Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 19

From: (b) (6)

To: Jeffrey.Self(b) (6)


Subject: Fw: Need Approval
Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:00:24 PM

Jeff,
I am forwarding this because somehow the string started with a typo and somebody put (b) (6)
instead of you in the send to: lines.
(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: GIDDENS, GREGORY (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)

Adams, Rowdy D
(b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 23 20:36:39 2007
Subject: Re: Need Approval

(b)
(6)
Thanks.

All letters are going to resource agencies, none going to the public?

When do they need to go out?

Will need the list for this batch of letters. Also, do you know when the next batch need to go out and
will they be to resource agencies or the public or both?

Thanks again,
Greg G

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


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

Cc: (b) (6) Adams, Rowdy D


(b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 23 20:29:49 2007
Subject: Re: Need Approval

Sir.

Current Letters are prepared for all the work covered under phase 1 of PF 225 where we are either
going to be supplementing or preparing a new EA.

Purpose of the letters are compliance with the environmental laws (NEPA, endangered species,
archeology, etc). This is the first step in coordinating with resource agencies (BLM, Fish and wildlife,
etc.).

These letters will initiate that coordination so we can complete our EAs on time and allow us to
complete the projects without requesting the waiver.

These letters are specific to phase 1 projects and only for the resource agencies, not the public.

I will get you the list via seperate email.


As for time we are trying to have these EAs done so we can begin awarding phase 1 asap. Most of
phase 1 just require these supplemental.

These letters don't need to be sent out on the same day, but very close.

Please let me know if I answered everything

(b)
(6)
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

-----Original Message-----
From: GIDDENS, GREGORY (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)

CC: (b) (6)


Adams, Rowdy D (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 23 14:43:52 2007
Subject: RE: Need Approval

All,
I need a couple of things to help me work the letters. This info will
be combined into a pitch I will take to DHS to get clearance on the
letters to go out.

1. Para on why the letters need to go out - what do they do to help us


make 370 by Dec 08? What is the purpose of the letters?
2. Need a list by State of who will they go out to and when they need
to go?
3. Do the letters just go out to landowners or just any
concerned/interested parties? What is decision process to determine who
gets a letter?
4. Impact of delay in getting the letters out? Is the delay
recoverable?
5. Can they be sent out in batches or do they all need to go at once?

Need soonest based on perceived need to get the letters out quickly.

Greg G

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
, 2007 12:06 PM
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)
Subject: Need Approval

Good morning Sir.

We have a priority schedule issue we are hoping you can run to ground.
The Army Corps has EA notification memos that need to be sent or there
will be significant timeline impacts. These have been reviewed and
approved in OBP, but there is no one else at HQ to get DHS approval.
(b) (6) is the OBP contact who is at HQ. Can you work that with
(b) (6) help? This will be an ongoing process we have in place, we need
to know if DHS plans to review and approve letters.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: NEPA
Date: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:48:07 AM

(b)
(6)
As you can see from the conversation below, I made some efforts to get the needed meeting with
(b) (6) (our Liaison with the President’s Council on Environmental Quality) to take place. The
process is, in my opinion, taking too long. That said, I learned a few things in the course of trying to
get this meeting to take place sooner rather than later.

(b) (6) asked me to meet with him, and I did. He has a great deal of work which will be useful
in meeting with the CEQ already in the can from prior projects. He educated me a bit on the work
needed to meet with CEQ effectively, and I see that we have a bunch of homework to do prior to the
meeting. It seems to me that some group education should occur prior to meeting with (b) (6)
but only enough that he is able to see that we have set a good course, and are going to go to CEQ
with viable plan to move forward. Then we need to carefully formulate our presentation so that it will
be obvious to them that our plans take into consideration our responsibilities under the law not only in
the area of national security, but also with regard to the NEPA.

BACKGROUND: Since it appears one or more portions of PF225 are going to require EIS, it makes
sense to discuss Alternative Arrangements with the CEQ. Further, it makes sense to request this
across the board in order to avoid segmentation.

(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)


Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 4:38 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: NEPA

(b)
(6)
Will do. I will try to set up a meeting with (b) (6) and will get back to all the members with potential dates and
times.

Thanks,
(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Wed May 23 16:33:36 2007


Subject: RE: NEPA

Sir,
Thanks much for the heads up. My schedule is quite flexible, so I’ll defer to (b) coordination with you.
(6)

(b)
(6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)


Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 4:19 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: NEPA

Next Wednesday and Thursday are full for me. I won’t be available until June 01.

________________________________

From: (b) (6)


Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:46 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: NEPA

(b) and I will be out this friday. Sorry, but earliest for me is next Wednesday.
(6)
(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Wed May 23 12:28:59 2007


Subject: RE: NEPA

(b)
(6)

Friday works fine for me. I assume that any of those copied on this message will speak up with any schedule
conflicts. Please set a time that works for you and we’ll make it happen. ((b) (6) please
include any others who need to be there, and get with (b) (6) if there are any insurmountable obstacles to this
meeting suggestion. I am not trying to step on toes by arranging this meeting, and I am sure we all want to keep
moving forward so I took the liberty.)
(b)
(6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)


Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:13 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: NEPA

(b)
(6)

Negative on the meeting request. This is something that I mentioned when we meet together. This Friday is more
open for me to meet.

________________________________

From: (b) (6)


Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:28 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: NEPA

(b)
(6)

Have any of the environmental group gotten back with you regarding the meeting you suggest? If not, I’d be happy
to coordinate. Please let me know what will work well for you.

Thanks,

(b)
(6)

________________________________

From (b) (6)


Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 5:26 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc (b) (6)
Subject: RE: NEPA
MD 5100.1, Environmental Planning Program, provides the following direction:

Appendix A, 4.C describes the requirements for public comment in a typical environmental assessment process. It
contains the direction that allows for no further public comment on the EA document, if the public is provided the
chance to identify issues and concerns early in the development of the EA and nothing of importance is raised.

Appendix A, 2.E provides criteria to assess in establishing an appropriate length of public comment period

Appendix A, 6.A provides direction for developing alternative arrangements for completing an EA in an
emergency situation. Note that these arrangements need to be developed with OSEP.

40 CFR 1506.11 provides direction for developing alternative arrangements when significant adverse
environmental impacts are expected. Please note that we still need to talk this one through to ensure that we are
clear as to what the issues and benefits may be and what public involvement we can reasonably undertake. There
is considerable variability in the nature of these alternative arrangements. However, they do not absolve us from
meeting other environmental requirements, such as protection of endangered species or preservation of historic
properties. We need to have another meeting just on this matter.

________________________________

From: (b) (6)


Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 9:40 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: NEPA

Sir,

Could you give me a reference or quick explanation regarding the shortened public comment periods we discussed
yesterday? I want to make sure we apply what you mentioned in the proper manner. I can, or course, find
direction for providing information and time to comment to the public. It is naturally more difficult to find the
exceptions.

Thanks much,
(b) (6)

SBI Liaison

OPA Division

Office of Border Patrol

1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6.5E

Washington, D.C. 20229

(b) (6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY(
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: New Week / Cuellar
Date: Friday, May 04, 2007 7:35:56 AM
Importance: High

(b)
(6)
Need you to get eyes on this product please. SBI (b) (6) worked it last night. He is suppose to get it to
(b) (6) for vetting and then send it to (b) (6) for a look. Please take a look and give (b) your
input. (6)

Thanks,

Jeff

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


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)
Office of the Commissioner
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Department of Homeland Security
(b) (6)

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


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)
Office of the Commissioner
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Department of Homeland Security
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From:(b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:32 AM
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.

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


From: (b) (6)
To: Giddens, Gregory <(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?
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: OBP ORBBP and Outreach Tasking
Date: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 2:28:58 PM

El Paso Template.

(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
Office of Border Patrol
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6.5E
Washington, D.C. 20229
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)


Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 2:11 PM
To: (b) (6) BEESON, PAUL A; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: OBP ORBBP and Outreach Tasking

(b) (6)

The following attachments address OBP tasks regarding the ORBBP and SBInet
Outreach programs. The document labeled “response” addresses both issues and
the document labeled as “60 Day OUTREACH” addresses the SBInet Outreach
Program. The response document is pasted in plain text in case you do not have
immediate access to your computers.

In regards to Operational Requirements Based Budget Process (ORBBP):

The El Paso Sector Stations have reviewed existing plans in ORBBP and
determined that previous requests regarding Tactical Infrastructure are still
indicative of their needs. Minor changes in priority were made by the Deming
and Ysleta Stations but this did not change the overall priority for the El Paso
Sector.

All TI projects have accompanying GPS Trimble files associated.

The only TI project immediately scheduled for construction is Deming Phase 1A


which consist of 1.5 miles of lighting and fencing west of the Columbus Port of
Entry. Progress on this project will be updated once construction begins.

In regards to the SBInet outreach program:

The attached spreadsheet identifying key stakeholders, public and private,


affected by PF-225 and the Texas Mobile Solution is attached. This
prioritization was based on both the initial proposed deployment of PF-225 and
the technology assets that may be deployed with the TMS.

Attempts to identify landowners are on going but obtaining accurate landowner


information for other Governmental agencies is proving to be difficult. This
includes the International Boundary and Water Commission, the El Paso
County Water District #1, and the Hudspeth County Water Improvement District.

El Paso Sector personnel are scheduled to accompany(b) (6) of the U.S.


Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) to the El Paso County Tax Assessors Office
on May 10, 2007. El Paso Sector personnel will continue to accompany
USACE personnel on any future visits to obtain landowner information.

A total of 8 stakeholders, private and public, have been contacted in regards to


the implementation of PF-225.

The El Paso Sector is also nearing the Design Deployment Review (DDR) for
the TMS. Possible areas of asset deployment should be identified in the near
future, this will result in a significant increase of stakeholder contacts.

The El Paso Sector is determined to reach out, not only to affected landowners,
but to the entire El Paso Community. At the SBInet Outreach conference held
in Washington, D.C. on March 6th and 7th, 2007, it was determined that agents
involved in the Outreach program should have uniform, Office of Border Patrol
approved, information to distribute to landowners. This method of distribution
would avoid of any conflicting information from sector to sector.

It was also the consensus that information should be developed to educate


agents on the role of SBInet as it applies to our National strategy.

This information was to arrive in the form of pamphlets, briefing cards, and
Powerpoint presentations. To date, pamphlets and briefing cards have arrived
but no other presentations have been distributed.

The El Paso Sector would like to have access to OBP approved Powerpoint
presentations so that information regarding SBInet can be presented to a
variety of people, including agents, stakeholders, and the community as a
whole.

Take Care,

(b) (6)
Special Operations Supervisor
El Paso Sector
8901 Montana Avenue
El Paso, Texas 79925
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: OPCNM coordination letters
Date: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 10:28:09 AM

(b)
(6)
I want to get you the heads up ASAP so you aren't blind-sided with a question.

The attached letters will be sent to you from the Army Corps of Engineers. These letters are to be sent
by the Sector to the receiver accompanied by a COVER LETTER from the sector. This cover letter
should be offering a place for the receiver to come to with questions and concerns regarding the project
(or EA in this case) and an explanation if needed. Should the letters EVER contain language the CPA is
not comfortable with we can send back for revision. This is another example of Chief Aguilar's and the
Commissioner's insistence that the BP be the face We are working on a draft cover letter but I know
all of the sectors are capable of handling these issues.

This will become a standard operating procedure to ensure that the issues like out in Ajo don't happen
and forces the corps to keep the sectors in the loop. Please ask questions or concerns so I can address
them.

Thanks,
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
Office of Border Patrol
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6.5E
Washington, D.C. 20229
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 10:01 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: OPCNM coordination letters

Good morning (b)


(6)
I've run the letters through the Border Patrol and am attaching updated versions with minor language
changes. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns.

If you have no questions or concerns, please send the signed copies to (b) (6)
at the Tucson Sector Border Patrol, who will deliver the letters.

Thanks again for all your help.

(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 4:46 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: OPCNM coordination letters

(b)
(6)

In the past the Corps has always sent these agency coordination letters out
under our letterhead. These are required under NEPA to show an agencies
attempt at coordination

Because I know the sensitivity now is this still ok for us to send?

We need to get these out asap to get the ball rolling on the phase 1 pf225
projects.

Please let me know asap

Thanks
(b)
(6)
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu May 03 14:19:58 2007
Subject: FW: OPCNM coordination letters
(b) (2)

On the agency coordination letters that are going out in reference to PF 225,
do you have any objection to signing (or someone within the ESCO ((b)
) these letters? (6)

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6) ]


Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 8:37 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: OPCNM coordination letters
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ; SELF, JEFFREY ( ; ADAMS, ROWDY (
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: OPCNM coordination letters
Date: Monday, May 14, 2007 5:29:42 PM

Good afternoon.

As I mentioned to each of you earlier today, USACE provided the attached draft letters and map to start
the coordination process.

USACE is on board with the process that the letters would go through the Border Patrol and be
delivered by the sector.

However, what I noticed about these letters is that they discuss converting 30 miles of vehicle barrier to
pedestrian fence along the OPCNM. I discussed the language with (b) (6) While we would do this if
required to fulfill mileage required by the SFA, this is not currently in our plans for PF225. While the
letters need to go out to perform the EA, I question the language in the letters.

I am bringing this to your attention for your decision on a course of action.

Thank you.

(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 4:46 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: OPCNM coordination letters

(b)
(6)

In the past the Corps has always sent these agency coordination letters out
under our letterhead. These are required under NEPA to show an agencies
attempt at coordination

Because I know the sensitivity now is this still ok for us to send?

We need to get these out asap to get the ball rolling on the phase 1 pf225
projects.

Please let me know asap

Thanks
(b)
(6)
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu May 03 14:19:58 2007
Subject: FW: OPCNM coordination letters
<<Ajo_Figure1_2_Locationmap.pdf>>
<<AZGF-corrdination.doc>> <<OPCNM corrdination.doc>>
<<USFW-Lukeville_corrdination.doc>> (b)
(6)
On the agency coordination letters that are going out in reference to PF 225,
do you have any objection to signing (or someone within the ESCO ((b)
these letters? (6)

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)


Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 8:37 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: OPCNM coordination letters
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: Outreach
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:34:37 AM

(b)
(6)
I saw you weren't on this message...I am sure you have knowledge of at least some of these figures.
(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 10:32:04 2007
Subject: Outreach

Hello All,

Per Mr. Giddens’ request for updated figures could everyone please look at my preliminary numbers and
ensure there accuracy:

437: Landowners contacted regarding SBI/SBInet (PF225 778 identified)

60: Governor’s Homeland Security Advisors briefed on SBI/SBInet

35: City Mayors and Judges contacted regarding SBI/SBInet

28: Local sheriffs contacted regarding SBI/SBInet

19: Congressional briefings given regarding SBI/SBInet

5: Town hall meetings held regarding SBI/SBInet

1: Governors’ briefed regarding SBInet

Thanks,

(b
)

(b) (6)

Secure Border Initiative (b) (2)

Program Management Office

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

Вам также может понравиться