The Nogales project letters will go Friday.
Attached is a copy of the letter sent to the tribes for each project, as well as the letter to the
appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer. Accompanying these letters is the list of the tribes to
receive the letters. I have sent this correspondence to all of the SBI Points of Contact (If I missed
anyone, please let me know.) If there is any question as to which Sector bears responsibility for any
contact(s) please ask. The letters to the SHPO should be reviewed for specific contact information.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Updates
(b)
(6)
I think things are pretty bad. In my opinion, some high level discussion needs to take place so that a
good game plan can be engaged re RGV. The discussion with (b) (6) was interesting on Fri.
He (remember, he told us it made sense to go to CEQ) now thinks that alternative arrangements won’t
happen. He spoke with CEQ, and their take was “what emergency.” Really, since they could not affect
cultural or endangered species by giving us alternative arrangements, that is not a big loss. At least
that is the case in most places. It does leave a problem in Brown Field’s area. (b) (6) did mention
some very short time frames for EIS (5 mo) which I think we’ll have to run by the CORPS and GSRC.
We need to know whether or not they can do it. A report from a general officer stating that it is
possible (or not) would be very helpful, as we’d have an idea as to what is a reasonable course of
action going forward. With a knowledge deficit in this area, it is very difficult to come up with
reasonable expectations for folks.
Another item that is bothering me is the details of our fence plan in RGV. If we are going to build on
the levy, how many folks do we really affect? Could we not develop a good message showing that we
are concerned with the T&E species ? I believe I could make a strong argument for that position.
Could we not develop a message to let folks know our plan to keep from taking away their ability to
make a living (I’ve heard we plan to keep the cattle from getting to the river)? Could we not reassure
the NGOs that we plan to work with the birders, etc. so that their ability to study the critters will be
enhanced, not stolen? Couldn’t the combination of these messages, with a good BMP (for the species
in question) with USFWS, possibly remove us from the EIS threshold we are looking at with all of these
things up in the air?
I am afraid that fear is carrying the day in the RGV. How’s that for a statement ?
(b)
(6)
From:(
Sent: bMonday, June 04, 2007 2:26 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Updates
Exactly. They might try to change it to reflect progress or that things aren't "that" bad.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 14:24:15 2007
I can be stubborn. Can you shed any light on the direction you expect they will try to slant things, as I am not up on
the political bit upstairs? As far as I am concerned, they can say whatever they want in their SBI column, but the
color codes and the reports from the sectors determine the reporting in the real estate column, and the
environmental is what it is. I am eager to see the new version from(b) (6) as I understand the Del Rio
environmental has changed a bit.
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To (b) (6)
I believe he will to get us to conform to their ideas to color coding. I am not interested on what makes SBInet
looks good only in what the real situation is.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) >
Sent: Mon Jun 04 14:16:34 2007
Will do(b) I don’t know why his concern, unless(b) (6) does not like how I’ve spelled the colors out in the
(6) Any thoughts?
last week.
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Don't know if this meeting will still happen but I am not comfortable with the tone and not being there. Keep me
informed.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) >
Sent: Mon Jun 04 14:08:09 2007
(b)
(6)
I understand it has to do with (b) (6) wanting to discuss color coding. I’m sorry I didn’t get back sooner, as I’ve
been involved in the Environmental IPT today.
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To (b) (6)
Subject: Updates
Have you found out anything yet?

To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Request from USACE for document
(b)
(6)
Unless I'm missing something the Chief has already approved the building of the fence off the border.
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 23 15:20:45 2007
Subject: Request from USACE for document
Jeff,
The USACE is requesting that the Sectors, such as RGV and Yuma, create a document that outlines their
plan/concept for patrolling the areas “south” of the fence. This is not for use by the USACE but rather
because they feel Chief Aguilar will not move forward with fence building “off the line” unless those
issues have been addressed. I believe this came from speaking with RGV agents directly last week.
Just passing along as it came up in the PMT.
Also, the USACE and (b) (6) are requesting the specific directions/orders that dictate how things
are moving from here. Basically what the Commissioner has said will happen, such as everything must
go through SBI/OBP for review before release.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY (
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita
Date: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:04:46 PM
Super.
Any update on the IA?
Greg G
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:57 PM
To: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY; ADAMS, ROWDY D
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Subject: FW: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita
Greg, to follow up to our conversation yesterday: Asset Mgmt staff indicates completion of the
Reimbursable Work Agreement and submission to the Corps.
(b) (6)
From: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 11:30 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
thanks
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ;
FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
(b) (6)
The RWA has been signed and submitted to the Corps.
Thank you and have a Happy Thanksgiving!
(b) (6)
Asset Management
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Importance: High
Thanks (b) . We appreciate your hard work on moving this. The Corps need the funding no later
(6)
than Monday, 26 November so the RWA needs to be signed today or Friday.
Who will sign the RWA and when in OFAM?
Would it assist the process if I send an email or call to (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Budget and Finance Director, SBI
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
I am very sorry for the delayed response.
The funds have been committed in SAP and the RWA is currently pending signature within Asset
Management.
Upon the document being signed it will be forwarded to the Corps for execution.
Once the document has gone to the Corps we will advise.
Thank you
(b) (6)
Asset Management
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:29 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Please let me know the status of this RWA with ACE, we need to have the funds obligated to them for
these TI projects, (b) (6) will be briefing the SBI Program Director on this today.
thanks
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:31 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Please see the email below. The PMP will not be ready until January however the Corps is requiring
funds for planning now. We are working this issue today and will advise.
I will be in an all day meeting but will monitor my blackberry
Thank you
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:10 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita
Yes, VF300 will develop a PMP. Will be completed during January 2008.
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Nov 19 16:08:13 2007
Per the e-mail traffic below, particularly the 11/15/07 e-mail from (b) (6) , will SBI be
developing the VF300 PMP and when should that effort be completed?
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 3:53 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: VF funds to USACE for TON, Papago Farms, and Sonoita
(b) - I am not sure. SBI was taking that on. But similar to pf225 p, we need to get funds so as to
(6)
start all of the required up front planning efforts.
Please note that to date we do not have a pmp for pf225.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
CC: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Nov 19 14:36:42 2007
Per the e-mail traffic below, when will the PMP for VF300 be sent to
OFAM?
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

All,
I've requested a meeting this afternoon with SBI and USACE to discuss
how we are going to track and report. Setting VF300 up similar to PF225
makes sense. As for the various segments, you are correct in that
several are already started (a portion of the TON 35 miles and Sonoita
are started with military units). We are augmenting these with
commercial contracts in order to meet the mileage and date commitment.
PMPs were done for these original segments but a PMP is being done for
all of VF300.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
I'm not sure, but based on the conversations in Dallas a couple of weeks
ago, it looks to me like SBI 1499 (b) (6) ) and 1718 (b) (6)
) have somehow been rolled up together. Both are under
construction, 4.48 miles completed on the TON project, 5.4 miles on the
(b) (6) . There is an RWA, #20024927.1, dated 2/22/07, that
added (b) (4) to make a total of (b) (4) . (expired 9/30/07) The scope of
work is 35 miles of Vehicle Barriers on the TON. I think this is the
part of the same project as the one mentioned by(b) (6) . The dollars
for both don't add up, the milage for both don't add up, but the 35
miles seems to be the same. I have a PRD for the #1499, titled TCA-JS-1,
without signatures. (there might be a signed one somewhere, I couldn't
find it). I don't seem to have anything on 1718, or 1414 (Sonoita
retrofit).
I haven't gone back to the COE yet for more information. On some of
them, I don't think they have anything yet. I'm not sure if we're
talking about the same projects, I'm not sure if we are just modifying
the existing RWA or starting fresh.
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:33 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Please see the emails below, (b) (6) is asking that these funds be
processed as soon as we get them, however the only documents I have so
far are attached to this email. We will need a PMP for this project; do
you have any further information on this?
Are we setting this project up as we set up PF225, one project in

project systems and (b) (6) creating the individual assets in the
end; or are each of these segments to be their own projects? I think a
similar PF225 setup would be the best route to take, but I don't know if
that is my call to make. Let me know what your thoughts are on this.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Fyi - let's roll!
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

The change has been processed that includes your request.
(b) (6)
Office of Finance
Budget Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:22 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Re: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita
Debra please advise to all when the transfer to OF is complete

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

Sent: Fri Nov 09 15:43:21 2007
The fence segments are the (b) (6) (b) (6) and
Sonoita. Other costs are associated costs for Environment, Real Estate,
program Oversite, etc. There will be a spreadsheet with the request.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita
Thanks (b) Do we have a list of projects?

Thanks (6)
(b) (6)
Director, Resource Management Division
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Nov 09 15:33:15 2007
Subject: FW: VF funds to USACE for TON,(b) (6) and Sonoita
(b) (6) please process the pending S request to transfer (b) (4) to OFAM
for the VF 300 projects
(b) and(b) (6) heads up that this is coming for RWA referenced in
(6)
attachment
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

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

(b) (6)
Subject: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita
(b) (6) ,
I requested our Financial Team send funds to the Corps to start the TON,
(b) (6) , and Sonoita VF projects. The paperwork I submitted is
attached. Please coordinate with (b) (6) to track the flow and
establish reporting procedures between you and SBI and you and the
Corps. The Corps POC is (b) (6) (on Cc line). (b) (6) will
be back from New Orleans Friday.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Weekly Outreach Report
Importance: High
(b) (6)
A couple of issues. The PF225 document is not a report you need to complete, but was sent to you for
your information.
The spreadsheet with the colored columns is a required report, and several of the blocks in yellow and
red have not been filled out correctly. Please show the proper categories for each of the land owners.
For example, the total number of owners under red should be broken down into type of owner
(fed/private/state).
The other item that is due each week is the land owner database. (b) (6) has been trying to get
it to me, with some difficulties. I believe (b) (6) has found the solution, however.
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Weekly Outreach Report
Gentlemen,
Attached please find this weeks reports for DRT Sector.
I included some additional land owner information and status updates on the
HQ_Weekl file that might give a better idea of where we stand. Once the
moratorium on outreach has been lifted we will proceed on the unidentified
owners and those we have not contacted for an official stance on the matter.
I will get these reports to you as instructed each Thursday. (b) (6) will
not be conducting outreach activities and will not be sending any reports
related to the program (P225).
Thanks,
(b) (6)
Del Rio Sector
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Weekly Reporting Requirement
(b)
(6)
I am attaching our weekly report of PF225 stakeholders, please let me know if I require anything else.
Thank you,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Outreach POCs,
As this process continues, many of the program managers are requiring somewhat
specific information in order to brief the Commissioner and the Secretary. The
information you have been and continue to provide is being used to evaluate not
only progress but direction for the project.
SBInet is requesting that all Border Patrol Sectors within the PF-225 footprint,
to supply HQ with quantitative information weekly. Please complete all
highlighted information and return it to me by no later than Monday May 7th.
Updates of this information will be due by the close of business every Friday
until the project is complete.
The information being requested is simply totals of what you have been compiling
since your Outreach Workshop. This should be essentially a fill in the blank.
I would ask all SWB sectors to complete this requirement. They have been asking
for information on all of the SWB sectors.
Thanks in advance.
* Number................................X
* Number contacted..................X
* Number of concern.................X
* Number of miles of concern.....X
* Number................................X
* Number contacted..................X
* Number of concern.................X
* Number of miles of concern.....X
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ; Ronald.Colburn(b) (6) ; (b) (6)
RONALD (b) (6)
Cc: David.Aguila (b) (6) (b) (6)
Subject: Re: YUM hosting SBInet mtg
Date: Saturday, May 19, 2007 5:43:02 PM
Will do Chief.
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To: COLBURN, RONALD S (b) (6)
Self, Jeffrey D
(b) (6) Vitiello, Ronald D(b) (6)
Cc: AGUILAR, DAVID V (b) (6)
Sent: Sat May 19 17:16:37 2007

Thanks Chief Colburn.
Chief Self, please have someone on the team begin working with Yuma to iron out logistics for a
workshop in their AOR. Also, we'll want to finalize the agenda for the Yuma session shortly after El
Paso, so we can incorporate any "lessons learned" from El Paso.
Chief Vitiello, please have your Division reach out to the Arizona and California Sectors, have them
identify their core teams the way Texas did, and let them know of the intent to conduct a workshop in
Yuma on the 30th and 31st of May.

To: (b) (6) >
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D; VITIELLO, RONALD D; AGUILAR, DAVID V; (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Sent: Sat May 19 16:51:17 2007
(b) (6) ,
Yes, YUM can commit to this.
-Ron Colburn

From: (b) (6)
To: COLBURN, RONALD S; (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D; VITIELLO, RONALD D; AGUILAR, DAVID V
Sent: Sat May 19 11:41:49 2007
Subject:
Chief Colburn,
As you already know we’re involved in a significant effort to improve our outreach related to the SBInet
deployment and the fence under PF 225. Next week (Wednesday and Thursday) we will be in El Paso
conducting a workshop to develop standardize messages and train to re-ignite the outreach effort in
Texas with the hand-picked outreach teams.
In order to accelerate the overall effort and get our outreach moving again, we need to be planning
immediately for the follow-on workshop(s) that will allow us to prep the sectors responsible for the
other three states.
I’m wondering if Yuma would be willing/able to host the workshop the week following the El Paso
effort. That would put us in Yuma on Wednesday/Thursday (May 30-31).
This would allow us to have a location that would be easy for the sectors to attend. Also, given the fact
that you will be expected to be one of the Headquarters core group when you take over my desk, this
will allow you to participate in the workshop.
If Yuma can host the effort, we should be able to take much of what is developed in El Paso and use it
as the starting point for the message development and outreach effort in the other three states.
Let me know, and we’ll either begin planning or start working contingencies.
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Yuma meetings next week
(b)
(6)
Travel on June 5th, meet on 6 and 7 and travel back on the 8th.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: FW: Yuma meetings next week
(b) (6)
The Yuma contacts are listed below. You should be good to go. I unfortunately have no idea on the
schedule for next week though.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Please let (b) (6) and (b) (6) know that (b) (6) and (b) (6) will
be their POC.
Thanks, (b)
(6)
From: (b) (6) C

To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D
(b)
(6)
I’ll get a hold of Yuma and ensure that someone if available for this.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: FW: Yuma meetings next week
(b)
(6)
Can an agent help out the PF225 contacts(b) (6) and (b) (6) with an on the ground
fence update? They will be in town for the meetings next week. Please advise.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Subject: Yuma meetings next week
(b) Jeff:
(6)
For PF225, (b) (6) was at the El Paso discussions last week, (b) (6) and I will attend at Yuma next
week.
Any sense of next week's agenda at Yuma? Should we plan to be there both 6/7 June or just one of
those days?
Especially if just one of the days, is there a Yuma sector POC we could talk with about a short recon
of parts of their fence area ? I think a look at the north/south river area would be helpful to us, I'm
guessing we would need an agent for half a day to do this? Reasonable request?
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: Yuma Travel
(b)
(6)
Please send me your travel itinerary once you know it so I can try to mimic.
FYI-I spoke briefly to (b) yesterday about the Yuma meetings and he thought one of the days was
going to entail internal(6)
OBP meetings that might not warrant our attendance. His understanding was
that there was going to be one day of substantive outreach discussions that he thought would be
beneficial for us to participate in. He also thought an agenda was being prepared and indicated he
would forward to us once received.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Updated: Environmental Planning Discussion for the Yuma Project
IPTs are large enough to get everyone on the same page. Could we make a request to (b) (6)
to send a representative or have someone from the Corps call into the IPT to coordinate PF
70 and PF 225 actions?
(b) (6)

From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Apr 25 16:29:28 2007
Subject: RE: Updated: Environmental Planning Discussion for the Yuma Project
(b) (6)
At the risk of making this IPT very large…and to honor (b) (6) request for a Tactical Infrastructure
person…Could you add (b) (6) to the meetings? He works with (b) (6) and is very
knowledgable. Thanks. (Officially (email) his name is (b) (6) )
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
_____ ___________________
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Will do.
Have a nice day!
Warm Regards,
(b) (6) PMP
U. S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
Notice: The Contracting Officer is the sole individual that is authorized to make changes to the contract.
The contents of this e-mail are 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)
(b)
(6)
Could also include Seth Winnick on all of the Yuma IPT meetings? He is the coordinator for SBI
Communications. Thanks.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
_____ _____________________
From: (b) (6) R)
To: (b) (6)
<< File: Yuma Sched - Draft PMR-04-11-07.mpp >> << File: Environmental Checklist
Process_draft_(b) list-4-10-07_(b) .doc >>
(6) (6)
Hello (b)
We are(6)very happy to have your participation in the Yuma IPT. Attached are some documents, I will be
sending you more.
Have a nice day!
Warm Regards,
(b) (6) PMP
U. S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Notice: The Contracting Officer is the sole individual that is authorized to make changes to the contract.
The contents of this e-mail are 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.
-----Original Appointment-----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Accepted: Updated: Environmental Planning Discussion for the Yuma Project
When: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:00 PM-2:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: Room 7.5C (room now available)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re:
Call me!

From:(b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Tue Apr 17 15:01:38 2007
Subject:
Jeff,
The FEIT tele-conference (Army Corps real estate) brought up the question of “What rights will
landowners retain with fencing issues such as (fence off of the border and access to water and the area
behind the fence). I brought up the fact that it is a case by case issue and that the individual sectors
have the power to work with the (private or public) landowners to find the appropriate accommodations
for the specific problem (e.g. cattleguards, gates in the fencing). They immediately said they couldn’t
continue without a “blanket” requirement by OBP stating what access the landowners will have.
I would like to respond to them that OBP requires that the real estate personnel consult with the
individual sectors and the landowners to work out the specific requirements for any areas of question.
As for the areas that do not have “special needs” then the standard easement application will apply.
Am I incorrect in my thinking that there is not a way to “blanket” identify what access all landowners
will have in regards to the fence? Is there a historical statement of access in regards to boundary
fences and landowners?
Please advise on your thoughts or concerns.
(b)
(6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: DRAFT Follow-up Letter
(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)
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
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
(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)

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)
RONALD S; (b) (6) FISHER, MIKE J; (b) (6)
GILBERT, ROBERT W; Hill, Randy R; (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.
materials.
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,
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)
Thanks,
(b) (6)
ACPA/ELC
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
ANJARREZ, VICTOR M; (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6) STEVENS, KEVIN L; (b) (6)

All,
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)


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
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: Jeffrey.Self(b) (6)
Understood.

To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 07:26:38 2007
Sounds good (b) If (b) is good with it the go with it but tell (b) to send only the ROE and nothing
else. (6) (6) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6) ]

To: Self, Jeffrey D
(b) (6)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 07:13:49 2007
(6)
Jeff
________________________________
From: (b) (6) ]

To: Self, Jeffrey D
Importance: High
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 06:50:28 2007
________________________________

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

To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Chief,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
I warned my wife in advance before I took this job. I didn't think it would be this bad though...
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
No but I didn't have to lie to her when I came to D.C. that I might actually have a life outside of work.
She knew better. Does she remind you of that everyday?

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 13 06:52:44 2007
Ha! If it wasn't for the PAs I wouldn't smile at all.
I'm sure (b) (6) isn't any happier than (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Should I send calendar reminders that you need to eat lunch and to take breaks away from your
computer? We will issue a bb to (b) (6) if it will help also. Sorry I am just starting my day this
way. See you later.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; STEVENS, KEVIN L; (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 13 06:45:52 2007

Good morning.
materials.
me.
Thanks.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Gentlemen,
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Thanks,
(b) (6)
ACPA/ELC
________________________________
From:(b) (6) J
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D;(b) (6) STEVENS, KEVIN L; (b) (6)

All,
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)


(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: Jeffrey.Self(b) (6)
Well can you answer any of the emails....derogatory slurs and all!

To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 13:10:52 2007
No, dummy! What I'm saying is you can't be working if your bothering me all day with e mail...get to
work!
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: Self, Jeffrey D
Do you mean "me" as being this "person"? It involves contracting. I can pull it off if that is your
direction. All of these emails and you choose to chastise me?

To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 12:57:09 2007
Get to work (b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: Self, Jeffrey D
Jeff,
This request from SBInet is short turn around. They are looking for a PF225 "expert" to go to Tulsa to
aid in the "contractor selection". Nobody on either side knows who "that person" is. Any ideas? I know
you miss me already. I can feel your anger "a disturbance in the force".
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 10:49:40 2007

(b)
(6)
I just spoke with (b) on this and the expertise they are looking for has to do with knowledge of
PF225. What they (6)will be doing in Tulsa is reviewing the contractor’s proposals to be added as MATOCs
for the ACOE. That means the Corps will have a list of pre-approved contractors to choose from that
will bid on the PF225 projects. We don’t have anyone that is has in-depth knowledge of PF225 and
apparently this request has been sitting on someone’s desk, not (b) (6) and the Corp has asked him to
follow-up since no response has come from any other SBI folks.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6) ]

To: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Is this request from SBInet for "an expert" in your realm? I guess there is a very short turnaround.
Please advise.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 09:41:59 2007
Good morning,
Don’t know if you have been briefed on this request yet, but there is an extremely short turn-a-round
for POC submissions on this. The bid packages for the PF22’s RFP MATOCs will be reviewed the week
of June 18th. In discussion at the PMT, we believed a representative from Contracting, Asset
Management, and OBP would provide the expertise required for governmental (client) input and
oversight of the process. We would like for you to identify an individual who could travel to Tulsa for
this weeks meetings (18 – 22). Also, this individual would need to be available for a back-brief on June
29 and July 23. This brief will identify to the PMT those companies that were chosen and the reasons
for those choices.
Please let me know if this request is amenable to you and I apologize for the short turn-a-round as
these names need to be submitted within by 11:00 am today.
Thank you,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Warning: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. It contains information that may be exempt from
public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5U.S.C. 552). This document is to be controlled,
handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to Sensitive
But Unclassified (SBU) information and is not to be released to the public or other personnel who do not
have a valid "need-to-know" without prior approval from the originator. If you are not the intended
recipient , please contact the originator for disposition instructions.
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

This is for the first half of the proposals. (we are phasing 6 or 7 contracts in first phast and 8 or 9 in
second phase)
(b) (6)
ECSO
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jun 01 16:51:16 2007

(b) - we REALLY needed to have the other 2 names for the source selection TODAY (we have the
CBP rep from (b) (6)
(6) still need the OBP and Contracting rep).
We also need the names of ALL participants planning to attend the 2 briefings. We needed these
names TODAY as well.
I have discussed with (b) (6) we can accept names thru 1000 hrs next Monday the 4th, but if beyond
this we can not incorporate into our process. PLEASE HELP get the names.
(b) (6)
ECSO
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Date: Friday, April 20, 2007 4:12:10 PM
Hi (b)
(6)
The statement is attached.
This statement is being used by for the State and Congressional stakeholders, but I didn’t envision you
would need it.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 4:08 PM
To: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Can I get a copy of the statement?
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

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

Individual maps are attached.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From:(
Sent: bFriday, April 20, 2007 3:50 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

New direction from (b) We will send non-sfa maps of all SW states to cmtes of jurisdiction, and we
(6) for each state to send to each Member for their constituent purposes. Can
need separate pdf maps
we get separate pdf files without SFA for each state?
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Attached.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

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

(b) - neither (b) nor I have capability to PDF it. Can you all do that up in the program
(6) (6)
office for us please?
Thanks
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

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

Good afternoon noon.
Attached are both sets of the updated maps.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

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

Importance: High
Can somebody resend the maps with necessary edits? Also, can we get a pdf version for
external distribution so ppts can’t be altered once sent?
From: (b) (6) ]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 11:58 AM
To: (b) (6)
Just FYI,
The Texas Map without the SFA overlay, incorrectly states with SFA overlay in the
header.
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

11:55 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF 225 Roll Out
Good afternoon.
Attached are the state maps of fencing for the PF 225 roll out.
For Congress and State we are using the maps that do not show the SFA.
For the Border Patrol, we are using the maps that show the SFA. The Border Patrol
will include the maps as part of their PowerPoint presentation, which will not be left
with anyone, only showed at individual or group meetings.
Please let me know if I am mistaken.
More to follow.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6) Self, Jeffrey ( ; Giddens, Grego ( ; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Seeking some time on the Commissioner"s schedule on Monday
Yes for me!
From: (b) (6) ]

Cc: (b) (6)
Is Friday an option (b) (6) , Jeff?
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)

To: (b) (6) Giddens, Gregory (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 21:09:36 2007

All,
Jeff

From: (b) (6) v>
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY (b) (6) (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 19:15:41 2007


(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) 'JEFFREY (b) (6)
(b) (6)
hearing.
Sorry,
Greg G

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) >;
'Jeffrey.Self(b) (6) (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 15:12:13 2007


brief...that time is still available...please advise...thanks..mcd
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) Jeffrey.Self(b) (6) ; (b) (6)
(b) (6)

and Chief Jeff Self (HQOBP) concerning the Open House

can provide the brief but as an FYI Chief Stevens will be in the office
on Monday.
concept.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 16:40:48 2007
returns from travel on June 18...mcd
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
The Chief should be in all week. Both the Chief and the Deputy Chief
Thursday.
(b) , can you field that one?

(6)
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 10:28:16 2007
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 15:55:01 2007
Hi (b) (6)
hour...
Thanks
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 15:31:39 2007


From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 15:20:53 2007


Thanks
(b)
(6)

To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 11:31:58 2007

(b) (6)

to DHS.
(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 11:03:43 2007
Chief,

topic.


move forward.


Thoughts?
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6) >
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 00:00:58 2007
FYI

From: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jun 01 22:17:58 2007
Chief Aguilar,
Below are two similar articles. (b) asked that I email them to you
since he could not get his laptop (6)working before we were back at the
----------------------------------------------------------------





----------------------------------------------------------------


organizers.

said.

something happens?'


opposition.
Cortez said.
(b) (6)
Room 6.5E
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(
bThx.
(
b
We should find out how public it will be but I do understand.
(b)
On your next update can you make yours and (b) (6) wishes happen on the chart? Thanks.
(6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 13:41:18 2007
According to (b) (6) the PF225 had not been formally presented therefore we haven't gotten any
feedback yet. We anticipate opposition but can't say for certain at this time because DOI is to put
pressure on the local offices to cooperate. What is the outreach preparing for oa presentations? I was
under the impression that the chief wanted the spreadsheet to be public which is why we omitted the
bonus projects. If this document will not ever be available to anyone in DOI then it doesn't matter
much but in the event it does, it could have reprocussions.
(
b
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 13:24:52 2007
(b)
I know there is concern there and (b) has expressed it. I made the call to leave something to that
(6)
effect in there. Have they not been(6)informed of our desire to do that project? If they have and there
was opposition then I say leave it. If they haven't been notified before...Why have we been saying that
they have opposition to it? This chart is for DHS/CBP officials not for release. If DOI has issue then we
need to be able to explain. Let me know.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 12:22:31 2007
Subject: FW: Updated PF225 Spreadsheet
(b)
(6)
We cannot say that BLM is opposed to the project when they haven't been formally contacted and
advised. It most likely will be true but we cannot say that at this point in time. This spreadsheet will
be presented to these people and it is going to look like we are putting words in their mouths and will
stir up a hornets nest. Also, from a global perspective, SD is the only location where this is written and
will surely draw quite a bit of scrutiny at the upper levels of DOI. This would normally be a good thing
but until we actually formally propose the project and give them the opportunity to comment, we can't
put this on paper.
Can we omit this or replace the wording with "BLM cooperation necessary" or something to that effect?
Regards,
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wed 6/6/2007 11:43 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Attached is the updated PF225 spreadsheet. This version re-inserts mileage subtotals and includes
language from OBP on RE actions in California. The new language states that "BLM is opposed".
Note the date (6-06-07) within the file name. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
<<Fence Summary 06-6-07 GB.xls>>

(b) (6)
Project Manager
USACE-PM-ECSO
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sure, though I was counting on some help from (b) . How much has he got on his plate?
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
over and
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 25 06:31:01 2007
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
anything. (6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 25 06:23:52 2007
(b)
(6)
evening. I asked (b) 6)to shoot me that email, as I don't have time to fight with people
today to get the reports (b) has(6) to revisit the stop light with the DC this Thurs, so we've got some
very compressed timelines.(6) We have some serious re-tooling to do with this stop light. The desire from
(6)
(b)
(6)
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b)
Is this a project enhancement from(b) (6)
Let me know. (6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sun Jun 24 08:21:16 2007

All,
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

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

Importance: High
Please note the due date(b) (6) has noted below. I will be the intermediary for the information.
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject:
- I need you to forward this updated information to(b) (6) by COB Monday, June
25, 2007.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
10-4. Only (b) and only after we hear from (b) .

(6) (6)
(b)(5),(b)(6)
On another topic, the environmental IPT really needs to be able to understand the RGV project before
it can move forward beyond the development of an environmental assessment. This is the next step,
but may well wind up with a finding that an EIS is required. This may be avoidable, but not without
GOOD coordination with USFWS (recently accused of making political decisions instead of decisions
based upon good science, so they must be engaged early enough to bring their scientists on board in
an orderly fashion) as well as good outreach with the local entities. There are lots of questions, and so
far not many answers, unless other folks have them.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
As soon as we hear from (b) (west coast time) and he confirms that all is good with that ROE he worked on is
good for this Texas Mobile(6)deal then the ROE alone can be sent to (b) (6) I want to get the ROE out to
everyone also but let's focus on EPT first. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 07:26:38 2007
Sounds good (b) If (b) n is good with it the go with it but tell (b) to send only the ROE and nothing else.
(6) (6) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: Self, Jeffrey D
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 to be done under
(6)
"our patrol ability to enter onto private lands". So as to not bother you later, if (b) s good with the latest ROE,
can we send it out? Thanks. (6)
(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
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
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.
________________________________

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

To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
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)
And then you picked up the BP bad attitude also.....

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 13 06:56:16 2007
I warned my wife in advance before I took this job. I didn't think it would be this bad though...
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
No but I didn't have to lie to her when I came to D.C. that I might actually have a life outside of work.
She knew better. Does she remind you of that everyday?

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 13 06:52:44 2007
Ha! If it wasn't for the PAs I wouldn't smile at all.
I'm sure (b) (6) isn't any happier than (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Should I send calendar reminders that you need to eat lunch and to take breaks away from your
computer? We will issue a bb to Mrs. Winnick if it will help also. Sorry I am just starting my day this
way. See you later.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 13 06:45:52 2007

Good morning.
materials.
me.
Thanks.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Gentlemen,
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Thanks,
(b) (6)
ACPA/ELC
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
; SMIETANA, JOHN J; (b) (6)

All,
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

RONALD S; (b) (6)
ILBERT, ROBERT W; Hill, Randy R; (b) (6)
Cc: STEVENS, KEVIN L; SELF, JEFFREY D;(b) (6)


(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Get to work (b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: Self, Jeffrey D
Jeff,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 10:49:40 2007

(b)
(6)
I just spoke with(b) (6) on this and the expertise they are looking for has to do with knowledge of
PF225. What they will be doing in Tulsa is reviewing the contractor’s proposals to be added as MATOCs
Thanks,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Please advise.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 09:41:59 2007
Good morning,
for those choices.
Thank you,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
second phase)
(b) (6)
ECSO
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6) >
To: (b) (6) ov>
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jun 01 16:51:16 2007

CBP rep from (b) (6) ie (b) (6)
(6) - still need the OBP and Contracting rep).
I have discussed with(b) (6) we can accept names thru 1000 hrs next Monday the 4th, but if beyond
(b) (6)
ECSO
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) Jeffrey.Sel (b) (6) (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Q&A"s From Del Rio
I would end up going through SWB (you and the other ACPAs) for deliverance. I am just concerned
that SBInet has their input. I know you are on message just trying to keep to the protocol. (Especially
between the 7th and 6th floor).

From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 10:56:29 2007
Subject: RE: Q&A's From Del Rio
10-4(b) (6) understood and good point. I will wait to hear from (b) Did you want to send it to the
field? (6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Q&A's From Del Rio
(b) ,
(6)
I was asking because it would speed up the clearance. Like I said I think the answers are fine just the
fluff surrounding them might need refined. I had sent one of those questions to(b) when Del Rio
originally sent them up. I had telephonically went over the Q & A with them but(6)
at that time it was up
in the air where the fence was going...as if that is different now.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 10:47:23 2007
(b)
(6)
Yourself and Chief Self from the OBP side of the house.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6) ; SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6) ETH
Sent: Mon Jun 04 10:43:36 2007
(b)
(6)
I am reviewing via blackberry. I only have small revisions (basically verbiage, stressing the actual term
is aesthic not ornamental,etc). Who else in OBP has seen these answers? If (b) (6) has
cleared it from the Comms IPT then I believe it can be moved through OBP for clearance. I didn't see
his response or if Seth has concurrence. The OBP side needs to wait for the comms IPT.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 10:27:22 2007
Subject: Q&A's From Del Rio
Chief Self,
Attached are questions fielded from Del Rio Sector. I sent this out, (internally) for comments. (b) (6)
responded. I have included answers to the questions.
This should go out to today to all SWB Sectors. Please review and inform me of whom you would like
to forward this to the SWB representatives.
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Seeking some time on the Commissioner"s schedule on Monday
Chief,
I think I've got everything I need. I'll make note of any questions and get them back to you.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

To: Self, Jeffrey D
Jeff,
Do you have what you need to conduct the brief? Anything you need from me or the Team?
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6) Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jun 07 12:07:44 2007
Yes and no. The Deputy Commissioner wants to look at the status of the Texas Sectors and what
factors led to our decision for determining that status.
Look at the green was for Gregs benefit to go to S-1 to ask to start in those areas.
As for the 15th...it depends on who you talk with. In the ESC, C-1 couldn't remember. Greg says it
was due the 10th.
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To: Self, Jeffrey D(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jun 07 11:49:47 2007
Jeff,
The traffic light deadline for tomorrow is to indicate which lands the Sectors have already determined as
green lights (low hanging fruit).
The total red, yellow, green classification is due on the 15th.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6) Giddens, Gregory
(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jun 07 09:29:21 2007

(b) (6)
I'm open on Friday so whatever you have I'll take. In addition to this subject the Deputy Commissioner
wanted me and Greg to brief the Commissioner on the Traffic Light on Friday.
Jeff
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6) Giddens, Gregory
Cc: (b) (6)
Friday is tight, but let’s see what we can do…the easiest way might be for you to give me some times
that would work for all of you and I’ll see what works here…please advise..thanks..mcd
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: SELF, JEFFREY D(b) (6)

To: (b) (6) Self, Jeffrey D; Giddens, Gregory; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Yes for me!

________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6) s
Is Friday an option (b) (6) , Greg, Jeff?
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)

To: (b) (6) Giddens, Gregory (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 21:09:36 2007

All,
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 19:15:41 2007


(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6) E
Cc: (b) (6) JEFFREY.Self(b) (6)
(b) (6)
hearing.
Sorry,
Greg G

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
'Jeffrey.Self(b) (6) (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 15:12:13 2007


brief...that time is still available...please advise...thanks (b)
(6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) 'Jeffrey.Self(b) (6) ; (b) (6)
GIDDENS, GREGORY;
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

and Chief Jeff Self (HQOBP) concerning the Open House

can provide the brief but as an FYI Chief Stevens will be in the office
on Monday.
concept.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 16:40:48 2007
returns from travel on June 18.. (b)
(6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
The Chief should be in all week. Both the Chief and the Deputy Chief
Thursday.
(b) , can you field that one?

(6)
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6) SA
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 10:28:16 2007
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) SSA
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 15:55:01 2007
Hi (b) (6)
hour...
Thanks
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 15:31:39 2007


From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 15:20:53 2007


Thanks
(b)
(6)

To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 11:31:58 2007

(b) (6)

to DHS.
David

From: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 11:03:43 2007

Chief,

topic.


move forward.


Thoughts?
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 00:00:58 2007
FYI

From: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jun 01 22:17:58 2007
Chief Aguilar,
Below are two similar articles. (b) asked that I email them to you
since he could not get his laptop (6)working before we were back at the
----------------------------------------------------------------





----------------------------------------------------------------


organizers.

said.

something happens?'


opposition.
Cortez said.
(b) (6)
Room 6.5E
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Updated PF225 Spreadsheet
Any response to the below???
From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 12:22:31 2007
(b)
(6)
put this on paper.
Regards,
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wed 6/6/2007 11:43 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

(b)
(6)

(b) (6)
Project Manager
USACE-PM-ECSO
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
The stuff you are working on is priority. They can get back to those when time permits.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 25 06:35:42 2007
Sure, though I was counting on some help from(b) . How much has he got on his plate?
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
over and
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 25 06:31:01 2007
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b) ,
(6)
anything. (6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6) G
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 25 06:23:52 2007
(b)
(6)
evening. I asked(b) 6)to shoot me that email, as I don't have time to fight with people
(6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b)
Let me know. (6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sun Jun 24 08:21:16 2007

All,
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

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

Importance: High
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject:
- I need you to forward this updated information to(b) (6) by COB Monday, June
25, 2007.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
The # of days for public comment should be reviewed. Type up an email delineating place and # of
days proposed. Thanks.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 08:22:19 2007
10-4. Only(b) and only after we hear from (b)

(6) (6)
(b)(5), (b)(6)
On another topic, the environmental IPT really needs to be able to understand the RGV project before it
can move forward beyond the development of an environmental assessment. This is the next step, but
may well wind up with a finding that an EIS is required. This may be avoidable, but not without GOOD
coordination with USFWS (recently accused of making political decisions instead of decisions based upon
good science, so they must be engaged early enough to bring their scientists on board in an orderly
fashion) as well as good outreach with the local entities. There are lots of questions, and so far not
many answers, unless other folks have them.
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
As soon as we hear from (b)
(6) (west coast time) and he confirms that all is good with that ROE he
Texas Mobile deal then the ROE alone can be sent to (b) (6)
worked on is good for this(6) I want to
get the ROE out to everyone also but let's focus on EPT first. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 07:26:38 2007
Sounds good (b) If (b) is good with it the go with it but tell (b) to send only the ROE and nothing
else. (6) (6) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: Self, Jeffrey D
(b) (6)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 07:13:49 2007
(6)
Jeff
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: Self, Jeffrey D
Importance: High
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 06:50:28 2007
________________________________

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

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


Good morning.
materials.
remind me.
Thanks.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Gentlemen,
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc:(
b
(b)
(6)
Thanks,
(b) (6)
ACPA/ELC
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) BEESON, PAUL A;(b) (6) ; COLBURN,
(b) (6) , ROBERT W; Hill, Randy R; (b) (6)

All,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) ; BEESON, PAUL A; (b) (6) COLBURN,
RONALD S; (b) (6)
ILBERT, ROBERT W; Hill, (b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
No, dummy! What I'm saying is you can't be working if your bothering me all day with e mail...get to
work!
From: (b) (6)

To: Self, Jeffrey D
Do you mean "me" as being this "person"? It involves contracting. I can pull it off if that is your
direction. All of these emails and you choose to chastise me?

To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 12:57:09 2007
Get to work (b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: Self, Jeffrey D
Jeff,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: S(b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 10:49:40 2007

(b)
(6)
I just spoke with(b) (6) on this and the expertise they are looking for has to do with knowledge of
PF225. What they will be doing in Tulsa is reviewing the contractor’s proposals to be added as MATOCs
Thanks,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Please advise.
(b)
(6)
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 09:41:59 2007
Good morning,
for those choices.
Thank you,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
second phase)
(b) (6)
ECSO
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jun 01 16:51:16 2007

CBP rep from (b) (6)
(6) - still need the OBP and Contracting rep).
I have discussed with (b) (6) we can accept names thru 1000 hrs next Monday the 4th, but if beyond
(b) (6)
ECSO
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) Jeffrey.Sel (b) (6) ; (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Q&A"s From Del Rio
10-4. I will forward you the copy with changes once I get the go ahead from the 7th floor.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) Jeffrey.Se (b) (6) ; (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 10:56:29 2007
10-4 (b) understood and good point. I will wait to hear from (b) Did you want to send it to the
field?(6) (6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
fluff surrounding them might need refined. I had sent one of those questions to(b) when Del Rio
originally sent them up. I had telephonically went over the Q & A with them but(6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 10:47:23 2007
(b)
(6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 10:43:36 2007
(b) ,
(6)
his response or if (b) has concurrence. The OBP side needs to wait for the comms IPT.
(b) (6)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 10:27:22 2007
Chief Self,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
No but in light of his concern and the fact that he is more tied to that project I guess you can change it
to something like his suggestion or one that you and the ACE were thinking of. Just let me know what
it is.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 15:19:44 2007
Any response to the below???
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
(b)
(6)
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 12:22:31 2007
(b)
(6)
put this on paper.
Regards,
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wed 6/6/2007 11:43 AM
To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)

(b) (6)
Project Manager
USACE-PM-ECSO
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sounds good,
I've got some ideas re RGV that we can discuss when you and I each find a little time. Have a good
one
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
The stuff you are working on is priority. They can get back to those when time permits.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 25 06:35:42 2007
Sure, though I was counting on some help from (b) How much has he got on his plate?
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
over and
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 25 06:31:01 2007
(b)
(6)
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b) ,
(6)
anything. (6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 25 06:23:52 2007
(b)
(6)
It appears that (b) is responding to (b) so it's from both. He and I took a short term solution to (b)
evening. I asked(b) 6)to shoot me that email, as I don't have time to fight with people
the computer jock that(b) was talking about.
(6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b) ,
Let me know. (6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sun Jun 24 08:21:16 2007

All,
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

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

Importance: High
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject:
25, 2007.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
I got a call from (b) and am sending the ROE to (b) .

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

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
As soon as we hear from (b) west coast time) and he confirms that all is good with that ROE he worked on is
good for this Texas Mobile(6)deal then the ROE alone can be sent to (b) (6) I want to get the ROE out to
everyone also but let's focus on EPT first. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 07:26:38 2007
Sounds good (b) If (b) is good with it the go with it but tell (b) to send only the ROE and nothing else.
(6) (6) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: Self, Jeffrey D
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 to be done under
(6)
"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. (6)
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 07:13:49 2007
(6)
Jeff
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: Self, Jeffrey D
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
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.
________________________________

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

To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
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) STEVENS, KEVIN ( ; SELF, JEFFREY (b (b) (6)
Thanks (b)
(6)
(b) (6) ck
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

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


Good morning.
materials.
remind me.
Thanks.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Gentlemen,
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Thanks,
(b) (6)
ACPA/ELC
From: (b) (6)

(b) (6) GILBERT, ROBERT W; Hill, Randy R (b) (6)

All,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) ; BEESON, PAUL A; (b) (6) ; COLBURN,
(b) (6) PENA, ELIGIO;
PENA, OSCAR; ROBERSON, CHARLES; RODRIGUEZ, CRUZ J; SMIETANA, JOHN J; (b) (6)
Cc: STEVENS, KEVIN L; SELF, JEFFREY D;(b) (6)

(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ; Jeffrey.Sel (b) (6) (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Q&A"s From Del Rio
Thanks. Much appreciated.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) 'Jeffrey.Self(b) (6) (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 11:02:55 2007

10-4. I will forward you the copy with changes once I get the go ahead from the 7th floor.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) 'Jeffrey.Self(b) (6) ; (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 10:56:29 2007
10-4 (b) understood and good point. I will wait to hear from (b) Did you want to send it to the
field?(6) (6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
fluff surrounding them might need refined. I had sent one of those questions to (b) when Del Rio
originally sent them up. I had telephonically went over the Q & A with them but (6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 10:47:23 2007
(b)
(6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ; SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 10:43:36 2007
(b)
(6)
his response or if (b) has concurrence. The OBP side needs to wait for the comms IPT.
(b) (6)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 10:27:22 2007
Chief Self,
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Sounds good (b) if (b) n is good with it then go with it.

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

To: Self, Jeffrey D
later, if(b) is good with the latest ROE, can we send it out? Thanks.
(b) (6)
(6)
To (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 07:13:49 2007
(6)
Jeff
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: Self, Jeffrey D
Importance: High
(b)
(6)
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 06:50:28 2007
________________________________

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) ,
(6)
Jeff
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Chief,
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
(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)
Sent: Tue Jun 12 14:43:11 2007

(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
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
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)
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)
El Paso Sector
8901 Montana Avenue
(b) (6)
From: (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)
El Paso Sector
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
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)
Oh yeah!
From: (b) (6)

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"
(b)
(6)

(b) (6)
Project Manager
USACE-PM-ECSO
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
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
later, if (b) n is good with the latest ROE, can we send it out? Thanks.
(b) (6)
(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
Importance: High
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 06:50:28 2007
________________________________

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Jeff
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Chief,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY ( ; (b) (6)
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)

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)
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)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

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


Good morning.
materials.
me.
Thanks.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Gentlemen,
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Thanks,
(b) (6)
ACPA/ELC
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) BEESON, PAUL A; (b) (6) ; COLBURN,
(b) (6) VILLAREAL, ROY D;
WEINBRENNER, CRAIG L; WELLS, CHRIS L; WINNICK, SETH
All,
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

DRAFT Follow-up Letter

(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
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)
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
(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)
(b) (6)
8901 Montana Avenue
(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)
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)
Attached is the updated PF225 spreadsheet.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Project Manager
USACE-PM-ECSO
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: "Murder Board" with Chief Colburn this Thursday at 4:00 pm
(b)
(6)
We're about done with the message. If you have time can you get with (b) (6) and (b) (6)
they can give you a copy. Give us your opinion on how we're doing if you have time.
Yes, (b) should be involved.

(6)
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Wed May 09 10:39:01 2007
Subject: FW: "Murder Board" with Chief Colburn this Thursday at 4:00 pm
Hi Jeff
How are the key messages going? We will need to be in a position to brief Chief Colburn tomorrow
afternoon. Are there additional materials/message that would be helpful to have? Should (b) (6)
be part of this?
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; COLBURN, RONALD S; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) VITIELLO, RONALD D; (b) (6)
Subject: "Murder Board" with Chief Colburn this Thursday at 4:00 pm

Importance: High
Folks
In order to assist Chief Colburn with his participation in Senator Cornyn's "Town Hall Meeting," we have
scheduled a "murder board" for this Thursday at 4:00 pm for one hour (location will be the
Commissioner's large conference room, 4.3A)
Please let me know your availability to attend and feel free to forward to any/all parties who would be
in a position to assist with this endeavor.
I will be reaching out to many of you (off line) as we begin to develop materials to assist Chief Colburn
Thanks in advance,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ; GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)
COLBURN, RONALD S
Cc: (b) (6) VITIELLO, RONALD D;(b) (6)
(b)
(6)
I agree, when and where?
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6) COLBURN,
RONALD S; SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6) VITIELLO, RONALD D;
(b) (6)
Sent: Tue May 08 20:35:47 2007
To clear up confusion...when I said (b) or myslef and(b) (6) would be there...it was in reference to
(6)
the pre-brief. I wasn't committing anyone to Brownsville.

To: (b) (6) COLBURN, RONALD S; SELF, JEFFREY
D
Cc: (b) (6)
VITIELLO, RONALD D; (b) (6)
Sent: Tue May 08 19:08:13 2007
We need to ensure Ron has all the lastest nuances on the fence issue....
Greg G

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) COLBURN, RONALD S; SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
VITIELLO, RONALD D; (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY
Sent: Tue May 08 19:04:36 2007
Subject: planning for Saturday's town hall meeting in Brownsville, Texas
Hello folks:
OK, I have had a couple of conversations with (b) (6) in Senator Cornyn's office (she is the main
coordinator of the upcoming town hall meeting). Here is an update with respect to this Saturday's event
with the Senator and Chief Colburn in Brownsville:
-- Entire event will be "open press"

-- At 12:45 pm, Chief Colburn arrives along with the county judge, judge pro-tem, and county
administrator
-- At 12:55 pm, the Senator arrives and has a "meet and greet"
with Chief Colburn and the judges/administrator
-- 1:00 pm: Town hall meeting begins
-- Senator: 10 -- 15 minutes of remarks
-- Chief Colburn: 10 --15 minutes of remarks
-- Open forum for questions and answers. Some of the questions that will likely come up are:
-- Seized land/eminent domain
-- Long delays at the POEs. Concern of some local citizens that CBP's border security efforts will
further slow down the flow of legitimate trade and travel
-- The cane issue
--At least one attendee is one of the "big property owners who is very upset"
-- The event will conclude with 15 minutes of "press availability"
Given the importance of this event, and the risks and rewards associated with it, I highly recommend
that we come together on Thursday for a "murder board" to ensure that CBP/OBP message, as delivered
by Chief Colburn, is on course. Thoughts?
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: ADAMS, ROWDY(
Subject: Re: REVISED: [URGENT] S1BB - 10.16.07 - Follow up on San Pedro Fence Issue
Date: Monday, October 15, 2007 7:41:10 PM
Thanks boss!

To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Oct 15 19:39:45 2007
Subject: RE: REVISED: [URGENT] S1BB - 10.16.07 - Follow up on San Pedro Fence Issue
Thanks
(b) I got the items signed that you wanted.....in my out basket...
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: ADAMS, ROWDY D
Subject: Fw: REVISED: [URGENT] S1BB - 10.16.07 - Follow up on San Pedro Fence Issue
Hey Rowdy,
Per your request.
Have a good night!

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Oct 15 16:08:21 2007

(b)(5), (b)(6)
(b) (6)
SBI - Fence Program (PF225, VF300)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
(b) (5) (b)

(6)
(b) (6) h
Associate Chief Counsel, Trade and Finance
(b) (6)
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT/PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATION -- CIRCULATION RESTRICTED
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AND/OR PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY/CLIENT

COMMUNICATIONS. IT IS THEREFORE NOT AVAILABLE FOR RELEASE, DISCLOSURE, OR USE
OUTSIDE OF THE AGENCY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER AND
THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, (b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;
(b) (6)
Subject: FW: REVISED: [URGENT] S1BB - 10.16.07 - Follow up on San Pedro Fence Issue
Importance: High
(b) (6)
(b)(5),(b)(6)
Thank you,
(b) (6)
SBI - Fence Program (PF225, VF300)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6) ECSEC

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: REVISED: [URGENT] S1BB - 10.16.07 - Follow up on San Pedro Fence Issue
Importance: High
Hey (b) (6) ,
See additional info from the Commissioner’s office.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: REVISED: [URGENT] S1BB - 10.16.07 - Follow up on San Pedro Fence Issue
Importance: High
FYI - see below and attached. Adding OCC as required coordination.

(b)(5),(b)(6)
------------------------------------------------
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: REVISED: [URGENT] S1BB - 10.16.07 - Follow up on San Pedro Fence Issue
Importance: High
Tasker Name
Follow up on San Pedro Fence Issue
Lead Office(s)
SBI
OCC
Product
Briefing memo and background
Notes
Please see below for details

Due to CBP Tasking
ASAP, NLT 3:00 p.m. today, October 15, 2007
Required Coordinators - Please provide input to the lead office as soon as possible.
Tasker information, contact lists, and templates can be found online at

(b) (2)
. Please ensure that your response
adheres to the guidelines set forth in the CBP Style Book, which can be found at
(b) (2) . All responses should be
submitted directly to (b) (2) . Please do not
modify subject lines as we use them for tracking purposes.
------------------------------------------------
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: [URGENT] S1BB - 10.16.07 - Follow up on San Pedro Fence Issue - (Due: 10.15.07, 1500)
Importance: High
Please provide updated materials for tomorrow’s meeting – will need background on briefing memo.
SECRETARY BRIEFING BOOK TASKING
Event Date
Tuesday, 10.16.07 (1100-1115)
Event Name
Follow up on San Pedro Fence Issue
Lead Component
CBP
OGC
Product
Briefing Memo, Background
Notes
Attendees:
S1
S2
COS/DCOS
(b) (6)
Jay Ahern
Greg Giddens
(b) (6)
Location: NAC, Secretary’s Conference Room 5110 D
OGC Coordination: Please ensure that briefing materials have been fully coordinated with OGC staff
working in your component.
Meeting Classification: Please include bullet in background section of briefing memorandum if the
meeting or any of the briefing materials are classified. (i.e., “This meeting [or any of the briefing
materials] are classified”).
Please note that all materials being shown to the Secretary must be passed through Exec Sec first.
Please do not bring anything to the meeting ES has not seen (classified or unclassified) without prior
approval. If a presentation is to be made, Lead Component is responsible for providing an appropriate
number of handouts at the meeting. (15 if the meeting takes place in Rm. 5110 D; 25 if in Rm. 5107.)
Due
Monday, 10.15.07 (1600)
DHS Briefing Book Standards and Procedures (including links to template and example) are located on
the DHS intranet at:(b) (2) . If you are having
trouble opening the link, please copy and paste the address into your Internet Explorer Browser. You
may also hold the “CTRL” button down while clicking the link with your mouse.
When transmitting to BriefingStaffA and BriefingStaffB, please use the following format for the subject
line of your email:
· S1BB – Date of Event (mm.dd.yy) – Description (1-2 words) (Recommended BriefingStaffB

member which should review) [Example: “S1BB – 01.04.06 – FEMA (PPIA, Counselors)”]
· Note: For Deputy Secretary briefing paper, please replace “S2” for “S1”.
Thank you,
(b) (6)
Secretary's Briefing Book
Office of the Executive Secretariat
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN ( ; GIDDENS, GREGOR( ; (b) (6) ; ADAMS, ROWDY( D;
(b) (6)
Subject: RE: RESEND of Giddens" Email- MATERIAL FOR VEHICLE FENCE
Date: Friday, November 16, 2007 9:54:42 AM
Recommended approach was for Boeing to provide the supply contracts for PF225 (primarily for mesh
& bollards) and for the Corps to provide the supply contracts for VF. Also recommend that Boeing be
designated as an alternative source for VF.
v/r (b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

(b) (6)
Cc: GIDDENS, GREGORY

Subject: RESEND of Giddens' Email- MATERIAL FOR VEHICLE FENCE
Importance: High
All-
I apologize if this is a duplication; original email drafted and send by Greg Giddens:
(b) (6)
I just found out that COE cannot buy materials for vehicle fence.
We had planned, based on previous indication from COE that they could support it, to use COE as
primary for pedestrian fence. Can you confirm that COE has now determined they cannot support
material procurement for vehicle fence?
I was planning on telling S1 at 1100 today that COE was supporting vehicle fence supply management.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Executive Assistant to
Greg Giddens, Executive Director- Secure Border Initiative
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: GSRC Pedestrain Fence on Organ Pipe
I would but I can't stomach the thought that you might come in every morning and kiss my picture.
What stories?
From: (b) (6)

To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sir,
Could you please send me a 8X10 glossy of yourself and sign it “to my bestest buddy (b) (6) for my
desk. In turn I agree not to tell any lay-in stories.
Congrats
(b) (6)

To: (b) (6) Adams, Rowdy D; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Guys,
I can't say this enough, manage the message! If you don't hear it from OBP or SBInet then tell
whoever is saying what they shouldn't to pipe up. We have a wildfire in Texas because of this and we
can't be fighting a two front battle. We need to reach out to our contractors and advise them to be
careful as to what they say and to whom they say it.
Jeffrey D. Self
Division Chief
Operational Planning and Analysis
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

L
(b) , Thanks for the information. We appreciate it.

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

Cc: (b) (6) ; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
(b) et al,
(6)
We checked the P225 lay-down for Lukeville and determined that there was 2.1 mile east and 2.1 mile
west of the POE proposed.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Good morning(b)
(6)
My understanding is that all fencing locations are based on Sector requests.
I’ll forward this information to our PM on the fencing projects, who can answer exactly how much is
going in at those sites.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: Adams, Rowdy D; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) , Do you have any information on this stretch of fencing? (b)

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

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) '
Subject: FW: GSRC Pedestrain Fence on Organ Pipe
Importance: High
(b) (6)
Who is ultimately responsible for deciding the fencing locations? Is the fencing on the Organ Pipe a
done deal?
Thanks
(b) (6)
Tucson Sector
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: GSRC Pedestrain Fence on Organ Pipe
Gents,
I believe (b) called about the representative from GSRC who is onsite at the Ajo Station and is telling
us that we(6)will probably be getting 29 miles of pedestrian fence along the OPCNM.
(b)(5), (b)(7)(E)
Thanks (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: ADAMS, ROWDY (
Cc: (b) (6)
Date: Monday, November 05, 2007 8:12:23 AM
Rowdy, expressions of undying affection aside, is there something that you want us to look at this a.m.?
--(b)
(6)
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 7:12 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (5)

From: (b) (6)
To: ADAMS, ROWDY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Nov 03 17:13:43 2007
(b) (5)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Nov 03 16:42:36 2007
(b)(5),(b)(6)
Thanks,
(b) (6)
Office of Chief Counsel, CBP

(b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
<Jeffrey.Self(b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Nov 03 10:53:07 2007

(b)(5), (b)(6)
Rowdy

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6) Adams, Rowdy D(b) (6)
Sent: Sat Nov 03 10:44:18 2007
FYI

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Nov 02 18:57:44 2007

Sir,
(b)(5),(b)(6)
Thanks
(b) (6)
Tucson Sector
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Importance: High
Sirs,
(b) (5)
Thanks
(b) (6)
Tucson Sector
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6) l]
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Could you pass this info along to whom ever needs it.
TF DBK averages (b) a day for P&A. For equipment rental it is (b) a day and
(4)
this includes construction EQ, pick-ups, phones. This totals (b) (4) a day.
Thanks
(b) (6)
CDR, TF Diamondback
(b) (6)
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

(b)(5),(b)(6)
Thanks
Please note new cell phone number below
(b) (6)
ECSO
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

All - need a rough order of magnitude cost for impacts to fence projects in
your aor. Need it by daily cost impact
(b) (6) - can you provide cost impact for ng?

Please reply back to all. Need a rough estimate tomorrow.
From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
CC: (b) (6)
2007
Thanks.
(b)(5), (b)(6)
Thanks
(b)
(6)
--------------------------
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
CC: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Nov 01 17:21:28 2007
Subject: TRO for all projects in Arizona
(b) (6)
Can you all create an estimate for all the costs that we will incur for the
stop work on all projects in Arizona . Please consider costs associated with
the contractors staff and equipment, and security for material (if any) and
the staff you all hired to cover Title II services. (b) (6)
have requested that the number be determined as a "cost per day" and
seperated per project.
He mentioned he needed an estimate by tomorrow. Thanks, (b)

(6)
(b) (6)
PF-225 Program Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
819 Taylor Street (4A05)
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: a sample of some of New Mexico Governor Richardson"s opposition to a "fence"
Things are heating up.
From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: Fw: a sample of some of New Mexico Governor Richardson's opposition to a "fence"
This came up at the esc -- just fyi

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY;
ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)
Sent: Tue May 15 18:47:35 2007
Subject: a sample of some of New Mexico Governor Richardson's opposition to a "fence"
USA Today-- May 2, 2007

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Presidential hopeful Bill Richardson repeated his opposition to building a fence along
the U.S.-Mexico border on Tuesday and suggested his Democratic opponents who backed the idea did
so for political reasons.
"They were mistaken," the New Mexico governor said of Democrats who voted to build the 700-mile
wall along the border in September. "It was a vote before the election — ill conceived."
Washington Post - December 6, 2006

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson says a fence at the Mexican border authorized by Congress this fall
"gets in the way" of U.S.-Mexico relations, and he wants the new Democratic Congress to reverse the
legislation.
"The fence is very unpopular on the border in Texas and New Mexico, in Chihuahua," Richardson, a
Democrat, said after meeting Wednesday with leaders from the Mexican state of Chihuahua. "So one of
the most significant and constructive acts the U.S. Congress should take is to get rid of it."
<javascript:void(popitup('http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/photo/2006/12/06/PH2006120601881.html',650,850))>
Richardson said he will call on Congress not to build the fence during an address Thursday. He also will
press lawmakers to approve a bill that secures the border and provides a path to citizenship for illegal
immigrants. While Congress and President Bush approved the 700-mile border fence, a widely debated
bill overhauling immigration policy died in Congress this year.
Richardson For "President" Website -- December 7, 2007 Speech to Georgetown University
"Securing the border must come first -- but we must understand that building a fence will not in any
way accomplish that objective. No fence ever built has stopped history and this one wouldn't either. The
Congress should abandon the fence, lock, stock, and barrel. It flies in the face of America as a symbol
of freedom.
This is what we should do: immediately put enough National Guard troops at the border to keep it
covered until we can secure it with Border Patrol officers. That should take no longer than three years.
If it takes another year, let's do it.
Second, we must hire and train enough Border Guards to actually cover the entire border. I have spent
a lot of time at the border and I know we cannot secure it with a fence, but we can secure it with
enough trained Border Patrol officers. I propose doubling the number of Border Patrol agents from
approximately 12-thousand to 24-thousand. That would secure the border. And you could more than
pay for it with the funding for the first segment of that ill-advised fence between, Mexico and the
United States. Real security, real results, at a fraction of the financial or political cost.
Third, we should give the Border Patrol the benefit of the best surveillance equipment available to our
military. And, as suggested by Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, a leader on immigration
issues, we should implement a system of "informant visas" and cash rewards for aliens who provide law
enforcement with information on human traffickers and document forgers."
December 17, 2006

Quote
"They passed this bill for this stupid fence, this horrendous symbol,'' he said. "It's not fully funded. It's
so unpopular and not just with Hispanics. The border states hate it, business leaders hate it. It was this
terrible vote in the last session, and it was just to convince voters they were serious, but it backfired on
the extremists if you look at the election returns.''
May 15, 2007

Chief of Staff to Governor Richardson in tele con with CBP Office of the Commissioner... "the Governor
is wholly opposed to any border fence."
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6) Rowdy.Adams(b) (6)
Subject: Re: NAC S1 Meeting Tomorrow, RE:SBInet/Border Fence
(b) (6)
I'm not in today and not sure what the nuts and bolts of this is. Can you give me a little more and I
might be able to direct you.
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6) 'Adams, Rowdy D' (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 09 17:25:40 2007
Subject: NAC S1 Meeting Tomorrow, RE:SBInet/Border Fence
Gents,
It appears that (b) (6) will now be attending the S1 meeting at the NAC at 1000 hrs,
tomorrow. He is asking for a pre-brief (tonight) for this meeting (tomorrow). I am assuming he means
an internal pre-brief for him from OBP. He is meeting with (b) (6) on an unrelated topic at this
moment and I sent an e-mail for clarification, unless one of you can clarify. What information do I need
to capsulate for him in preparation for tomorrow's meeting? I will obviously do all of the leg-work if
pointed in the right direction.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
HQ, Office of Border Patrol
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Read: RE: PF 225 brochure
Your message
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: 4/18/2007 1:18 PM
was read on 4/18/2007 1:23 PM.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Read: El Paso Weekly PF225 report
Date: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 5:08:33 AM
Importance: High
Your message
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: El Paso Weekly PF225 report
Sent: 6/27/2007 7:07 PM
was read on 6/27/2007 7:14 PM.
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Read: Guidance on PF 225
Your message
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Guidance on PF 225
Sent: 5/7/2007 6:28 PM
was read on 5/7/2007 6:29 PM.
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Read: PF 225
Date: Saturday, March 17, 2007 7:03:43 AM
Importance: High
Your message
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: PF 225
Sent: 3/16/2007 9:52 AM
was read on 3/16/2007 11:00 AM.
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Read: PF225 Spreadsheets
Your message
To: (b) (6)
SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Subject: PF225 Spreadsheets
Sent: 3/28/2007 7:51 AM
was read on 3/28/2007 11:43 AM.
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Read: RE: Border Fence
Date: Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:12:45 AM
Your message
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: 4/25/2007 7:39 PM
was read on 4/26/2007 5:10 AM.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Read: RE: Fence Lab
Your message
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Fence Lab
Sent: 6/5/2007 4:33 PM
was read on 6/5/2007 4:39 PM.
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Read: RE: PF225 RGV discussions 17/18 May
Importance: High
Your message
To: (b) (6) VITIELLO, RONALD D; (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: RE: PF225 RGV discussions 17/18 May
Sent: 5/21/2007 1:36 PM
was read on 5/21/2007 1:43 PM.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Read: RE: Updated Fence Lab
Date: Sunday, June 24, 2007 1:36:52 AM
Your message
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Updated Fence Lab

Sent: 6/22/2007 4:23 PM
was read on 6/22/2007 4:33 PM.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Read: RE: Fence Lab
Your message
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Fence Lab
Sent: 6/18/2007 12:41 PM
was read on 6/18/2007 1:07 PM.
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Read: NAC S1 Meeting Tomorrow, RE:SBInet/Border Fence
Your message
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6) 'Adams, Rowdy D'
Subject: NAC S1 Meeting Tomorrow, RE:SBInet/Border Fence
Sent: 5/9/2007 5:26 PM
was read on 5/9/2007 5:35 PM.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Request for Information
(b)
(6)
I am looking for some guidance regarding public comment periods for two projects. The CORPS is
expressing an interest in shortening the time frame for public comment. The reason this is under
consideration is that the requirement for public comment for construction in these areas was met
during the generation of previous environmental documents. I am concerned with the political
ramifications of a shortened or deleted comment period.
Projects Affected:
7 miles of vehicle barriers to be replaced with pedestrian fence – location is 4.5 mi. E of Sasabe POE
to 2.5 mi. W of same POE.
Issue requiring shortened time frame for public comment - I questioned (b) (6) about it, and
his reply is attached.
(b)
(6)
We are not hurrying this project. The army corps keeps telling us that they
have a july start date that was given to them by sbinet. We've had little to
no say so on time frames.
(b) (6)
I have a call in to (b) (6) , but so far do not see a pressing reason to
hurry up.
1.5 mi. VB to be replaced with pedestrian fence (X2) – locations are 3 mi. E of Columbus NM POE to
1.5 Mi E of same POE and 1.5 mi. W of COL to 3 mi. W of same POE = total of 3 miles VB replaced
with PED fence.
Issue requiring shortened time frame for public comment – I am unable to verify any real need to
shorten the time frame for this project.
For these documents to be submitted for comment, the newspaper notification must be submitted by
tomorrow, 6/6/07. I need to give the CORPS an answer.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RGV Op Plan
(b)
(6)
Attached you will find RGV’s plan to address operational requirements when the proposed fence
projects are completed. Please call should you have any questions.
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: ROEs for PF-225
All,
The week on July 2-6, 2007, we will be attempting to get signed ROEs from the
stakeholders listed below. The ROEs will be hand delivered. These ROEs are in
reference to PF-225 and are applicable to both J-1 projects and J-3. All projects fall
within New Mexico’s 2nd congressional district- Congressman Steve Pearce.
(b) (6)
Take Care,
(b) (6)
El Paso Sector
8901 Montana Avenue
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: SBI Project VB-200
(b) (6) and (b)

(6) up the planning phase of VB-200 and was inquiring as to the specific locations where
SBI is gearing
we wanted this deployment to focus its efforts. We would like to get with you guys on the actions you
took to determine the PF-225 deployment locations and possibly use that as a template for the VB-200
plan. When you get a chance, can we (b) and I) get with you and go over a few things?
(6)
When you get a chance, can you let us know?
Thanks,
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
Tactical Infrastructure Branch
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RESEND of Earlier EMAIL: REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR SBInet OUTREACH

Date: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:40:44 AM
Outreach POCs,
Thanks in advance.
Number………………………..…X
Number………………………..…X
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY (
Subject: SBInet Rollout
(b)
(6)
(b) (6) came to talk with me about SBInet. He works in SPEC Ops and handles Native American
issues. He would like to get a schedule of locations where SBInet plans to deploy resources. His
concern is the same as what we have been dealing with over the past three weeks - getting the RIGHT
word out to the tribes before something blows up.
He already knows about P28, P37, PF225, etc. He is mostly interested in northern border locations. We
all understand that future SBInet planning is akin trying to nail Jello to the wall. Having said that, can
we get a tentative roll-out schedule for SBInet for the next 2-3 years? Point me to whoever I need to
speak with. (b) (6) is only interested in locations and is not concerned about what may actually be
deployed.
Just FYI - Chief Adams has agreed to make an SBInet presentation to the National Native American Law
Enforcement Association this October in Memphis.
Thanks.
(b) (6)
Branch Chief
Analysis Branch
Operations Planning and Analysis Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Sector Tasking
Below you will find information being requested from all sectors for
the SBInet Outreach Program. SBInet is requesting that all Border
Patrol Sectors within the PF-225 footprint supply HQ with quantitative
information weekly. Please complete all highlighted information and
return to (b) (6) by close of business Friday, May 4, 2007.
Updates of this information will be due by the close of business every
Friday until this project is complete.
The information being requested is the result of work that you have
already done, so by now you should only need to fill in the blanks.
The information being requested is:
Private Landowners
Number............X
Number contacted......X
Number of concern.......X
Number of miles of concern..X
Public Landowners
Number............X
Number contacted......X
Number of concern.......X
Number of miles of concern..X
From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY ( ; (b) (6)
Subject: Secure Fence Act

Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 4:58:41 PM
You may have seen this already, but the Secure Fence Act of 2006 passed in House on
Thursday and has been sent to the Senate. Attached is the Bill.
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief, HQOBP
Souther Border Operations
(b) (6)
Congressman wants a fence along the border
By Rep. Jerry Weller
Congressman
Homeland security begins with border security. The Secure Fence Act of 2006, passed by the
House Thursday, is not just about stemming the tide of illegal immigration; it's about
strengthening vulnerability in this country's Global War on Terror, its war on drugs, and its
overall law enforcement capability.
Over the summer, the House conducted a series of field hearings to assess the state of our
nation's borders. Their findings were an emphatic wake-up call to the need for stronger
borders. The testimony in these hearings from Border Patrol agents and everyday citizens
detailed the troubling activity along our southwestern border: assaults on Border Patrol
agents, drug trafficking, organized crime along both the Mexican and U.S. sides, and a
terrorist threat that only increases with time.
This is why the Senate must join the House by acting immediately to strengthen our borders.
To that end, the Secure Fence Act does the following:
* Provides for more than 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing along the southwest
border, and an evaluation of infrastructure needs along our northern border.
* Mandates that the Department of Homeland Security create a "virtual fence" with cameras,
ground sensors, and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to provide state-of-the-art surveillance.
* Gives Border Patrol agents the authority to disable fleeing vehicles, similar to the authority
now given to the United States Coast Guard.
The provisions in the Secure Fence Act build upon actions we in Congress have already
taken to secure our borders. We passed the REAL ID Act, which makes it extremely difficult
for people here illegally to obtain a driver's license. Since 2001, we have increased border
security funding by 66 percent, to more than $7.6 billion. The Border Patrol has expanded
from 9,000 to 12,000 agents. These agents have apprehended more than 6 million people
entering the U.S. illegally. Congress also put an end to the old practice of "catch and release"
of illegal immigrants.
These steps will be bolstered by the Secure Fence Act to provide additional security in the
homeland. According to the House Committee on Homeland Security, al Qaeda itself views
our borders as vulnerable. Imagine the enticement to terrorists of a border that functions more
like a sieve. If we do not address this weakness, we will remain continually susceptible to the
threat of a terrorist exploiting a porous border to launch an attack on our citizens.
In addition, border fencing has proven to be an effective deterrent to illegal immigration. It is

my view that we cannot begin to address the illegal immigration issue in this county until we
stop the proliferation of the problem. In 1996, Congress mandated the construction of a 14-
mile fence along the San Diego-Mexican border. By 2005, illegal immigration arrests in that
region had dropped by 95 percent and the crime rate was cut nearly in half. Clearly, this
method of deterrence has a proven record of success.
The Secure Fence Act is an important start to securing our nation's borders. I urge my
colleagues in the Senate to follow the House's lead on this bill, and provide the president a
chance to sign this measure into law.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Stakeholders
Date: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:39:38 AM
(b)
(6)
There are 778 stakeholders identified thus far for PF225 and 341 hsve yet to be contacted.
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Stand by projects
Chief,
Just letting you know that on the "hip pocket" fence projects, we will have to some prep work. we are
going to approve ACE to go with our agents to the County Assessors Office to identify the land
owners. They will not be allowed to do anything else. Your thoughts?
Jeff
From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY ( ; (b) (6)
Subject: TO Article
Date: Friday, September 22, 2006 8:20:03 AM
FYI
_____________________
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief, HQOBP
Souther Border Operations
(b) (6)
Border fence would need support of Tohono

O'odham tribe
New York Times News Service
Sept. 19, 2006 05:51 PM
TOHONO O'ODHAM RESERVATION, Ariz. - The Senate is expected to vote Wednesday on legislation to build a
double-layered 700-mile-long fence on the Mexican border, a proposal already approved by the House.
If the fence is built, however, it could have a long gap - about 75 miles - at one of the border's most vulnerable
points because of opposition from the Indian tribe here. More illegal immigrants are caught - and die trying to
cross into the United States - in and around the Tohono O'odham Indian territory, which straddles the Arizona
border, than any other spot in the state.
Tribal leaders have cooperated with Border Patrol enforcement, but they promised to fight the building of a fence
out of environmental and cultural concerns.
For the Tohono O'odham, which means "desert people," the reason is fairly simple. For generations, their people
and the wildlife they revere have freely crossed the border. For years, an existing 4-foot-high cattle fence has had
several openings - essentially cattle gates - that tribal members use to visit relatives and friends, take children to
school and perform rites on the other side.
"I am O'odham first, and American or Mexican second or third," said Ramon Valenzuela, as he walked his two
children to school through one gate two miles from his O'odham village in Mexico.
But the pushed-up bottom strands of the cattle fence and the surrounding desert littered with clothing, water jugs
and discarded backpacks testify to the growth in illegal immigrant traffic, which surged here after a Border Patrol
enforcement squeeze in California and Texas in the mid-1990s.
Crossers take advantage of a remote network of washes and trails - and sometimes Indian guides - to reach
nearby highways bound for cities across the country.
Tribal members, who once gave water and food to the occasional passing migrant, say they have become fed up
with groups of illegal immigrants breaking into homes and stealing food, water, clothing, and even using indoor
and outdoor electrical outlets to charge cell phones.
With tribal police, health and other services overwhelmed by illegal immigration, the Indians welcomed National
Guard members this summer to assist the Border Patrol here. The tribe, after negotiations with the Department of
Homeland Security, also agreed to a plan for concrete vehicle barriers at the fence and the grading of the dirt
road parallel to it for speedier Border Patrol and tribal police access. The Indians also donated a parcel this year
for a small Border Patrol substation and holding pen.
Tribal members, however, fearing the symbolism of a solid wall and concern about the free range of deer, wild
horses, coyotes, jackrabbits and other animals they regard as kin, said they would fight the kind of steel-plated
fencing that Congress had in mind and that has slackened the crossing flow in previous hot spots like San Diego.
"Animals and our people need to cross freely," said Verlon Jose, a member of the tribal council representing
border villages. "In our tradition we are taught to be concerned about every living thing as if they were people. We
don't want that wall."
The federal government, the trustee of all Indian lands, could build the fence here without tribal permission, but
that option is not being pressed because officials said it might jeopardize the tribe's cooperation on smuggling and
other border crimes.
"We rely on them for cooperation and intelligence and phone calls about illegal activity as much as they depend
on us to respond to calls," said Chuy Rodriguez, a spokesman for the Border Patrol in Tucson, who described
overall relations as "getting better and better."
The Tohono number more than 30,000, including 14,000 on the Arizona reservation and 1,400 in Mexico.
Building a fence would impose many challenges, apart from the political difficulties.
When steel fencing and other resources went up in California and Texas, migrant traffic shifted to the rugged
terrain here, and critics say more fencing will simply force crossers to other areas without the fence. Or under it,
as evidenced by the growth in the number of tunnels discovered near San Diego.
The shift in traffic to more remote, treacherous terrain also has led to hundreds of deaths of crossers, including
scores on tribal land here.
The effort to curtail illegal immigration has proved especially difficult on the reservation, whose 2.8 million acres,
about the size of Connecticut, make it the second largest in area.
Faced with poverty and unemployment, an increasing number of tribal members are turning to migrant and drug
smuggling, tribal officials say.
Just this year, the tribal council adopted a law barring the harboring of illegal immigrants in homes, a gesture to
show it is taking a "zero tolerance" stand, said the tribal chairwoman, Vivian Juan-Saunders.
Two members of Juan-Saunders' family have been convicted of drug smuggling in the past several years, and
she said virtually every family had been touched by drug abuse, smuggling or both.
Sgt. Ed Perez of the tribal police said members had been offered $400 per person to transport illegal immigrants
from the reservation to Tucson, a 90-minute drive, and much more to carry drugs.
The Border Patrol and tribal authorities say the increase in manpower and technology is yielding results. Deaths
are down slightly, 55 this year compared with 62 last year, and arrests of illegal immigrants in the Border Patrol
sectors covering the reservation are up about 10 percent.
But the influx of agents, many of whom are unfamiliar with the territory or Tohono ways, has brought complaints
that the agents have interfered with tribal ceremonies, entered property uninvited and tried to block members
crossing back and forth.
Juan-Saunders said helicopters swooped low and agents descended on a recent ceremony, apparently
suspicious of a large gathering near the border, and she has complained to supervisors about agents speeding
and damaging plants used for medicine and food. Some traditional and activist tribal members later this month
are organizing a conference among eight Indian nations on or near the border to address concerns here and
elsewhere.
"We are in a police state," said Michael Flores, a tribal member helping to organize the conference. "It is not a
tranquil place anymore."
Rodriguez acknowledged the concerns but said agents operated in a murky world where a rush of pickups from a
border village just might be tribal members attending an all-night wake, or something else.
"Agents make stops based on what they see," he said. "Sometimes an agent sees something different from what
tribal members or others see."
Agents, he added, are receiving more cultural training, including a new cultural awareness video just shot with the
help of tribal members.
"Our relations have come a long way" in the past decade, he said.
Valenzuela said several agents knew him and waved as he traveled across the border but others have stopped
him, demanding identification. Once, he said, he left at home a card that identifies him as a tribal member and an
agent demanded that he go back into Mexico and cross at the official port of entry in Sasabe, 20 miles away.
"I told him this is my land, not his," said Valenzuela, who was finally allowed to proceed after the agent radioed
supervisors.
Valenzuela said he would not be surprised if a big fence eventually went up, but Juan-Saunders said she would
affirm the tribe's concerns to Congress and the Homeland Security department. She said she would await final
word on the fence and its design before taking action.
She said that members of Congress she has met "recognize we pose some unique issues to them and that was
really what we are attempting to do, to educate them to our unique situation."
The House last week approved a Republican-backed bill 238-138 calling for double-layer fencing along a third of
the 2,000-mile-long border, roughly from Calexico, Calif., to Douglas, Ariz.
There is considerable support for the idea in the Senate, although the proposal's outcome with President Bush
remains uncertain. The Homeland Security secretary, Michael Chertoff, has expressed doubts about sealing the
border with fences.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) J
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Updated Fence Lab
Gents,
Just an updated version of the site visit form for the Fence Lab team to El Paso the first week
of July, reflecting additional personnel and one tentative attendee. I do not have contact information for
(b) (6)
V/r
(b) (6)
Liaison, CBP Air & Marine
SBI Program Mgmt. Office
Mission Engineering Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Updated PF225 project list

All:
Here is the updated PF225 project list. Changes to note include:
Neeley Crossing - added 1.5 miles

Added K-2A back into the spreadsheet
Both of the above items were requests made by OBP HQ and/or Sector. Also, please review the RE
and EV columns as new/revised info from the OBP outreach has been incorporated. Any future
changes to these columns must be forwarded to SBI/CBP/EV IPT/ RE IPT in order to make sure that
all agencies are informed of the changes prior to a new version of the spreadsheet being produced.
Please note the file name includes the date of 6-25-07 and is the most up to date copy of this
document.
(b) (6)
(b) (2)
(b) (6)
Project Manager
USACE-PM-ECSO
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Importance: High
(b)
(6)
Got it. It looks alright, though I will give it a good going over. I am shooting off the email to the
Sectors as soon as I get back from a quick lunch. I know you were going to call Jeff, so I’ll hold off
until then in case you have instructions. Please give the following email a quick look. Also, I left you a
voice mail, which you can ignore.
(b)
(6)
All,
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will be mailing out Environmental
Assessment notification letters to the appropriate Native American tribes in
your respective areas of operations, as well as to the appropriate State
Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO.) The letters will explain site
location of possible infrastructure insertion. These assessments do not
imply that work will definitely be done.
It is recommended that you conduct a Risk Assessment based on your
relationship with recipients to identify the appropriate method of
notification. Your analysis should determine the mode of communication e.g.
face-to-face meeting, telephonic notification, etc. Our objective is to
reach out to the recipients in advance of the letters, to explain the
purpose. This will require immediate response, as the letters are mailed
via Federal Express, and will arrive the day after they are sent. USACE
mailed the Santa Teresa project letters yesterday, June 5, 2007. The
Nogales project letters will go Friday.
Attached is a copy of the letter sent to the tribes for each project, as
well as the letter to the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer.
Accompanying these letters is the list of the tribes to receive the
letters. I have sent this correspondence to all of the SBI Points of
Contact (If I missed anyone, please let me know.) If there is any question
as to which Sector bears responsibility for any contact(s) please ask. The
letters to the SHPO should be reviewed for specific contact information.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Outreach POCs,
Thanks in advance.
Number………………………..…X
Number………………………..…X
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: Re - 4 A Couple of Issues Clarified (Redacted) 4 - Weekly Reporting (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 - 4 A Couple of Issues Clarified (Redacted) 4 - Weekly Reporting (Redacted) 1

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)

Sent: Sun Jun 24 08:21:16 2007

Thanks for your help,

From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

From: SELF, JEFFREY D

From: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

From: GIDDENS, GREGORY

From: (b) (6) ov]

McAllen Mayor Richard Cortez, flanked at a news conference by Hidalgo County

“We want to make sure that instead of confrontation, we have communication to

In February, according to local leaders, Homeland Security Secretary Michael

“We’re trying to clear the miscommunication and clear the misunderstanding,”

Assistant Chief Scudder,

Cc: (b) (6)

PRIVATE LANDOWNERS (all non-federally owned land)

PUBLIC LANDOWNERS (only federally owned land)

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

Just got off the phone with (b) (6)

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

Just trying to buy some time...

See you in the am.

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

We need to psuh back and get the deadline moved to 1030.

We need to send up a solid package.

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

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

Sent: Thu Sep 20 16:36:00 2007

Briefing Memo and Background

Please see meeting details below.

Due to CBP Tasking

8:00 a.m. tomorrow, September 21, 2007

Tasker information, contact lists, and templates can be found online at

Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

From: (b) (6)

SECRETARY BRIEFING BOOK TASKING

Friday, 09.21.07 (1430-1530)

Briefing Memo and Background

· S1BB – Date of Event (mm.dd.yy) – Description (1-2 words) (Recommended BriefingStaffB

Secretary's Briefing Book

Office of the Executive Secretariat

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

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

Don't know. This is taking awhile longer than expected.

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

Why none! If they were unidentified, they would not be red.

How many are unidentified landowners?

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

No, I missed .91 for TCA

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

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

Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Thu Jul 19 12:37:03 2007

From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

1. Yuma (Monday and Tuesday)

Thank you in advance for your time and help,

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