From: (b) (6)

To: ADAMS, ROWDY (

Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: PF70 Question
Date: Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:04:25 AM
Importance: High

Mr. Adams,

I know you are planning on calling (b) (6) later regarding our PF70 question, but we
thought that maybe we should just email you.
Issue (1): The normal Unit Citation has a position title under the recipients name.
(b) (6) would rather not have their PF70 titles listed and would like your thoughts on
the subject before we submit
Issue (2): In the process of getting proper PF70 titles, it was brought to our
attention that (b) (6) and (b) (6) had very little
involvement with PF70. (b) (6) has relayed to us that these individuals
only attended a few meetings at the very end, and that maybe these guys were
inadvertently added because of their immense involvement with PF225. Additionally,
(b) (6) only contribution was one report (reportedly). It is our suggestion
that these individuals be moved to Tier 2 or removed completely.

I apologize for bothering you during your seminar, but we are being told that the
engravers are on stand-by waiting for our list of honorees, in order to facilitate a
timely return of the plaques.

Please advise.

Thank you,
(b) (6)

(b) (6)
Special Assistant to
Director of Mission Support
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Dept of Homeland Security
(b) (6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY (
To: David.Aguila (b) (6)
Subject: PF 225
Date: Saturday, May 05, 2007 12:55:56 PM

Chief,

You may already know this but I wanted to make sure. SBI has commented several times that OBP has
changed the laydown of the fence three times which is threatning the timeline. This not the entire
truth.

There is a lot of historical information concerning actions taken by SBI and ACE without coordinating
with OBP and the Sectors that has resulted in the situation we're in today. OBP has been trying to go
back and address the critical steps missed over the last month to ensure that the Sectors operational
needs are met.

If you would like I can call you today and give you thid info if you don't already have it or just brief you
Monday morning.

Jeff
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Accepted: PF 225 Communications IPT
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Accepted: PF 225 Communications IPT
From: SELF, JEFFREY (
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: PF 225 direction feedback from S2
Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 8:58:40 AM

I will be out of the office from 4/17 through 4/20, I will be back in 4/23.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF 225 Laydown
Date: Monday, May 07, 2007 8:37:18 AM

(b)
(6)
Here is the Final laydown. The RGV stuff is basically final just being moved to the river’s edge from
the levy.
(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: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: PF 225 message
Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 4:55:11 PM

Following up on our meeting. For today, I'm prepared to say the below until we get
closer to formal discussions when we can be more specific...

Landowners on the border in many cases are the first to feel the effects of illegal
cross border activity as border crossers, smugglers and criminals leave behind trash,
vandalize and commit crimes on their property. CBP is committed to working with
affected landowners to ensure they are fully aware of our efforts to gain and
maintain effective control of the border.

CBP Border Patrol continues to reach out to landowners with property on the border
as part of an ongoing effort to maintain awareness of CBP's efforts to gain effective
control of the border through the Secure Border Initiative. SBI calls for the right mix
of personnel, technology and infrastructure and in some cases, the deployment of
these components may affect some landowners along the international
boundary. We see landowners as partners in our strategy to gain effective control of
the border and we are making every effort to keep them informed as we move
forward on implementing SBI.

Any concerns?
(b) (6)
Director
Border Security Media Division
Office of Public Affairs
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF 225 Roll Out
Date: Friday, April 20, 2007 11:54:54 AM

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)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF225
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:20:23 PM
Importance: High

(b) just told me he needs the stop light ready to go with the books Fri. AM. I asked him for the books,
(6)
and he doesn’t have them. No big deal for me, but I am sort of concerned that they are floating
around. I told him I’d check your desk, and I don’t see them. Any ideas ? (I am planning to head out
pretty quick, unless you need me around this evening)

When do you want me to send the ROE to the rest of the POCs?

(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF225 Chart
Date: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:50:02 AM

Sirs,

As requested.

Shawn
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF-225 AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Date: Monday, June 25, 2007 5:35:19 PM

(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, Jerry

(b) (6)

Acting Assistant Chief

CBP-Office of Border Patrol
1300 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 6.5E
Washington, DC 20229
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6) on behalf of GIDDENS, GREGOR(
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Updated: PF225 Green Miles Discussion
Start: Monday, June 25, 2007 11:30:00 AM
End: Monday, June 25, 2007 12:30:00 PM
Location: Executive Director"s Conference Room; Call In- (b) (6)

21 Jun-

Meeting scheduled to review & discuss PF225 Green Miles

Scheduled for Monday, 25 Jun, 1130-1230, call in number available- (b) (6)
Attendees:
Greg Giddens
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: PF225 Maps
Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 12:49:40 PM
Importance: High

Good Afternoon (b)

(b) (6) and I were(6)wondering if we could have you request the GIS shop in OBP to create State by
State Maps of just the PF225 lay down for the IBWC meeting in El Paso on Tuesday of next week.
Please let me know if this is possible as soon as you have a chance. I hope you are having a great
day and please call me with any questions. Thanks for the help!

(b) (6)
Contractor, Project Support for SBInet PMO
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
((b) (6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY (
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: PF225 Meeting in Dallas
Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 6:39:30 PM

I will be out of the office from 2/27 through 3/2, I will be back on 3/5.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF225 Phase I access roads.
Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 6:07:34 PM

Just wanted to let you know our Districts are contacting Sector POCs to ensure that Phase I access
roads have been considered in the outreach effort. This will dovetail with the collection of outreach
data from the sectors.

(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF225 Q&A
Date: Saturday, April 21, 2007 8:54:57 AM

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)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY(
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: PF225 March 6th Preliminary Read-Ahead
Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:09:24 PM

I will be out of the office from 2/27 through 3/2, I will be back on 3/5.
From: SELF, JEFFREY (
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Accepted: Updated: Team Discussion - Preliminary PF225 Schedule and Budget
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF225 spreadsheet
Date: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 10:57:42 AM

(b)
(6)
Just so you know, I have not heard back from (b) (6) yet regarding my request for the
spreadsheet update. I suspect that the battle over the spreadsheet is not over, and will reengage at
the meeting this afternoon. I plan to go in and tell whoever it is with a problem that OBP must have
the product as it was prior to the recent changes. I have been told by Chief Self in no uncertain terms
that is exactly how he wants it, and I personally need it yesterday. A little insight into who (b) (6) is
might be useful, though I can not allow it to change my message.

(b)
(6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY (
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Accepted: Updated: PF225 SRR
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF225: BP Outreach Efforts, data from the Sectors
Date: Thursday, June 21, 2007 6:29:42 PM

(b)
(6) You mentioned today that the various Sectors had compile outreach data and sent it to HQ.
Can I get my hands on that data?
From: SELF, JEFFREY (
To: (b) (6)
Cc: AGUILAR, DAVID ( COLBURN, RONALD (
Subject: Project 225
Date: Thursday, March 22, 2007 4:07:45 PM

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: Project List
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 8:46:17 AM

(b)
(6)
The following are the miles of fence by sector which appear to be good for a quick start.

MAR – 9.4 miles, with another 1.5 miles requested (Request with USACE for inclusion)

EPT – 37.06 miles

Included in the above:
6.32 miles of total is within New Mexico – Gov. Richardson has expressed objections.
1.5 mi. (H-2B) – 1 owner not yet contacted, however Roosevelt Easement exists for construction,
located within NM
1.11 mi. (J-1 EPT-STN-1) – 5 owners unsure, however Roosevelt Easement exists for construction,
located within NM
19.76 mi. (K- 2B&C) – Some portion of this project is of definite interest to (b) (6) for ceremonial
view purposes, though their land ownership ends north of the construction zone.

TCA – 15.51 miles

Included in the above:
9.3 mi. (E- 3) – Potential Jaguar corridor

YUM – 10.63 miles

(An additional 4 or so miles at the S. end of the Colorado River Corridor may be easily constructed,
though the majority of the project is owned by (b) (6) who has expressed opposition to fence.)

ELC – 4.52 miles

SDC – 9.92 miles

Included in the above:
2.33 mi. have been identified as needing the cooperation of (b) (NOT a given for projects within San
Diego Sector.) (6)
4.05 mi. (SDC-BLV-1, SDC-BLV-2, SSDC-BLV-3) Identified as containing T&E species issues. (1.21
mi. of this project included in 2.33 miles listed above)

(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY ( ; (b) (6)
Subject: Proposed Fence Map
Date: Thursday, October 05, 2006 8:09:04 AM
Importance: High

Here is the map that shows the proposed locations of the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Per
(b) (6) the Congress proposed fencing is in blue and our (OBP) existing and proposed
fencing is in red. The actual distance of the fencing is about 853 miles when you take into account the
bends in the Rio Grande.

_____________________
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief, HQOBP
Southern Border Operations
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Read: CBP Public Affairs Guidance re: PF 225
Date: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:28:45 PM

Your message
To (b) (6)

hia
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: CBP Public Affairs Guidance re: PF 225
Sent: 4/20/2007 4:15 PM
was read on 4/20/2007 4:23 PM.