CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: Q

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

Subject: Latest and Greatest Q&As to be used for SBInet Outreach Program
Date: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:22:24 AM
(b)
(6)
These are the Q&As that were created through the SBInet Communication Program. Most of these
that deal with BP have been vetted before and retouched for PAO and Congressional Liaison usage.
The Corps answered the real estate and acquisition answers. I’ve read through them a few times. It
is all pretty well covered. I would like to send these to the Outreach POCs for additional information
(along with the PowerPoint and updated map with SFA and PF225 laydown). I spoke with (b) and he
said they haven’t heard of any other media issues since last weeks from RGV area. (6)
(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)
From: (b) (6)
To: GIDDENS, GREGOR( ; ADAMS, ROWDY (
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: [URGENT] S1BB - 09.21.07 - SBI Update
Date: Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:39:59 PM
I don't know if this helps but here is something (b) provided earlier...
(6)
Now, this keeps getting tweeked as the baseline data we have is different than what PF225 is now
planning, but not by far, approximately 7 more miles in current PF225 plan.
Baseline: Texas – 117 miles of which, 32 miles fall within El Paso Sector within Texas, 37 total miles
within EPT to include what we plan in both NM and TX.
This does not include buffer mileage.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Special Assistant to
(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
(b) (6)
----- Original Message -----

From: GIDDENS, GREGORY
To: ADAMS, ROWDY D;(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Sep 20 22:25:22 2007
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

From: ADAMS, ROWDY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Sep 20 21:54:48 2007
Greg
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: (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D
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. (b) (6) 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,
(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)
<BLOCKED: (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::(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)
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
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: A couple of issues clarified
Date: Monday, June 25, 2007 6:23:53 AM
(b)
(6)
It appears that (b) is responding to (b) , so it's from both. He and I took a short term solution to (b)
evening. I asked (b) 6)to shoot me that email, as I don't have time to fight with people
for approval Fri (6) (6)
today to get the reports. (b) has(6)to revisit the stop light with the DC this Thurs, so we've got some
very compressed timelines. (6)We have some serious re-tooling to do with this stop light. The desire from
the powers that be appears to be an 80,000 ft. view with 500 ft. resolution. I think I know how to do
it, but we will need to discuss some technology. I don't think it will be with boards. We probably need
the computer jock that (b) was talking about.
(6)
More specifics - I find that we are getting different levels of reporting based upon how far in the weeds
the sector is diffing coupled with the complexity of the problem on the ground. For example, the
additional owners Marfa reported last week are not fence footprint owners, but owners from whom we
will (may) need to obtain a temporary easement. We should not, in all likelihood, show the same level
of significance to one as the other. Should a project flash over to red because someone wants to deny
us temporary use of a piece of property? I would bet the legal issues are different, and all of this is
prior to real estate folks speaking with the owners. I think we can't look at them in the same way.
(b)
(6)
-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 10:03 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: A couple of issues clarified
(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 3:02:11 PM
(b)
(6)
It is ready to mail out on a disk. However...when I tried to mail it before Chief Self said he wanted to
revisit the subject prior to mailing. That said, I don't know where we stand. By the way, I have not yet
received the document to allow use of govt. land upon acquisition.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: A question
(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
(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)
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)
Cc: (b) (6) Ronald.Colburn(b) (6) Hill, Randy (
Subject: Re: Article in National Geographic May 2007 Magazine
Date: Monday, April 30, 2007 3:07:12 PM
10-4 (b) , in Chicago enroute to TCA I@l get back with you on this. Still a problem. Don't need the
(6) map sirring things up.
700 mile

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) 'Ronald.Colburn(b) (6) (b) (6) Hill, Randy R
Sent: Mon Apr 30 15:03:47 2007
Subject: RE: Article in National Geographic May 2007 Magazine
Jeff,
The article never mentions Del Rio Sector; it's pretty much all Naco. However, the link to the interactive
map shows a continual fence from DRT thru EGT. (I think it's in the 700 plan).
I mention him because (b) (6) took the time to call me 2 weeks ago to reiterate that he is against
any fence because the river serves that purpose in his opinion. He did want to reiterate that he fully
supports BP & our mission. He said he would grant us access for whatever electronic "fence" SBI may
bring us and indeed to date he has granted us access for cameras and sensors.
I only sent you the heads up because the recent articles arising out of the Roma outreach efforts have
stirred up the locals here to some degree. The Mayor of Eagle Pass was involved in the recent tornado
recovery efforts and during downtimes expressed to (b) (6) (our SBI guy) his dissatisfaction with
the Roma thing and he felt he was deceived in some way. He advised (b) (6) that after the tornado
business concluded, there was going to be efforts with the border mayors to mount some sort of
response. He is upset because he came away from the meeting with the Secretary in Laredo believing
that the fence issue in Texas was finished and he believed that the Secretary concurred that an actual
fence along the river wasn't needed. He believes that the Secretary and the mayors agreed that a
virtual fence was the answer for Texas.
We have no idea just what kind of response the mayors can mount outside of involving the
congressionals and the media. In my opinion, the mayors banked a lot of credibility from the Laredo
meeting with the Secretary and it is my belief that they have been reassuring their constituents that the
Secretary agreed to the virtual fence. I think the mayor may be reacting to a possible loss of "face"
with them. Despite our frequent outreach to them where they acknowledge they may face
condemnation at some point, they sure banked on their perceptions that arose out of the Laredo
meeting.
I'm not raising any alarms here that we weren't already aware of, but if somebody in the mindset of the
mayor were to read this article and then click on the interactive map, I can see where it may stir them
up some more. This is just FYI for OBP and SBI folks for potential damage control purposes.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 1:38 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) 'Ronald.Colburn(b) (6)
Subject: Re: Article in National Geographic May 2007 Magazine
(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 (b)
(6)
However, he is adamantly opposed to the fence concept in this aor. For sure, the map will have the
mayors in Del Rio & Eagle Pass against us-along with the respective city councils.
Though the article is centered on Naco, the SBI messaging in Texas may get more complicated after
folks read this and then look at the map to extrapolate just what this means to Texas. Just FYI.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 10:59 AM
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) was visiting with his grandfather this past weekend 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: border fence
Date: Saturday, May 05, 2007 6:18:15 PM
(b) (6)
What happened with this?
Jeff

From: (b) (6) >
To: Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 02 19:29:18 2007
Subject: Fw: border fence
Jeff,
Do you have any issues with this request for an on camera with LRT DCPA regarding PF225?
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 02 15:41:11 2007
Subject: RE: border fence
Chief
Will be in route tomorrow until the afternoon we could get the Deputy for the interview?
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 2:07 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: border fence
(b)
(6)
He is asking for Chief Patrol Agent Carlos X. Carrillo to do the interview. Will the Chief be available? If
not who will be doing the interview?
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: border fence
(b) (6) and HQ:
I have worked with (b) (6) for years, he is a really good reporter and will be visiting the Laredo
area on the proposed Border Fencing. His angle to the story would be more in terms of what the Pro
active activities is the Laredo Sector planning regarding the Border Fence issue.
Let me know on approval.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6) is KENS TV out of San Antonio, Texas.
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: border fence
(b)
(6)
It's always a pleasure to talk with you. Following up on our conversation, If you could ask the Chief if
he talk with us that would be a huge help. We are coming to Laredo tomorrow and would like to speak
with him on the border fence issue. I know things are still in a preliminary form, but if we could just
get preliminary information and talk about the public meeting he is holding on border security that
would help. If either of you have any question, feel free to call. (b) (6) . Thanks for your help.
(b) (6)
Anchor/Reporter
KENS-TV
To: GIDDENS, GREGOR(
Subject: Re: CBP Tasking
I slept just about the entire way.
Jeff

To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Sat May 05 12:30:11 2007
Thanks.
Hope you made it back OK.
Greg G

To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6) ; AGUILAR, DAVID V;
'Rowdy.Adams(b) (6) (b) (6) ;
COLBURN, RONALD S
Cc:(b) (6)
Sent: Sat May 05 11:59:06 2007
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;
'Rowdy.Adams(b) (6) (b) (6)
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;
'Rowdy.Adams(b) (6) (b) (6)
COLBURN, RONALD S
Cc: (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: SCUDDER, RYAN J; 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)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: "Murder Board" with Chief Colburn this Thursday at 4:00 pm
Date: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 1:32:53 PM
(b)
(6)
Can you get this to (b)
(6)
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Wed May 09 11:53:06 2007
Subject: RE: "Murder Board" with Chief Colburn this Thursday at 4:00 pm
Would love to see it --
(b) (6)
Department of Homeland Security
Special Advisor to the Commissioner
(b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 11:46 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: "Murder Board" with Chief Colburn this Thursday at 4:00 pm
(b)
(6)
We're about done with the message. If you have time can you get with (b) (6) and (b) (6)
they can give you a copy. Give us your opinion on how we're doing if you have time.
Yes, (b) should be involved.

(6)
Jeff

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

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

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

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

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

-- At 12:45 pm, Chief Colburn arrives along with the county judge, judge pro-tem, and county
administrator
-- At 12:55 pm, the Senator arrives and has a "meet and greet"
with Chief Colburn and the judges/administrator
-- 1:00 pm: Town hall meeting begins
-- Senator: 10 -- 15 minutes of remarks
-- Chief Colburn: 10 --15 minutes of remarks
-- Open forum for questions and answers. Some of the questions that will likely come up are:
-- Seized land/eminent domain
-- Long delays at the POEs. Concern of some local citizens that CBP's border security efforts will
further slow down the flow of legitimate trade and travel
-- The cane issue
--At least one attendee is one of the "big property owners who is very upset"
-- The event will conclude with 15 minutes of "press availability"
Given the importance of this event, and the risks and rewards associated with it, I highly recommend
that we come together on Thursday for a "murder board" to ensure that CBP/OBP message, as delivered
by Chief Colburn, is on course. Thoughts?
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY(
To: AGUILAR, DAVID (
Subject: RE: Conference Call with Congressman Rodriguez
Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 6:07:56 PM
Chief,
(b) said it would be Greg but I will confirm.

(6)
Jeff
From: AGUILAR, DAVID V

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 5:56 PM
To: (b) (6)
Jeff,
Who from SBI is going to be with us on this call?
(b)
(6)

To: AGUILAR, DAVID V; (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Conference Call with Congressman Rodriguez
Chief,
The below is a list of confirmed and unconfirmed participants for tomorrows conference call.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Jeff - Below are participants invited for tomorrow's call.
Congressman Rodriguez's district covers just west of Fabens along the entire Texas border until just
past Eagle Pass (although it weaves a bit in the west to include(b) (6) I've attached a map of his
district, but it's very high level - this website actually shows in greater detail the locations that his
district covers: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=TX&district=23
Confirmed
Hudspeth County:
County Judge Becky Dean -Walker
Commissioner Jim Ed Miller
El Paso County:
State Representative Chente Quintanilla
Clint Mayor Dale Reinhardt
Contacted but not Confirmed yet
Hudspeth County:
Commissioner Curtis Carr
El Paso County:
Commissioner Miguel Teran
County Judge Tony Cobos
(b) (6)
Office of Congressional Affairs
(b) (6)

To: AGUILAR, DAVID V
Cc: (b) (6)
Chief,
Here’s the information you requested. I will be sending you the Texas Mobile talking points in a
separate e mail.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

To: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6) L
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) (6) s working with El Paso Sector and SBI to clear this issue up.
(b) (2)
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Office of Congressional Affairs
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Contractor Protocols
Date: Friday, May 18, 2007 7:39:06 PM
(b)
(6)
Hold on to it for now just send the message.

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Fri May 18 19:12:45 2007
Subject: RE: Contractor Protocols
Jeff, when I send out the message to participants later this evening should I attach the draft agenda
that you, Ron V, and (b) generated this afternoon, or does the Deputy want to review it before it
goes out? (6)
(b)
(6)
________________________________

Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 5:34 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Contractor Protocols
(b) and (b)

(6) (6)
See the Deputy Commissioner's e-mail below. We need to outline in bullets the step by step process
that Boeing and the Sub Contractors take as it pertains to Outreach and Communication. Basically
showing we have control of them and the protocols they must go through before taking any action.
(b) (6)
Can you try to simplify the bulleted protocol paper that you did. We need to simplify it. We will need
this things next week.
Thanks, Jeff
________________________________
From: (b) (6)
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) (6) – I know you’re focusing on the Texas fence issues, but I think we do need the one pager
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)
Subject: RE: Memo to accompany disks
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 7:25:15 AM
Sounds good(b) (6) if (b) is good with it then go with it.

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

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

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

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

To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Memo to accompany disks
Chief,
I have looked into the Right of Entry issue. It seems that there was no environmental ROE prior to this
version. One (maybe more) of the sectors have developed ROE to use for environmental purposes on
their own. I sent the El Paso Sector document to(b) (6) (Sp) for vetting, and she said it would
work; there is no reason to re-issue. I believe we should go forward with the new version from here as
ROE are issued, or legally sufficient existing documents expire.
If you concur, I’ll modify the memo to reflect the above and get it sent out, provided you’ve heard back
regarding the power point also included on the disk.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: DRAFT Follow-up Letter
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 6:50:56 AM
Sensitivity: Confidential
(b)
(6)
Should I send calendar reminders that you need to eat lunch and to take breaks away from your
computer? We will issue a bb to (b) (6) if it will help also. Sorry I am just starting my day this
way. See you later.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; STEVENS, (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 13 06:45:52 2007

Subject: RE: DRAFT Follow-up Letter
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
(b) (6)
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)

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: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) BEESON, PAUL A;(b) (6) COLBURN,
RONALD S; (b) (6) , JOHN C; FISHER, (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)
FISHER, MIKE J; (b) (6)
GILBERT, ROBERT W; Hill, Randy R; (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)
Subject: Re: DRT Weekly Outreach Report
Date: Friday, July 13, 2007 9:45:52 AM
Thanks. Just trying to get a handle on who, what, where.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jul 12 12:42:00 2007
Subject: RE: DRT Weekly Outreach Report
(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 2:00:02 PM
Thanks (b) .
(6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 1:59 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: EA Next Step
(b)
(6)
The only change (actually addition) would be to the NOA. I would add that it is the “U.S. Border Patrol
Deming Station”. (in some form or fashion). I don’t know if it is intentional or not but “Deming
Station”…..could be a fire station or a filling station. My 2 cents (free of charge).
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D;(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)
To: RONALD.Vitiello(b) (6)
Subject: Re: Feedback from outreach
Date: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:20:30 PM
We have it Ron. You want to get together tomorrow?

From: VITIELLO, RONALD D (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D (b) (6)
Sent: Mon May 14 21:14:47 2007
Subject: RE: Feedback from outreach
Jeff,
Do you have this data without contacting sectors?
________________________________
From: SELF, JEFFREY D(b) (6)

To: (b) (6) Giddens, Gregory; Aguilar, David V; Vitiello, Ronald D
Cc: Self, Jeffrey D; (b) (6) Adams, Rowdy D;(b) (6)
10-4 Chief, on it.

From: STEVENS, KEVIN L (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
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)
From: GIDDENS, GREGORY (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 5:49:12 PM
You'll end up being the boss there or somewhere.
From: BEESON, PAUL A
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 5:48 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: Re: Fence
Come be my boss down here and I'll let you drive it anytime you want!
pab

To: BEESON, PAUL A
Sent: Tue Apr 24 16:16:19 2007
Subject: RE: Fence
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) (7)(E)
The north canal fence, erected by USIBWC totals 12.5 miles and runs parallel to the south canal fence.
Where the south canal fence is primary, the north would be secondary. Where the south canal fence is
secondary I would classify the north fence as tertiary fencing.
Where the levee fence stops at it’s western edge there is another fence that runs along the Chihuahuita
neighborhood down to the Yandell overpass. That fence is 1.2 miles in length. Additional fencing exists
behind the Ft. Bliss apartments and business along Paisano Drive totaling .5 miles in length. (This fence
was not erected by USBP)
Primary fencing between the Rio Grande and Paisano up to near Monument One totals 1.6 miles.
By my math that give us 16 miles of “primary” fencing, although I do need to point out that some of
this was not erected by the USBP. It was instead erected either by the City of El Paso or USIBWC. I
estimate that approximately 2.1 miles fall within this category.
Secondary fencing in this area would be 12.5 miles (8.5 miles of north canal fence and 4.0 miles of
south canal fence where it overlaps with the levee fence.)
Tertiary fencing would be the USIBWC installed north canal fence for the section where it overlaps with
the levee fence and now secondary south canal fence for a total of 4.0 miles.
After reading all this you will want to know how sure I am about these numbers. I’m as positive about
them as I can be without hiring a surveyor; I measured them myself using my vehicle odometer.
Paul A. Beeson
El Paso Sector
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Fence Lab Vulnerability Anaysis Test
Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:59:20 PM
Yes sir. When we were down there last week the guys were able to dismantle a portion of fence in
minutes. So we thought we would ask that they (Boeing) incorporate the below testing within the
overall testing package.
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:35 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: Re: Fence Lab Vulnerability Anaysis Test
Jeff,
This is good stuff.

To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Apr 25 12:18:04 2007
Subject: FW: Fence Lab Vulnerability Anaysis Test
Chief,
Just keeping you updated on our involvement in the Fence Lab Testing.
Jeff
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:53 AM
To: (b) (6)
VITIELLO, RONALD D; (b) (6)
ELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Subject: Fence Lab Vulnerability Anaysis Test
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.
Please confirm attendance so I can make all necessary arrangements.
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 Solutions for TX Mobile (Site Visit to TX Mobile AOR)
Date: Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:44:17 PM
10-4 if you want ask them to send them to you then do so, your call.
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Thu Jun 14 12:26:31 2007
Subject: RE: Fence Lab Solutions for TX Mobile (Site Visit to TX Mobile AOR)
Jeff,
I know they (SBI)are complying with the directive to keep OBP informed but I am not sure why you are
getting these low level requests for site visits sent TO you. I will have the change made to cc: you at
most. My worry is that someone that doesn't know better will send it to you and expect that it the
regular chain for site visits. No biggie. At least you answer somebody's emails.
(b)
(6)
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:24 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Fence Lab Solutions for TX Mobile (Site Visit to TX Mobile AOR)
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)
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)

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

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(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)
To: Rowdy.Adams(b) (6)
Subject: Re: Fencing
Date: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 5:15:48 PM
I know but I just wanted on the record so I can throw you infront of the bus if it didn't happen. Of
course as heavy as you are the bus would be on the losing end.
Have a great 4th brother.
Jeff

From: ADAMS, ROWDY D (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jul 03 17:07:04 2007
Jeff
Goes without saying but yes.
Rowdy

To: Adams, Rowdy D (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jul 03 17:05:04 2007
Rowdy,
Can I get eyes on the paper before it goes forward.
Jeff

From: ADAMS, ROWDY D (b) (6)
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) s
concerning the 3 ft set back of fence construction. The telcon included
(b) (6) and (b) (6)
Adam was concerned about the 3 ft set back, where it had come from, was
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) (6) stated that he was happy with the
responses but wanted a white paper outlining our discussion and steps to
formalize the work being done with the IBWC (both Commissions), which
(b) has as an action item due by noon Friday, July 6.
(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: (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) 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
(b) that.
(6)
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)
To: Giddens, Gregory
Sent: Sun Jul 01 06:34:13 2007
Thanks Greg (b) (6) will appreciate this. It was part of a brief
discussion yesterday when S1 was advised the incursion fence removal had
begun.
(b) (6) 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)
To: Giddens, Gregory (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 30 22:27:14 2007
(b) . I agree completely. (b) would definitely like to have the

(6) (6) in, but am out this coming week.
discussion. I would like to sit
I recommend you offer to get together with (b) this coming week or the
following. If he choses the following, please (6)
count me in!
Best, (b)
(6)
From: GIDDENS, GREGORY (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,(b) (6) 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) and others here at
(6)
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)
RDML
Military Advisor to the Secretary
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: ADAMS, ROWDY ( ; SELF, JEFFREY (
Subject: RE: File
Date: Saturday, May 12, 2007 11:34:44 AM
Good morning (b) and (b)

(6) (6)
Does this chart include PF 70 mileage as well?
If not, we need to confirm that this is all the mileage (b) will be concerned about. I know that PF 70 is
all public land. (6)
(b) (6) ck
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6) G

To: (b) (6) H
Cc: ADAMS, ROWDY D; SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: RE: File
(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
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6.5E
Washington, D.C. 20229
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: File
Here it is.
To: GREGORY.Giddens(b) (6) ; Kevin.Stevens(b) (6) ; (b) (6) David.Aguila (b) (6)
jayson.ahern(b) (6) ; T(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) Jeffrey.Sel (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Subject: Re: House Border Caucus Member Meeting
Greg,
I'm out today but if we proceed in the fashion we did when we spoke with Sessions I'll simply speak to
operations. Possibly eliminating the need for me to take part in this pre meet.
Jeff

To: (b) (6) Aguilar, David V
(b) (6) AHERN, JAYSON P (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ; Self, Jeffrey D

(b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 09 14:36:10 2007
Subject: RE: House Border Caucus Member Meeting
All,
With all the recent focus on fence and TWP, I believe we need to have a pre-meeting to go over any
intel on what the members will be looking for. We should not go into this without gathering and
understanding what the expectations are from the Caucus.
All,
Please let us know who your rep will be. We can try to set up an mtg/conf call this pm to prep.
(b)
(6)
Thoughts?
Greg G
________________________________

To: (b) (6) Aguilar, David V; AHERN, JAYSON P
Cc: (b) (6) Self, Jeffrey D
Subject: RE: House Border Caucus Member Meeting
Is it envisioned we will give a similar pitch that was provided to Sen Nelson and Sessions?
That package, which included OFO connection, seemed to go over pretty well. I will likely support from
SBI. We probably need to coord with (b) (6) TWP trigger’s shop.
Greg G
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) Aguilar, David V; Giddens, Gregory; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) Self, Jeffrey D
Subject: Re: House Border Caucus Member Meeting
Jeff Self will be the OBP lead for this.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: Aguilar, David V (b) (6) Giddens, Gregory (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue May 08 14:05:16 2007

Subject: House Border Caucus Member Meeting
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: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: House BSFIT Approval letter
Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:17:05 AM
(b)(5), (b)(6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:16 AM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: Re: House BSFIT Approval letter
(b)(5), (b)(6)
YBiC!
(b)
(6)
To: AGUILAR, DAVID V;(b) (6)
Cc: 'Adams, Rowdy D' (b) (6) 'Colburn, Ronald S' (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Mar 23 07:46:23 2007
10-4 Chief.
________________________________

Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 7:37 AM
Cc: Adams, Rowdy D; Colburn, Ronald S
Subject: FW: House BSFIT Approval letter
Jeff/(b)
(6)
Need for both of you to get together and see where the optimal use of the (b) (4) would be on the
northern border. Need to have a two to three option (prioritized) list, with rationale and decision points
by COB Monday.
David
________________________________

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

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
Options:
1. We do the Detroit (first on OBP priority) design TO.
2. We augment Kirwins Northern Guard prototype.
3. We do a project 28 on Northern Border.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
SBInet PM
(b) (6)

To: Ahern, Jayson (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
What impact does the (b) for Northern border have on current planning?
(4)
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
Here is the House letter releasing $405 million of the fenced SBI funds. Note that there is also a
direction to spend $20 million on the Northern Border and a number of information requests that we
will need to fulfill before the remaining $525 million is released. (b) (5)
(b) (6)
Deputy Assistant Commissioner
Congressional Affairs
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Names for MATOC contracts
Get to work (b) (6)
From: (b) (6) ]

Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 11:09 AM
To: Self, Jeffrey D
Subject: Fw: Names for MATOC contracts
Jeff,
This request from SBInet is short turn around. They are looking for a PF225 "expert" to go to Tulsa to
aid in the "contractor selection". Nobody on either side knows who "that person" is. Any ideas? I know
you miss me already. I can feel your anger "a disturbance in the force".
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 10:49:40 2007

(b)
(6)
I just spoke with (b) on this and the expertise they are looking for has to do with knowledge of
PF225. What they (6)will be doing in Tulsa is reviewing the contractor’s proposals to be added as MATOCs
for the ACOE. That means the Corps will have a list of pre-approved contractors to choose from that
will bid on the PF225 projects. We don’t have anyone that is has in-depth knowledge of PF225 and
apparently this request has been sitting on someone’s desk, not(b) (6) and the Corp has asked him to
follow-up since no response has come from any other SBI folks.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
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
Office: (202) 344-3585
(b) (6)
Warning: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. It contains information that may be exempt from
public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5U.S.C. 552). This document is to be controlled,
handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to Sensitive
But Unclassified (SBU) information and is not to be released to the public or other personnel who do not
have a valid "need-to-know" without prior approval from the originator. If you are not the intended
recipient , please contact the originator for disposition instructions.
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sorry, BB battery down over the weekend.
Initial reveiw of proposals: 18 -22 June
First briefing, after determining competitive range - approximately 29 June
Final briefing prior to award of base contracts - week of 23 July.
All work will be in Tulsa OK.
This is for the first half of the proposals. (we are phasing 6 or 7 contracts in first phast and 8 or 9 in
second phase)
(b) (6)
Chief, Tactical Infrastructure Branch
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) (6) we REALLY needed to have the other 2 names for the source selection TODAY (we have the
CBP rep 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)
Chief, Tactical Infrastructure Branch
ECSO
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Messaging
Date: Sunday, May 13, 2007 3:01:17 PM
Guys,
Let's all get together tomorrow and go through the status of all task.
(b) ,
(6)
Can you set a time in the morning.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Sun May 13 14:41:16 2007
Subject: Re: Messaging
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 Ryan.
(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)
Subject: Re: New Week / Cuellar
Date: Friday, May 04, 2007 8:38:41 AM
Thanks, I'll be in the air most of the day but will check in when I get to Dallas.
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Fri May 04 07:44:16 2007
Subject: Re: New Week / Cuellar
Will do. Stay tuned.

To: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri May 04 07:35:55 2007
Subject: Fw: New Week / Cuellar
(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) for a look. Please take a look and give (b) your
input. (6) (6)
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)
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.

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?
To: GIDDENS, GREGOR(
Cc: (b) (6) ; ADAMS, ROWDY (b (b) (6)
Subject: RE: NM land situation
Date: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 6:42:38 AM
It's mostly public, very little private in New Mexico. I have a chart in my office.
To: (b) (6) Adams, Rowdy D; Self, Jeffrey D; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: NM land situation
Who has the chart from yesterday's ESC discussion?
I would like to stare at it. In particular, wondering if we have had contact with any landowners in NM.
As we saw yesterday, there are potential hard spots regarding land in AZ even with the easement.
Do we know if land in NM where we may build fence is privately or publicly held?
Thanks,
Greg G
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 3:53 PM
To: (b) (6) 'Rowdy.Adams(b) (6) ; 'JEFFREY.Self(b) (6) ; 'S(b) (6) ov'
Subject: Re: NM land situation
Agree, but access to the easement area could be hampered.
Greg G

From: (b) (6)
To: Giddens, Gregory (b) (6) ; (b) (6) (b) (6) ; Adams,
Rowdy D (b) (6) ; Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 09 11:40:00 2007
Subject: Re: NM land situation
It is in the Roosevelt Easement which makes it that much easier.
(b) (6)
SBInet PM
(b) (6) )
Sent by Blackberry

From: GIDDENS, GREGORY (b) (6) >
To: (b) (6) , 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
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: GSRC Pedestrain Fence on Organ Pipe
it was definitely the best of times.
From: (b) (6)

To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
All of the stories start of with “Jeff called to see if I needed a hand” and end with (b) (6) saving the
day”. It was “the best of times”.
(b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:44 AM
To: (b) (6)
I would but I can't stomach the thought that you might come in every morning and kiss my picture.
What stories?
From: (b) (6)

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

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

Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 11:48 AM
To: (b) (6) ; Adams, Rowdy D; (b) (6)
Cc:( SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
(b) , Thanks for the information. We appreciate it.

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

Cc: (b) (6) ; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
(b) et al,
(6)
We checked the P225 lay-down for Lukeville and determined that there was 2.1 mile east and 2.1 mile
west of the POE proposed.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
Acting Associate Chief
Office of Border Patrol / Headquarters
Facilities & Tactical Infrastructure Branch
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Good morning (b)

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

Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:25 PM
To: Adams, Rowdy D; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) Do you have any information on this stretch of fencing? (b)

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

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

To: (b) (6)
Cc:(
b
Subject: GSRC Pedestrain Fence on Organ Pipe
Gents,
I believe(b) called about the representative from GSRC who is onsite at the Ajo Station and is telling
(6) will probably be getting 29 miles of pedestrian fence along the OPCNM.
us that we
I don’t believe this would be the best use of resources or funding. In fact I have addressed that on
every Codel Visit and every other visit that has occurred within our AOR. Maintaining this would be a
nightmare and I don’t see the operational benefits of this type of fence in a remote area. In fact, I
believe that this would ultimately hurt operations because we would be attempting to maintain and
watch pedestrian fence with what we are shooting for in the ORB. We requested 2 miles on the east
side and 2 miles on the west side of Lukeville not 29 miles.
I will address in memorandum format and forward up as this doesn’t seem ethical to me. I don’t
believe that this is the right combination that we are looking for.
Thanks (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF 225
Date: Friday, March 16, 2007 6:51:03 PM
Chief,
I wish I could remember his name but he was introduced as attached to the ACE but assigned within
the PMO. You are correct, the ACE PDT folks attached to our Sectors get it, the SBInet ACE does
not. I will work on my messaging.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 6:11 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: RE: PF 225
Jeff,
Just so I’m clear. Who are the ACE reps (b) (6) is referencing?
In your message you indicate that the Army Corps rep you spoke with seemed
inclined to want to put fence wherever necessary to meet the deadline, but in (b) (6)
message he indicates that the ACE (I’m assuming ACE is Army Corps of Engineers)
reps are the ones who are raising the red flag about SBInet wanting to put fence
where it wont be operationally sound.
If I’m reading the message tails correctly and understanding the acronyms, the Army
Corps folks in the field get it, and the one up here doesn’t. Am I correct that ACE is
Army Corps, and if so are you sure the person you spoke with is ACE?
(b) (6)

Subject: FW: PF 225
Importance: High
Chief's,
I identified this as an issue the other day in a P225 PMT meeting. When I pushed back the Army
Corps rep. started talking compressed deadlines and stated, "we need to throw up fence in the areas
that are most advantageous to meeting the timeline". I asked to identify those areas to me. He said
Government lands. Long story short, I spoke to operationally efficient deployment to gain control of the
borders. It's interesting that our ACE reps are seeing the same thing.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: PF 225
Importance: High
Jeff,
FYI- The Tucson Sector ACE representative stated at the PDT meeting yesterday that you were
mentioned as the OBP representative for the Permanent Fencing 225 Mile Project at a recent meeting
in Ft. Worth, TX. He raised the concern that SBInet was attempting to direct the placement of fencing
without OBP direction. They were looking at placing fencing in areas that would not be our operational
priority such as on the Organ Pipe, and in Sonoita’s AOR. I understand the fact that they are looking in
all areas that may already have existing EAs or environmental information that would facilitate the
process.
I wanted to see if the Sectors would be able to have input on the fencing locations if we are allocated
more fencing than we initially requested.
Thanks
(b) (6)
Tucson Sector
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF 225 Communications IPT
Date: Thursday, June 21, 2007 6:37:17 AM
(b)
(6)
I think that’s the plan, to go beyond landowners when the time is right. I think we need to finalize the
fence outreach first. I know C-1 and C-2 felt at one time recently that we should just concentrate on
the landowners in that any other outreach other than that would just generate distractions from what we
need to accomplish with the landowners. But we definitely need to start the planning.
Chief,
Your thoughts?
Jeff
______ __________________________
From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Good morning Jeff.
Yes, the talking points are all approved and can be shared with the sectors. We provided the first set
at the previous outreach workshops, and(b) (6) and I discussed sending the second set out as well.
To clarify, the goal of the second set is to establish what kind of “consultation” we will actually do.
Since we have committed to work with the local communities, it is essential that we (1) define what we
will do and (2) carry that out. The second set of talking points identifies the steps we are taking so that
when we complete them, we can in good conscience say that we consulted with the community.
In addition, (b) and I have been discussing what outreach the sectors should be planning. The
Border Patrol(6)agents in the sectors know who will be expecting to be contacted. While we initially
encouraged the sectors to focus on the landowners, I think it is in our own best interest to reach out
beyond just landowners or – at the time we say our plans are final – anyone we didn’t talk to will be
making accusations in the paper again.
What are your thoughts?
(b) (6) ck
(b) (6)
_____________________________________________
To: (b) (6)
Are these good to send out to the Sectors ?
Jeff
______ __________________________
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Good afternoon.
Attached for your awareness are two sets of approved talking points on fence.
The first, larger set was reviewed and approved up through the DHS Deputy Secretary. I may have
provided these to everyone previously. These talking points represent our basic message for fence
outreach.
(b) (2)
The second set of talking points, which overlaps with the first, addresses the “consultation” process. A
degree of input from the community is a part of building tactical infrastructure. Since we have promised
to obtain input from the local community, it is important that we identify what that means.
(b) (2)
We can discuss any questions on these talking points at tomorrow afternoon’s meeting.
Thank you.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF 225 Phase I - Agency Coordination Letters
(b)
(6)
Didn't we tweak these letters already?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: PF 225 Phase I - Agency Coordination Letters
Here are the letters. Thanks.

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

Subject: PF 225 Phase I - Agency Coordination Letters
(b)
(6)
Attached are agency letters I have prepared for signature thus far based on the Organ Pipe letter you
provided comments to. I took a guess on the OBP POC at the Sector based on what is currently on
their web site. Please review and provide comments as necessary. Once I receive your comments, I
shall go final on these and prepare for signature and distribution. You have seen those for the Ajo
already.
Ajo:
(b) (2)
Calexico
(b) (2)
Deming
(b) (2)
El Paso
(b) (2)
Santa Teresa
(b) (2)
I still owe you letters for Nogales.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PLANNER
ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT OFFICE
819 TAYLOR STREET, ROOM 3A28
PO BOX 17300
FORT WORTH, TX 76102
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF 225 ROE for Survey and Exploration
No.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 12 15:33:53 2007
The PF225 land acquisition. Have we started any of it besides the initial contact?

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 12 15:31:41 2007
What acquisition?

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 12 15:29:59 2007
(b) (5) (b) wrote me a few minutes ago asking the

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

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 12 15:25:53 2007
Subject: Fw: PF 225 ROE for Survey and Exploration
(b)
(6)
Is this the enviro ROE?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 12 15:24:44 2007
Subject: PF 225 ROE for Survey and Exploration
(b)
(6)
Do you know the status of BP's ROE for Survey and Exploration effort ?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF 225 Roll Out
Date: Friday, April 20, 2007 11:58:05 AM
Just FYI,
The Texas Map without the SFA overlay, incorrectly states with SFA overlay in the header.
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 11:55 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF 225 Roll Out
Good afternoon.
Attached are the state maps of fencing for the PF 225 roll out.
For Congress and State we are using the maps that do not show the SFA.
For the Border Patrol, we are using the maps that show the SFA. The Border Patrol will include the
maps as part of their PowerPoint presentation, which will not be left with anyone, only showed at
individual or group meetings.
Please let me know if I am mistaken.
More to follow.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF-225
Date: Friday, June 08, 2007 7:29:34 AM
(b)
(6)
(b) (6) E-mailed back and said to 10-3.
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 7:29 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF-225
It probably was an add on but the sector should've seen it before. Do they want it?

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jun 08 07:23:59 2007
Subject: FW: PF-225
(b)
(6)
I checked the latest version of the lay down that (b) sent me and Yuma does have fence along the
Colorado River Corridor. Has there been any change(6) that you know of?
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 6:41 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF-225
Gents,
Chief Colburn asked that I reach out to you to ascertain whether the proposed 15 miles of primary
fence along the Colorado River, here in Yuma, is actually part of PF-225. That fence was not part of the
sector's original plan but it is suspected that it came in play earlier this year when OBP was required to
identify additional fence placement to meet the 370 mile requirement. This will be important to know in
that a large portion of the Colorado River in our AOR is tribal land.
Thanks
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF-225 AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH
(b)
(6)
Thanks for the quick response.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF-225 AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH
They should focus on the owners with land adjacent but identifying all is important.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 25 17:35:17 2007
Subject: PF-225 AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH
(b) (6)
I just received a call from (b) (6) in regards PF-225 Community Outreach. His question is do
they (Yuma Sector) need to reach out to all land owners in the area of the Colorado River or just the
ones that have land along the river. There are just a few private land owners that have land adjacent
to the river but several land owners within the River area IE, other side of the levee.
If you have any questions, please give me a call and I can explain.
Thanks, (b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Acting Assistant Chief
CBP-Office of Border Patrol
1300 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 6.5E
Washington, DC 20229
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Lay Down Justification
Date: Friday, May 11, 2007 5:20:36 PM
(b)
(6)
Thanks for be so patient with us, do appreciate it.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; VITIELLO, RONALD D; (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D
Cc:(b) (6)
Good afternoon Gentlemen,
I have completed a review of every mile of fencing proposed by the six line stations. We have "red-
lined" two miles of fence in the Weslaco Station AOR near the Pharr POE. It served no operational
purpose and would cause undue grief to landowners. However, we gained some mileage in the
Harlingen and Brownsville Station AOR that actually increases the total mileage to about 72 miles. Two
more than we were tasked with.
I understand that engineering and HQOBP reps will be here next week for an overview. This will be
helpful since there are locations where retaining walls will have to be constructed due to the levee's
proximity to the Military Hwy. We need the engineer's best take re: complexity and viability of our
recommendations.
Thanks for your consideration and assistance.
(b)
(6)
To: VITIELLO, RONALD D; (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Chief's
Allow me to clarify. Not only will this serve as a tracking mechanism but it is also to serve as a historical
record of operational needs being conveyed to SBI, SBInet and ACE that can't be met for one reason or
another. We're trying to track what were getting vs. what we need and why we need it. Sorry for the
confusion.
Jeff
From: VITIELLO, RONALD D
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; ADAMS, ROWDY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Sirs,
We expect to clarify these issues today (0900). RGV has indicated that as per their more detailed
evaluation, by PAICs with planners, (WED) along with some elaboration on additional capacity increases,
they will be returning to plans inclusive of construction on the levy. Let's meet and unify our
consultation to RGV and offer our assistance in developing their requirements. What is the planning
deadline? To whom?
Ronald D. Vitiello
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; VITIELLO, RONALD D
Subject: Re: PF225 Lay Down Justification
Guys,
We do need to build the proper justifications, but we also need to clear up some serious
misunderstandings between us and SBI on how this all came about. The message below indicates that
RGV moved their requirements from the levee to the riverbank, making the project untenable for Army
Corps. As I understand it, RGV planners had always wanted the fence on the riverbank and built their
oplans around that, and the change to the levee came after the engineers advised RGV that the
riverbank wasn't doable.
Also, SBI needs to understand that some of the changes from the TI bible came about after we asked
the sectors to identify more miles of fencing tha could be built to help with the project.
If my understanding is inaccurate I'll accept the hit, but we cant allow people to misrepresent how this
unfolded and lay the issues at the feet of our field planners.

To: VITIELLO, RONALD D
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu May 10 06:36:41 2007
Subject: FW: PF225 Lay Down Justification
Ron,
Can you get this out.
Jeff
________________________________
From:(b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 5:03 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: PF225 Lay Down Justification
Sir,
Per Chief Aguilar’s direction, HQ is requesting justification from the Laredo and Rio Grande Valley
Sectors regarding their changes to the PF225 lay down. These changes are substantially different from
the Tactical Infrastructure Requirements Document (also known as the TI Bible). These sectors need to
provide further clarification on changes to their operational requirements which will in turn, assist HQ in
supporting their positions.
Laredo Sector requested that no fencing be placed in their AOR due to their ongoing EIS for the Carrizo
Cane Eradication Project. Further clarification is needed on other potential issues that could possibly
impact operations, access and relations with the City of Laredo and other agencies.
Rio Grande Valley completely changed their fencing alignment by moving fence from the levee to the
riverbank. Army Corps of Engineers has raised numerous issues to include: building on the flood plain,
possible treaty violations, lack of access roads to support construction and the presence of endangered
species. From discussions with the RGV TI folks, they are aware of all of these issues but are more
concerned about the concession of land to Mexico. It is possible that the obstacles involved with the
realignment will be “show stoppers” based on the parameters of the project. If it gets to that point, will
the sector support building the fence back north onto the levee? Either way, a detailed explanation will
be necessary to support the sector requirement.
(b) (6)
SBInet Liaison
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Q&A
Date: Saturday, April 21, 2007 1:15:15 PM
Thanks (b)
(6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 9:24 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF225 Q&A
(b)
(6)
I think that you are correct. Your addition and the fact that the BP is the path for any concerns or
problems should they arise. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Apr 21 08:54:55 2007
Subject: PF225 Q&A
Good morning gents.
There is a question on the PF 225 Q&A I want to run by you.
Q: Will there be a designated official from the government (Border Patrol, DHS, etc.) accompanying the
contractors?
A: Not at all times.
While we will not always be there, I’d like to tell them that they are not going to be left out in the cold.
In our answer, could we add something along the lines of:
However, you can always contact the Border Patrol if you have questions or concerns.
Please let me know what you think/suggest alternate language.
Thanks.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 spreadsheet
Date: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 11:19:30 AM
10-4
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF225 spreadsheet
He is the 2nd in charge of SBInet. The agents that drink the koolaid work for him. Yeah, (b) (6) needs
to get that fixed and ASAP. Let me know if you haven't heard anything by noon.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 10:57:41 2007
Subject: PF225 spreadsheet
(b)
(6)
Just so you know, I have not heard back from (b) (6) yet regarding my request for the spreadsheet
update. I suspect that the battle over the spreadsheet is not over, and will reengage at the meeting
this afternoon. I plan to go in and tell whoever it is with a problem that OBP must have the product as
it was prior to the recent changes. I have been told by Chief Self in no uncertain terms that is exactly
how he wants it, and I personally need it yesterday. A little insight into who (b) (6) is might be
useful, though I can not allow it to change my message.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: 1st set of site visits for Phase II of PF 225
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:56:55 PM
How many are unidentified landowners?

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jul 19 12:51:22 2007
Subject: RE: 1st set of site visits for Phase II of PF 225
No, I missed .91 for TCA
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:50 PM
To: (b) (6)
Entire SWB?

From: (b) (6) G
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jul 19 12:49:34 2007
Subject: RE: 1st set of site visits for Phase II of PF 225
7.14
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
How many miles are RED across SWB? Please respond ASAP!

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

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

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

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

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

(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Engineering and Construction Support Office
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: AGUILAR, DAVID ( COLBURN, RONALD(
Subject: RE: Project 225
Date: Friday, March 23, 2007 9:47:38 AM
Chief,
Understood, I was told that if they do large sections of one type and then convert to a large section of
another type then the cost would not be a factor. In knowing this and hearing that they wanted to do
all primary fence which cost more due to the VB solution I simply suggested that we do pedestrian
where vehicles can't drive to save money. Just my thinking but I agree with your assessment and will
go forth in that fashion.
Chief the question on the training came from LER.
Thanks,
Jeff
From:(b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 4:59 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: AGUILAR, DAVID V; COLBURN, RONALD S
Subject: Re: Project 225
Jeff,
Regarding the pedestrian fence vs what they are building. I was told that they feel that keeping a
standard fence style will cost less in the long run than changing to pedestrian-only fence in urban
areas. As I understand it, their design is a pedestrian fence with a support structure that will stop
vehicles. As far as I'm concerned, as long as what they build will work for pedestrians, if the
superstructure also stops vehicles it would just be a bit of overkill in areas where vehicles can't travel.
As long as the fence style meets our operational needs, we shouldn't press too hard to have them try to
put up two different types.
On the ESC and the strategy, they did approve the laydown that the team had recommended for the
southern border followed by the northern border, maintaining the option to do the South/North mix if
politics change. .
Don't think we've talked about the union/training issue. We should discuss that with LER.
I'm concerned about them skipping sections for speed and deciding not to go for the ROEs, but I'm in
agreement with Chief Aguilar that there may be some things they will need to learn for themselves. I
think we need to sit and talk about the 1 mile offset because of the political issues we've been
discussing lately.
Thanks for the update,
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: AGUILAR, DAVID V; COLBURN, RONALD S
Sent: Thu Mar 22 16:07:44 2007
Subject: Project 225
Chief,
Situational Awareness Report:
Engineers have visited the Sectors (unknown to any BP elements as we discussed) and identified fence
locations. These will be briefed at the March 27th SRR. Won't be there have to go to the Hill.
No secondary fence will built under P225.
The decision was made to build only primary fence earlier this week. ORBBPs call for pedestrian. After
discussion they relented to looking at building pedestrian fence in the urban areas. I'm trying to save
them money but I don't think they get it. The PMT will look at ornamental fence for those urban areas
that insist on something pleasing to the eye. I was told not count on it though.
OBP needs to identify where the Sectors want pedestrian fence. (working it)
OBP needs to verify with the Sectors where ornamental fencing will be requested. (working it)
Funding concerning Real Estate issues will drive the priority of building any fence in urban areas. They
will not build any fence in any area (urban) where real estate cost are to high. I advised that this
would be operationally impacting. I was advised that funding and timelines are driving this deployment
not operational need but they would do what they can to facilitate our needs.
P225 must be completed by Dec. 08 and 200 miles of vehicle barrier also by Dec. 08. (b) (6) VB
and TO VB count towards the 200 miles of VB.
WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW: IBWC controls the property between the river and the levy. IBWC (Treaty
with Mexico) says we can't obstruct water flow. IBWC says we also can't build in flood plain. If we
build in a flood plain and then it floods we will be altering water flow. There is also an Executive Order
that stipulates that no Government Construction will take place in flood plain. IMPACTS AND WHAT WE
DIDN'T"T KNOW: The engineers have identified 100 miles in Texas and 20 miles in Yuma where they
are going to build fence but as a result of above (flood plain), the fence will be built a half mile to a
mile north of the International Boundary. I told them this was unacceptable. They pushed back with
timeline issues.
They will not be doing any ROEs to access the land. They said they don't have the time. OJS said that
they didn't identify all the land owners when we ran that drill so we can't provide it to them. The
problem being if they don't have ROEs to enter the property how do they get on the property to do the
environmental investigations prior to purchase. They need to do the environmental to make sure they
are not purchasing a toxic waste dump. If they purchase a toxic waste dump then the Government has
the responsibility of cleaning it up. ACE Legal thinks if they ride with BP it will be illegal for the
purposes of doing environmental/real estate work which gets them to the purchase. If the purchase of
a property goes to court they are worried that our (BP) statutory authority to enter private lands could
be called into question along with their actions which got them to where they could purchase the
property. CBP Legal is working with ACE to explore the possibility to slide ACE onto our statutory
authority to enter private lands for the purpose of doing these studies.
Question:
Did the Executive Steering Committee make a decision on the lay down of SBInet?
Has there been any discussion within OBP as to what actions will be taken if an Agent can't
demonstrate the ability to use or be trained to use the SBInet technology?
If we build a mile north of the border we have land right issues for the property south of the fence.
SBInet may not buy the property south to the river and might just buy a swath of land to build the
fence only. Question presented to OBP was what rights will we be willing to give to the public for
things like water and grazing? I told them if we don't buy all the land then we have no say in what
rights they have to access the land. I also reminded them that we would have to build gates not only
for the land owners and anyone who has access rights but also for patrol access. So if we do
buy...what rights are we willing to give the public?
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: RGV Op Plan
10-04.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: RGV Op Plan
(b)
(6)
I am trying to read this on bb. Is this the document that shows where you will need gates and how you
operate "south" of the fenced areas in those places where the fence will be built off of the line? What I
could read seems on track.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) M
Sent: Tue Jun 05 14:18:02 2007
Subject: RGV Op Plan
(b)
(6)
Attached you will find RGV’s plan to address operational requirements when the proposed fence projects
are completed. Please call should you have any questions.
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: SBI Meeting in EPT
Thanks, I'll relay to MAR.
From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ; SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: Re: SBI Meeting in EPT
(b) (5)
This secondary meeting is to help set-up future interactions for PF225
projects. (b) (6) was setting up this secondary meeting.

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

(6)
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Wed May 16 20:51:44 2007
Subject: Fw: SBInet Fence/Communication Messaging - Giddens, (b) (6)
Fyi

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Wed May 16 19:40:26 2007
Subject: RE: SBInet Fence/Communication Messaging - Giddens, (b) (6)
PLEASE BE SURE TO BRING YOUR UPDATES TO THE OUTREACH PLAN AS WELL AS THE TALKING
POINTS.
Thank You
(b) (6)
Office of the Deputy Commissioner
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: SBInet Fence/Communication Messaging - Giddens, (b) (6)
Importance: High
THE ABOVE SUBJECT MEETING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW (5/17) @ 9AM, PLEASE
ADJUST YOUR CALENDARS ACCORDINGLY.
Thank You
(b) (6)
Office of the Deputy Commissioner
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: NAC S1 Meeting Tomorrow, RE:SBInet/Border Fence
10-4

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6) <Rowdy.Adams(b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 09 17:38:46 2007
Subject: RE: NAC S1 Meeting Tomorrow, RE:SBInet/Border Fence
Okay sir, then maybe the Deputy only needs the latest figures. Mr. Self are you available for a call if
needed?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6) 'Rowdy.Adams(b) (6)
Subject: RE: NAC S1 Meeting Tomorrow, RE:SBInet/Border Fence
(b) (6)
I don't have anything, either. I did check the Chief's calendar and I understand this is scheduled as a
weekly review with S1--so I would assume it's a status update. Greg Giddens is supposed to attend.
SBInet will probably know more...
(b) (6)
Executive Director, Mission Support
U.S. Border Patrol
Customs and Border Protection
Contact: Executive Assistant (b) (6)

(b) (6)
To: (b) (6) 'Rowdy.Adams(b) (6)
Subject: Re: NAC S1 Meeting Tomorrow, RE:SBInet/Border Fence
(b) ,
(6)
I'm not in today and not sure what the nuts and bolts of this is. Can you give me a little more and I
might be able to direct you.
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6) 'Adams, Rowdy D' (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 09 17:25:40 2007
Subject: NAC S1 Meeting Tomorrow, RE:SBInet/Border Fence
Gents,
It appears that (b) (6) will now be attending the S1 meeting at the NAC at 1000 hrs,
tomorrow. He is asking for a pre-brief (tonight) for this meeting (tomorrow). I am assuming he means
an internal pre-brief for him from OBP. He is meeting with (b) (6) on an unrelated topic at this
moment and I sent an e-mail for clarification, unless one of you can clarify. What information do I need
to capsulate for him in preparation for tomorrow's meeting? I will obviously do all of the leg-work if
pointed in the right direction.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Adjutant to the Deputy Chief
HQ, Office of Border Patrol
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: C2 TASKER - SBINet/Border Patrol
Date: Thursday, May 03, 2007 9:27:07 AM
I feel different take (b) (6) also.

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Thu May 03 09:25:44 2007
Subject: RE: C2 TASKER - SBINet/Border Patrol
Already talked with Rowdy and the others. (b) and company are putting together an outline for a
course of action. (6)
Rowdy stated not to bring anyone else along although I was only going to bring (b) unless you feel
different. (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: C2 TASKER - SBINet/Border Patrol
Wait for guidance and take (b) (6) and (b) (6) with you. Good luck. So you know this a big
one has the attention of the S1.
Jeff

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

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

Sent: Wed May 02 14:22:44 2007
Subject: C2 TASKER - SBINet/Border Patrol
OBP,
Two taskers resulted from this morning's SBINet/Border Patrol meeting with the Deputy Commissioner
and both were assigned to OBP with Jeff Self as the lead. I am sending these out formally for tracking
purposes.
1. The Deputy Commissioner requested that BP develop an 8-week calendar focused on outreach
priorities to get the correct mission out to the interested parties (state/local, congress, etc.) regarding
this initiative. She suggested staging townhalls, meetings, etc. She has requested that this calendar be
completed Friday, May 11, 2007.
2. The Deputy Commissioner also requested an analysis summarizing difficulties and/or resistance with
regards to laying fence on the Texas border. Border Patrol has the lead on this and will work closely
with SBINet to complete this tasking. She has requested this analysis be complete by Friday, June 1,
2007.
Please copy (b) (2) on your response to these taskers, or just send me a note to let
me know when they have been submitted to C2's office.
Thank you!
(b)
(6)
------------------------------------------------
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ; SELF, JEFFREY ( ; (b) (6) Giddens, Grego (
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Seeking some time on the Commissioner"s schedule on Monday
(b) (6)
I'm open on Friday so whatever you have I'll take. In addition to this subject the Deputy Commissioner
wanted me and Greg to brief the Commissioner on the Traffic Light on Friday.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

To: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6) Giddens, Gregory
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Seeking some time on the Commissioner's schedule on Monday
Friday is tight, but let’s see what we can do…the easiest way might be for you to give me some times
that would work for all of you and I’ll see what works here…please advise..thanks..mcd
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

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

To: Self, Jeffrey D; (b) (6) Giddens, Gregory; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Seeking some time on the Commissioner's schedule on Monday
Is Friday an option (b) (6) Greg, Jeff?
(b)
(6)
HQ Office of Border Patrol
(b) (6)

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

All,
I will be with Mr. Giddens and Chief Aguilar on the Hill at this time.
Jeff

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

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

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

From: (b) (6)
To: AMIDON, DOYLE E
Cc: (b) (6)
'Jeffrey.Self(b) (6) <Jeffrey.Self(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 15:12:13 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From: AGUILAR, DAVID V (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 11:31:58 2007
Subject: Re: News Articles
(b) (6)
I absolutely like the idea of an "open house"! This would insure

balanced audiences and interested parties represented.
Let's gin this up for proposal to the Commissioner for early this week.
We do not need too much detail for the Commissioner. We should keep it
at the conceptual level. Next step would be for us (CBP) to market this
to DHS.
Let's try to get on the Commissioner's Schedule Monday.
(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)
To: Aguilar, David V (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 11:03:43 2007
Subject: Re: News Articles
Chief,
I see a couple of balanced messages in these articles, but also some

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

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

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

putting maps and a lot of info into the public realm, but I've come to
believe this may be the only way to put this fire out.
The keys to success of this concept would be in creating an environment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

should try to reduce the 135 miles of fence designated for Texas, as
detailed in a map drawn up by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
DHS officials have called the map, which was part of a confidential memo
leaked to the media last month, "preliminary."
While some landowners argued for taking their concerns to Border Patrol
individually, the consensus among elected officials was for a unified
opposition.
"The bigger we are, the more input we will have," McAllen Mayor Richard
Cortez said.
"If you know somebody at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or the farmers
associations ... call them."
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief / HQOBP
1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Room 6.5E
Washington, DC 20229
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Texas Mobile trip plan
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:11:34 AM
(b)
(6)
I see that you anticipated my next question. I received the sample ROE from (b) (6) a few
minutes ago. This is what we needed to move forward, thanks tremendously.
Take Care- (b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

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

Take Care,
(b) (6)
Special Operations Supervisor
El Paso Sector
8901 Montana Avenue
El Paso, Texas 79925
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: Texas Mobile trip plan
Importance: High
(b)
(6)
Good morning. Received this message last night from El Paso Sector. Please inform on how you would
like to procede and guidance for them. At the time of this message, (4:22 AM), I have not received the
message from (b) (6) with the example(s) of the ROEs which may or may not influence your resonse.
Your response is awaited. I have included (b) (6) and (b) (6) in this message.
Thanks
(b)
(6)

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

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

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

Mobile sector to assess the tower sites (8 sensor and 2 relay), identify
alternates and determine if existing towers at stations and headquarters
can hold additional comm equipment. We want to travel on Sunday June
10th in order to start working on Monday morning.
Please let me know if we need other attendees. This will be a hard and
fast several days so come ready to work.
<<Texas Mobile Tower assessment visit.doc>>
Thank you,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Unisys folks who need to visit theTucson CBP Stations with us
Date: Saturday, July 07, 2007 5:05:48 PM
I think you and(b) are scared to leave each other. Is there gonna be a big phone bill of you two
(6) everyday? I understand the time issues just want to have an answer when asked.
calling each other
Power to the people.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jul 07 17:00:21 2007
Wejre not trying to limit them but in light of other snafus the chief wants us hand in han with them.
Itns looking like mid august. I need surgery and a follow up visit and (b) wants me to spend at least
two to three weeks with my replacement who won't be availableuntil (6) the 16th. Don't give up on me I
got a lot to give

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jul 07 16:49:35 2007
That is exactly what they have been told. If any sector has problems with the SBInet and it's minions
please make sure to bring it up. Jeff has been very clear to them on that point. I know (b) and
Rowdy put out a specific message to them about it also. (6)
So is the early August date the most probable?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jul 07 16:46:19 2007
I imagine that they are going to want to go out to the nation. Sector does'nt want any contrator on the
nation without someone very familiar with ti along. +t saves on miscommunication with th TON if we do
the talking.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jul 07 16:15:11 2007
(b) (6)
Was there another issue with this?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jul 07 16:13:06 2007
(b)
(6)
Plwase forward this to all boeing personel
No boeing or their subcontractors will visit any current infrastructure or future infrastructure projects
without a BP escort. We will facilitate the visits with boeing on monday.
(b) (6)

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

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jul 06 20:02:51 2007
Subject: Unisys folks who need to visit theTucson CBP Stations with us
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 3:35 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Standard COP
(b) (6) and I will be there Wednesday morning. We both have conflicts
on Friday, I will determine if someone else can join on Friday.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6) | Chief Architect | Federal Systems Unisys | 3199
Pilot Knob Road | Eagan, Mn 55121 | (b) (6)
Mobile
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY

MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail
and its attachments from all computers.
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 10:37 AM
To: (b) (6)
I totally agree that you should be with us.

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

understand the network to be able to configure the routers in the C3 and
on each tower. It was very disappointing to see the Microwave network
at the Fort Hancock station hanging on a wall when I was told it was not
yet available from Boeing.
(b)
(6)

Mobile

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Our trip next week does not involve meetings to discuss which type of
COP the Border Patrol Stations will be getting. Per the Boeing Tucson
Sector Specification S333-104001-1 dated May 31, 2007, the Border Patrol
Stations are listed as getting Standard COPs. The purpose of our trip to
Tucson next week is two fold, one set of folks, Road Civil Engineers,
will be traveling through the desert looking at road infrastructure. The
remaining four of us will be going to all the Tucson Sector Border
Patrol Stations to see what their Station's infrastructure currently is.
I will be looking at the following:
Questions about stations:
Is there space on the station tower for one or more solid microwave
antennas? Number? Is there space at a appropriate height?
Is there space and power(including backup) in the equipment room/shelter
for several microwave radios and network equipment? Estimated number?
Is the tower structurally sound for adding additional antennas?
Antenna height? Tower Lat/long?
Is there communications fiber to the station? Is there available
communications fiber near the station? Distance? Owner? Is OIT
already working with owner?
Contact info for station OIT responsible person.
Is there space for a new tower and shelter if required? Power
available?
Is there a visible obstruction that would limit microwave
communications? Approx height? Direction?
Is there a nearby restriction for building a tower? Airport, etc...
Is their space in the station to physically locate a Standard Cop
Workstation and any associated racks.
Here is our aggressive agenda for the trip
Wednesday 11th
7 AM - 8:30 AM, Tucson Border Patrol HQ
9 AM - 10:30 AM Tucson Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
Lunch
1 PM - 2:30 PM Casa Grande Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
471-6489
4:30 PM - 6 PM Ajo Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
Thursday 12th
9 AM - 11 AM Nogales Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
Lunch
1:30 PM - 3 PM Sonoita Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
Friday 13th
8:30 AM - 10 AM Wilcox Border Patrol Station
Lunch
1 PM - 2:30 PM Douglas Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
4 PM - 5:30 PM Naco Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Design & Integration
Electrical Systems Engineer
Boeing, SBInet Program
(b) (6)
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
It is important to work together as a team to provide CBP the best
solution. The COP is very complex yet flexible in its design. We need
to understand the requirements before we decide if they get a full COP,
MDT Workstation or WebCop. Each of these will require different
resources. A rule of thumb is 1M for a video stream. The more images
you display on a single screen, the higher the bandwidth.
It is important that Unisys attend the communications meetings with the

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

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

Mobile

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6) , please coordinate with (b) (6) who has the best handle on
getting your question answered.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 9:14 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Standard COP
(b) (6)
Good Morning Hope you had a nice 4th.
Quick question,
Pertaining to the Standard COP, whenever a Standard COP is utilized, are
the two 19" racks, like those in the P28 FOB required also or were those
racks necessary to support the system out in the Remote area?
The reason for the question is I will be going to the CBP stations out
in the Tucson Sector next week and I will look at their current space
availabilities to see if we will have to provide a Command & Control
trailer or if we can use existing facility space. For the Standard COPs,
do you know or could you estimate the required operational bandwidth
needed? I'll find out what their current backbone is and I'll be looking
to see if a Comm tower is located their also.
Also, when I was at the Port of Entrees, I was asked what the Web COPs
bandwidth requirements were. Some of the Ports were worried that with
their current bandwidth usage, their current internet system may not be
adequate to support both the Web COP and their current hardware usage.
The AZ Port of Entrees currently feed all their Video feeds up to the
Tucson OFO's Video Command Center.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you
(b) (6)
Design & Integration
Electrical Systems Engineer
Boeing, SBInet Program
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Updated PF225 Spreadsheet
Date: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 12:07:43 PM
No problem
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Updated PF225 Spreadsheet
Jeff just said to make sure we did what could to make it work. Lots of help. Please just work close
with (b) (6) to get those out to the right people. Thanks again.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 11:49:19 2007
Subject: Updated PF225 Spreadsheet
(b)
(6)
Got it. It looks alright, though I will give it a good going over. I am shooting off the email to the
Sectors as soon as I get back from a quick lunch. I know you were going to call Jeff, so I’ll hold off
until then in case you have instructions. Please give the following email a quick look. Also, I left you a
voice mail, which you can ignore.
(b)
(6)
All,
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will be mailing out Environmental Assessment notification
letters to the appropriate Native American tribes in your respective areas of operations, as well as to the
appropriate State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO.) The letters will explain site location of possible
infrastructure insertion. These assessments do not imply that work will definitely be done.
It is recommended that you conduct a Risk Assessment based on your relationship with recipients to
identify the appropriate method of notification. Your analysis should determine the mode of
communication e.g. face-to-face meeting, telephonic notification, etc. Our objective is to reach out to
the recipients in advance of the letters, to explain the purpose. This will require immediate response, as
the letters are mailed via Federal Express, and will arrive the day after they are sent. USACE mailed the
Santa Teresa project letters yesterday, June 5, 2007. The Nogales project letters will go Friday.
Attached is a copy of the letter sent to the tribes for each project, as well as the letter to the
appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer. Accompanying these letters is the list of the tribes to
receive the letters. I have sent this correspondence to all of the SBI Points of Contact (If I missed
anyone, please let me know.) If there is any question as to which Sector bears responsibility for any
contact(s) please ask. The letters to the SHPO should be reviewed for specific contact information.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Updates
They are supposed to address those issues in their messaging and outreach from here on out.
What needs to be done to layout an enviro-solution (in laymens terms)?

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 14:43:45 2007
Subject: RE: Updates
(b)
(6)
I think things are pretty bad. In my opinion, some high level discussion needs to take place so that a
good game plan can be engaged re RGV. The discussion with(b) (6) was interesting on Fri. He
(remember, he told us it made sense to go to CEQ) now thinks that alternative arrangements won’t
happen. He spoke with CEQ, and their take was “what emergency.” Really, since they could not affect
cultural or endangered species by giving us alternative arrangements, that is not a big loss. At least
that is the case in most places. It does leave a problem in Brown Field’s area. (b) (6) did mention
some very short time frames for EIS (5 mo) which I think we’ll have to run by the CORPS and GSRC.
We need to know whether or not they can do it. A report from a general officer stating that it is
possible (or not) would be very helpful, as we’d have an idea as to what is a reasonable course of
action going forward. With a knowledge deficit in this area, it is very difficult to come up with
reasonable expectations for folks.
Another item that is bothering me is the details of our fence plan in RGV. If we are going to build on
the levy, how many folks do we really affect? Could we not develop a good message showing that we
are concerned with the T&E species? I believe I could make a strong argument for that position. Could
we not develop a message to let folks know our plan to keep from taking away their ability to make a
living (I’ve heard we plan to keep the cattle from getting to the river)? Could we not reassure the
NGOs that we plan to work with the birders, etc. so that their ability to study the critters will be
enhanced, not stolen? Couldn’t the combination of these messages, with a good BMP (for the species in
question) with USFWS, possibly remove us from the EIS threshold we are looking at with all of these
things up in the air?
I am afraid that fear is carrying the day in the RGV. How’s that for a statement?
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Exactly. They might try to change it to reflect progress or that things aren't "that" bad.

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

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

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

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

To: (b) (6) Jeffrey.Sel (b) (6) ; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ; Ronald.Colburn(b) (6)
Subject: Re: YUM hosting SBInet mtg
(b) ,
(6)
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I will have (b) (6) contact you on
Monday. He is currently serving as the Co Chair Communications Lead for SBInet.
Jeff
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) COLBURN, RONALD S
(b) (6)
Sent: Sat May 19 18:24:20 2007
Chief Self,
I have already spoken to my department heads here in Yuma Sector and we will be ready.
I will be the primary POC for you in Yuma and (b) (6) will be the secondary POC.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at any time.
(b) (6)
Acting Assistant Chief Patrol Agent
U.S. Border Patrol - Yuma Sector
(b) (6)

From: SELF, JEFFREY D (b) (6) >
To: (b) (6) Colburn, Ronald S (b) (6)
Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6) Vitiello, Ronald D (b) (6) >

Cc: Aguilar, David V (b) (6)
Sent: Sat May 19 17:43:01 2007

Will do Chief.
Jeff

From:(b) (6)
To: COLBURN, RONALD S (b) (6)
Self, Jeffrey D
(b) (6) Ronald D (b) (6)
Cc: AGUILAR, DAVID V (b) (6)
Sent: Sat May 19 17:16:37 2007
Thanks Chief Colburn.
Chief Self, please have someone on the team begin working with Yuma to iron out logistics for a
workshop in their AOR. Also, we'll want to finalize the agenda for the Yuma session shortly after El
Paso, so we can incorporate any "lessons learned" from El Paso.
Chief Vitiello, please have your Division reach out to the Arizona and California Sectors, have them
identify their core teams the way Texas did, and let them know of the intent to conduct a workshop in
Yuma on the 30th and 31st of May.

From: COLBURN, RONALD S
To: (b) (6) v>
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D; VITIELLO, RONALD D; AGUILAR, DAVID V; (b) (6)
Sent: Sat May 19 16:51:17 2007

(b) (6) ,
Yes, YUM can commit to this.
-Ron Colburn

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

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: Q

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

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: Q

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

From: (b) (6)

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

This does not include buffer mileage.

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

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

Just got off the phone with (b) ..

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

Just trying to buy some time...

See you in the am.

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

----- 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.

Office of the Commissioner

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

From: (b) (6)

SECRETARY BRIEFING BOOK TASKING

Friday, 09.21.07 (1430-1530)

Briefing Memo and Background

Location: NAC, Secretary’s Conference Room 5110 D

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

Secretary's Briefing Book

Office of the Executive Secretariat

Office of the Secretary

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 -----

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

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

Subject: FW: Article in National Geographic May 2007 Magazine

Article Title: Our Walls, Ourselves

Pages in Magazine: 116-139

Featured Article Link (Website):

Link to the map itself below:

What happened with this?

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

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

Subject: RE: border fence

From: (b) (6)

Subject: FW: border fence

(b) (6) and HQ:

Let me know on approval.

(b) (6) is KENS TV out of San Antonio, Texas.

From: (b) (6)

I slept just about the entire way.

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

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

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

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