CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: Re - Disks (Redacted) 2 - Re - NM Land Situation (Redacted) 1

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)
----- Original Message -----
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)
Subject: RE: Memo to accompany disks
(b)
(6)
Need to stand by on this. We will revisit it when I get back from EPT.
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 3:29 PM
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
Number contacted……............X
Number of concern……...........X
Number of miles of concern.....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
Required Coordination
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: A couple of issues clarified
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

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: (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)
-----Original Message-----
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)

Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:47 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Border Fence
(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)
From: SELF, JEFFREY D

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
Date: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:25:38 AM
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)
Subject: RE: DRAFT Follow-up Letter
(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)

Subject: FW: DRAFT Follow-up Letter
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,
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: 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
Date: Monday, June 11, 2007 1:59:12 PM
(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)

Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 1:53 PM
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)

Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 12:00 PM
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)
Business Manager, Operations
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
Date: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:12:13 PM
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

From: AGUILAR, DAVID V (b) (6)
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
Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:13:54 PM
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)

Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:12 AM
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)
Special Operations Supervisor
El Paso Sector
8901 Montana Avenue
El Paso, Texas 79925
(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
Date: Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:21:40 PM
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)
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 11:47 AM
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
Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 5:48:26 PM
(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) ]

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 11:05 AM
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)

Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 1:38 PM
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)

Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:26 AM
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
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 9:21:47 PM
(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.

To: Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6)
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)

Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 7:52 AM
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
Office of the Secretary
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: Self, Jeffrey ( ; (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Names for MATOC contracts
Date: Monday, June 04, 2007 10:49:41 AM
(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)
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)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Names for MATOC contracts
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

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: Re - Disks (Redacted) 2 - Re - NM Land Situation (Redacted) 1

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: Re - Disks (Redacted) 2 - Re - NM Land Situation (Redacted) 1

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

From: (b) (6)

To: Jeffrey.Self(b) (6) v

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

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: (b) (6)

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

Cc: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: alternative fence

From: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: alternative fence

From: (b) (6) ractor

Subject: RE: alternative fence

Looks good to me. How about a materials cost-per-mile?

From: (b) (6) l]

Subject: alternative fence

Tactical Infrastructure Program Manager (Tucson Sector)

From: (b) (6)

Can you tell me what the following is about?