From: SELF, JEFFREY (

To: (b) (6)

Subject: FW: PF225 Communications Planning
Date: Friday, March 23, 2007 12:52:15 PM

(b) (6)

FYI

______________________________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 12:46 PM
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: FW: PF225 Communications Planning

Teammates, Pls make sure all your folks as appropriate are responsive to this important
communications effort….COB Monday 3/26. Tks, (b)
(6)
______ __________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:27 PM
To: (b) (6)
SELF, JEFFREY D; ADAMS, ROWDY D;
(b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: PF225 Communications Planning

Good afternoon.

As I mentioned at this afternoon’s meeting, I am providing a spreadsheet to help us identify some of

the elements in our communications plan.

Please fill out the spreadsheet with as much information as you can, and send the file to me by close
of business on Monday, March 26, 2007. There are some questions and requests below the
spreadsheet; I’d like to start capturing that information as well.

My staff and I will consolidate the information and provide a complete document at our first
Communications IPT Meeting.

To incorporate the information from the existing PF 225 IPT meetings, we will hold the
Communications IPT Meeting on Thursday afternoon, from 2:30 to 4:00 pm. I will send out an invitation
tomorrow.

Thank you very much for your help.

(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: PF 225
Date: Monday, May 07, 2007 6:36:37 PM

(b)
(6)
We spoke with Mr. Self today and he stated we should include the below request with your RFI that
will be going out to the SW Border Chiefs on Tuesday. Before anything is sent out, can we sit down
and review the below request? We have already touched base with (b) but we still need to meet
with you to ensure we will not be making duplicate requests. (6)

When you have a chance, please let us know when we can get together.

Thanks,
(b)
(6)

HQ-OBP is currently reviewing the Operational Requirement Based Budget Process (ORBBP) tactical
infrastructure requirements for fiscal year 2007. These ORBBP requirements were established by
individual stations and sectors via last year’s ORBBP submissions and are now being utilized by SBI
net to plan upcoming infrastructure projects.

To ensure that SBI net is receiving the field’s most accurate and current requirements, HQ-OBP is
requesting that each sector review their ORBBP tactical infrastructure requirements. During this
review, we ask that several areas be addressed:

Each station that has established tactical infrastructure requirements in ORBBP must validate
and prioritize these requirements based upon their current station operational needs.
Sectors are asked to review and prioritize all existing requirements that have been requested by
stations within their area of responsibility. The prioritization should be based upon each sector’s
fiscal year 2007 operations plan.
All existing tactical infrastructure requirements should have an accompanying Trimble GPS file.
This will allow the requirement to be plotted and the exact location relayed to SBI net for
planning purposes. If any of your requirements lack the Trimble GPS file, please have the
location GPS’d (via Trimble) and the correlating file attached.
Any existing ORBBP requirements that are already initiated projects or completed infrastructure
should to be annotated accordingly in ORBBP. ( The construction initiated and completed dates
can be updated through the “update project” feature in ORBBP)

This effort should focus on the existing fiscal year requirements and should not include updating
ORBBP with new projects. Any new requirements should be addressed through fiscal year 2008
ORBBP requirements.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: PF 225 Communications IPT
Date: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:11:17 AM

fyi

(b) (6)
OBP - Planning Branch
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 1:47 PM
To: (b) (6)

'SELF,
JEFFREY D'; (b) (6)

SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)

Subject: PF 225 Communications IPT

Good afternoon.

Attached is version 0.2 of the PF 225 Engagement Plan. The update incorporates feedback I have
received to date.

Today’s agenda will be to discuss the communications plan, focusing on the following sections/issues:

Landowner Engagement
Roles & Responsibilities
Key Messages
Communications Products
Near-term Opportunities
Talking Points
Communications IPT Risks

Call-in information:
(b) (2)
From RRB, NP, L Street and 633 3rd Street, please dial (b) (2) only
(b) (2)

I look forward to our meeting.

(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY(
To: ADAMS, ROWDY (
Cc: COLBURN, RONALD(
Subject: FW: Draft PF 225 Communications Plan
Date: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 11:57:07 AM

Rowdy,

OBP can't jump on board with this. More of the same. "SBInet is going to control the borders".

Thanks, Jeff

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 5:18 PM
To: (b) (6)

ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)

Subject: Draft PF 225 Communications Plan

Good afternoon.

Attached for your review and comment is a rough draft of the PF 225 Communications Plan.

You’ll notice that it is unfinished in parts, and even where there are not blank spaces we need to add a
lot more meat on the provided bones. I’m looking for extensive feedback.

Please provide input by COB Wednesday, April 4, 2007. I will incorporate the feedback and provided
an updated version before Thursday’s IPT meeting.

Thanks.

(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: PF 225 Q&A v 0.4
Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:45:42 AM

Latest set of Q&As for SBInet Outreach, PAO, congressional

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 6:27 PM
To: (b) (6)

Subject: PF 225 Q&A v 0.4

Good afternoon.

Once again, thank you all for your review and comments on the Q&As for PF 225.

I have incorporated everyone’s comments, which I thought significantly improved the document.

The latest iteration is attached (version 0.4). I am submitting this version to (b) and (b) for their
review. (6) (6)

Thanks again.

(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: PF 225 ROE for Survey and Exploration
Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:25:54 PM

(b) ,
(6)
Is this the enviro ROE?
(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
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: SELF, JEFFREY (
Subject: FW: PF 225 Roll Out
Date: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 5:12:11 PM

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

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 3:25 PM
To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: PF 225 Roll Out

Attached.

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

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 3:20 PM
To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: PF 225 Roll Out

(b) - neithe (b) (6) nor I have capability to PDF it. Can you all do that up in the program office for us
(6)
please?

Thanks

(b) (6)
Office of Congressional Affairs
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 3:19 PM
To:(
b
Cc:)(b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF 225 Roll Out
Good afternoon noon.

Attached are both sets of the updated maps.

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

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 3:09 PM
To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: PF 225 Roll Out
Importance: High

Can somebody resend the maps with necessary edits? Also, can we get a pdf version for external
distribution so ppts can’t be altered once sent?

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 11:58 AM
To: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: PF 225 Roll Out

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)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY (
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: PF 225 Update from S2 Meeting
Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 4:35:52 PM

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

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Apr 18 15:35:56 2007
Subject: PF 225 Update from S2 Meeting

Boss,

Here are the highlights from the S2 meeting about PF 225:

Timeline for completion is still end of year 08; however, S2 knows there may be issues affecting
timeline (land purchase, environmental) and will address those issues when they become impacting on
the project.

CBP - OBP/OFO will be the face of the project and will lead negotiations
No condemnation
No blanket environmental waiver

Option A was selected for project with these clarifiers:

* re-baseline PF 225 (we have this done already)

* original laydown including south Texas
* concentrate on urban areas, POEs
* low risk projects first
* use Fence Lab solution when and where possible
* identify where vehicle barriers could be converted into fence if we come up short in TX (retro
fence)

Proceed with vehicle barriers simultaneously (may be needed for retro fence)

OBP Sectors will be authorized to use state maps and will have approved verbiage from SBInet when
negotiating laydown. S2 gave this verbiage:

Land owner strategy:

"The Secure Fence Act has marked your area ..."
"We think that there are a number of high priority areas that make sense for early implementation
..."
"We would like your input and discussion ... can we reach a settlement?"
NO MENTION OF CONDEMNATION - not committed to use condemnation as a tactic
Get what we can - fallback - "Retro Fence"
Environmental:
We will go through the environmental process in earnest (start early)
Do not count on a blanket waiver - or any waiver

(b) (6)
Assistant Chief, Planning Branch
Office of Border Patrol
Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: PF 70 projects
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:55:09 PM

I sent this request to (b) (6) and(b) today. Boeing folks are beginning to want more than just the
P225 lay down. (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 9:45 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF 70 projects

(b) (6) y,

Boeing is asking the TCA and YUM IPT for fencing projects that are going to be completed before the
end of 07. They are also asking for future vehicle barrier projects. Can they be provided with a copy
of the PF70 proposed lay down and the anticipated VB projects? They have already been provided
with current TI in each sector.

Thanks
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: PF-225
Date: Friday, June 08, 2007 7:24:00 AM

(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?

-----Original Message-----
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: FW: Following up re 25 June PF225 "Green Miles" discussion with Mr. Giddens
Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 12:23:40 PM

FYI

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 12:22 PM
To: (b) (6) Giddens, Gregory
Cc: (b) (6)
Adams, Rowdy D; (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Following up re 25 June PF225 "Green Miles" discussion with Mr. Giddens

The one thing I would like to bring up is the fact CBP has not authorized the Corps to engage as required to meet
these demands for all parts of 225. This will be a very resource intensive effort for the Corps to do this within the
alloted timeframe barring the fact that we are still holding them back to execute in many locations.

Again for this effort to be successful, we need to give the Corps the green light to proceed. Also, for planning
efforts to proceed expeditiously, the segments and their alignment will need to remain consistent.

(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6)
To: Giddens, Gregory (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

ADAMS, ROWDY D (b) (6)

Sent: Wed Jun 27 11:59:54 2007

Subject: Following up re 25 June PF225 "Green Miles" discussion with Mr. Giddens

We had a discussion with Mr. Giddens on Monday addressing PF225 "Green Miles" and how aggressively to
pursue publicly-visible planning over the near future. I wanted to summarize my understanding of the guidance
provided, especially because there was some final discussion in the room after the Corps of Engineers (USACE)
phone call in to the meeting dropped off.

Three main points for guidance:

A) For some time yet, PF225 planning teams (often OBP + USACE individuals working together) have to pass a
two part message to those they are talking with: we are working with specific proposed locations and planning
construction there in full detail, but we also have not yet committed construction $$ against final decisions on these
proposed locations. This two-part message is not easy to make consistently clear, but this is the guidance
nonetheless.

B) As for the ~90 or so "Green Miles" (part of this is PF225 Phase I and part of this is in PF225 Phase 2): SBInet
wants USACE to go full speed in finishing the planning for these green miles, completely visible to the public
where needed. SBInet wants any and all formal/legal implementing documents completed and delivered to
SBInet/CBP/DHS ASAP - all environmental documents, all real estate documents, all construction documents, etc.
Spotlight is on USACE to get this done, so that PF225 and SBInet can use these documents to drive rapid
CBP/DHS execution decisions.

C) As for the remaining ~130 miles (all Phase 2, just over half in RGV and just under half elsewhere): SBInet
wants USACE and OBP together to also move out directly on the planning here, also completely visible to the
public where necessary. The SBInet goal for USACE is that by the end of July, a OBP/USACE team will have
talked to nearly every private landowner touching the planned laydown. These conversations will be thorough
enough to fully support all USACE planning requirements (real estate and construction, as well as environmental),
while still allowing OBP personnel to tell landowners and local officials that a final decision has not been approved
but the planning to support this approval is getting done rapidly. The spotlight here is on both USACE to get its
specialists in scheduling mode with sector TI coordinators immediately, and OBP to match up and fully support
these rapid and full-scale conversations with the many local landowners and officials.

Does this capture Monday's conversations correctly and completely?

Regards,
(b) (6)
PF225 DepPM/BizMgr
From: SELF, JEFFREY (
To: VITIELLO, RONALD (
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: PF225 Lay Down Justification
Date: Thursday, May 10, 2007 6:36:42 AM

(b)
(6)
Can you get this out.

Jeff

From:(
Sent: bTuesday, 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: SELF, JEFFREY (
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: PF225 Meeting in Dallas
Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 5:08:36 PM

Guys,

Who of us should attend this.

(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D; SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Tue Feb 27 16:52:40 2007
Subject: Re: PF225 Meeting in Dallas

10-4. (b) (6) just sent me a possible flight time around 5pm that day that will work for the Dallas
trip. This will work out OK and not conflict with the meeting in the morning.

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

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY D; SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Tue Feb 27 16:44:25 2007
Subject: PF225 Meeting in Dallas

Deputy,

The meeting with (b) (6) opens your calendar for an afternoon flight to Dallas for the Project
PF225 meeting. This one is an important one that either you or the Chief need to attend. *Project
PF225 will utilize the FY07 funding and FY08 requested funding (b) (4) to design and construct
the required fencing (225+145) to achieve the Administration’s goal of 370 miles of primary fencing in
place by December 31, 2008.

The meeting will be from Tuesday afternoon (March 6th) to Friday morning (March 9th). During the
week, a Project Management Team (PMT) will develop the framework for project implementation. I do
not have a solid time yet, but on Friday there will be an executive out-brief by the PMT to the Executive
Partnership Board (EPB).

EPB Members:

SBI Program Executive - Greg Giddens

SBI Project Manager (b) (6)

OFAM Director (b) (6)

USACE SWD Cmdr (b) (6)

USACE SWD Deputy - (b) (6)

OBP Chief - Chief Aguilar

The Friday out-brief is to discuss progress made by the PMT and to provide the Executive Partnership
Board members with their suggested path forward. Time will be allotted for comments and further
discussion. You would only need to be there for this day (Friday).

(b) (6) is the SBI lead and is requesting 2 OBP reps to participate in the PMT. I gave him Jeff
Self as a POC and he cc’d Rowdy Adams and (b) (6)

(b)
(6)

*from attachment background

From: SELF, JEFFREY (
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: PF225 PMT meeting
Date: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:58:41 AM

Fyi

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

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

SELF, JEFFREY D (b) (6)

Sent: Wed May 09 08:06:43 2007

Subject: PF225 PMT meeting

When: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 3:00 PM-4:30 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: Conference call

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

(b) (2)
From: SELF, JEFFREY(
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: PF225 Projects QC
Date: Monday, April 09, 2007 5:28:24 PM

FYI
-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 4:05 PM
To: (b) (6)
Self, Jeffrey D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Projects QC

(b) (6) is on an airplane, so I have coordinated this with the RE and ENV IPT leads. Here is our
recommendation of projects to include AFTER the 84.18 and the 134.08:

1. K-4, this project will close the gap between projects K-3 and K-5, and is operationally probably a
priority #2, miles are 18.24

2. Marfa New - it is #1 priority for Marfa, 3.00 miles

3. N-3 and N-4, these are priority 1 and 2 for laredo and add to 1.72 miles total.

4. O-6, O-3, O-4, and O-5, all #1 priority for RGV and in that order, total of 10.11 miles.

5. M-2C, This is a #2 Priority and is 2.2 Miles. We DO NOT recommend M-2B - we are in the middle
of acquiring a easement for construction on this property now (not for fence) and it would be bad
(public affairs wise) to switch now. We are set to close on the RE action in May of this year.

The above add to about:

218.26 + 35.27 = 253.53 miles

These are in the priority order we would like to get the approval on, so that if something falls out, we
know where to go next.

(b) (6)
Chief, Tactical Infrastructure Branch
ECSO
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 12:30 PM
To: (b) (6)
Self, Jeffrey D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Projects QC
Importance: High

Gentlemen:
Good discussion with (b) this morning, turns out he will back me up at the ESC briefing on Thursday.
(6)talking with senior OBP folks before Thursday, to help prepare the decision. I
Rowdy and Jeff will be
am confident we will get a settled decision/closure on SRR via completing the ESC.

(b) believes we will be required to do some south Texas work as part of the
(6)
PF225 package, and would prefer we take this approach in our briefing to the ESC.

So, here's what things look like to me:

The basic proposal is good to go:

P75 (both TI and new, 84.18 miles)
P150 (both TI and new, 134.08 miles)
This gives us 218.26 miles, but we would like to get approved a target of 225
+ 25 mile buffer, so we need another 31+ miles.

My recommendation on what we take forward:

(total 16.76 miles) Priority 1 high risk locations: Marfa new, Del Rio M2B, Laredo N4, and RGV O3, O4,
O5, O5, O6

(total 13.23 miles) Priority 2 high risk locations: Del Rio M2C, Laredo N3, and RGV 01 and 02

This gives us a 248.25 mile target going forward.

Do the priority 1 and 2 segments on the spreadsheet line up with sector priorities in Texas?

We could also add in El Paso K4, 18.24 miles (QUESTION: What is the sector priority on this project?),
for additional flexibility/insurance.

We have to decide today which of these we go forward with to the Thursday ESC.

Regards,
(b)
(6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 2:41 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Projects QC
Importance: High

(b) (6)

Not sure I understand this laydown fully.

Seems to say that:

P75: 84.18 miles
P150: 134.08 miles
High risk: 162 miles
Not included (B1/B2): 13.67 miles

However:
We need a ~250 mile recommendation (PF225 + 10%), and 218 is given, along with 162 "high risk"
and 13.67 "not included."

So what is the 13.67 miles (B1/B2), and which additional ~32 miles (above
218) do you recommend we go after as part of PF225?

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From:(b) (6)
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 5:26 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF225 Projects QC

(b)
(6)
Here is the latest spreadsheet and some responses to previous questions.
(b)
(6)
-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 12:41 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: F <<P225 Fence Summary 04-04-07.xls>> w: PF225 Projects QC

Latest version

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6) >
To: (b) (6)
CC: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Apr 04 20:17:14 2007
Subject: PF225 Projects QC

(b) (6)

I went through all of the questions you've been getting, and I did another full QC on the spreadsheet.
Attached is the revision with the following changes:

1. I added the lat/longs to this sheet so that its clear which lat/longs belong to which project. Please
note that there are a couple projects that go east and west of a POE; technically, they are a continuous
straight line, but on the sheet, they are separated into 2, so I have only used one lat/long for the start,
and one for the end. Let me know if you want me to change this.

2. I added a column for PL109-367. I put the length of segments that are within the PL footprint into
this column and totaled the column.

3. I put a comment in the row header for Real Estate/(b) (6) with the definition of each
abbreviation.

4. B-5B: After we cut out the west part of this fenceline because OBP told us that the canal makes a
good barrier in that area, the project length changed.
I put the new length in the P150 spreadsheet.

5. There was a discrepancy between the P projects on the spreadsheet and the maps. O-10 on the map
was actually 2 projects, thus all the P's on the map were mislabeled resulting in two P-5s. I have fixed
this on the sheet and maps. We are producing new maps and will send those to you on Thursday.

Responses to all the questions :

4/3/07 email from (b) (6)
A) You edited the spreadsheet to respond to this - the maps still have the same legend. Let me know if
you want me to change it.

B)
D2: existing post and rail, are we replacing/building behind? -
response: we would be removing and putting in new fence
F1: National Guard will be building in this area, fencing or something else -
response: National Guard will be building pedestrian fence, I added that to the comments.
H2B,I1A: "half is existing fence" and I1B: "Build only 31.05 miles" -
response: these notes should have been deleted, they are old from before we asked OBP for input.

Prioritize the TX projects - response: the priority that RGV gave us is in there, we don't have priority
from them for all the "new" projects

What are the various codes in the Real Estate/(b) (6) column? -
response:
I added the comment in the sheet with those spelled out.

4/4/07 email from (b) (6)

Matrix shows two P5's on the not recommended list - response: see above on the discussion of "P"
projects.

Lat Long list shows B1 and B2 (both achievable), shows coordinates; these are not shown on the matrix
- response: these projects were on the "Add Sum"
sheet, I renamed that to "Other Projects etc" to match your caption to resolve that confusion.

For all of these comments below, I have correlated the lat/longs into the spreadsheet in a way that I
hope is clear to demonstrate the location of each
project:
Matrix shows N-1, N-2A and N-2B; LatLong list shows N-1A, N-1B & N-2A, and N-2B Matrix shows G-1,
G-2, G-3 (twice each), but not on LatLong list Missing lat longs:
L-1A
L-1B
C2
B5
D6
G1/G2/G3 (on matrix twice each)
J2
K-2B/C

Please let me know if this satisfies all the questions and issues. I am usually on email by 7:30 AZ time,
so can get you an answer, or address a question by around 9:30 your time.

Thanks,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6) on behalf of (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: USFW/Section 7 Streamline Process for PF225/SBINet projects
Start: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:00:00 AM
End: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 1:00:00 PM
Location: Ronald Reagan building-specific location TBD
Importance: High

(b)
This will be an important meeting. If you want to attend, it will not be wasted time. If you can drag along some extra horsepower, it
would be a good move. This movement toward working with USFWS, though it will cost us $, is probably the only way to avoid EIS in
S. TX, and thus the only way to get our projects there moving along on time.

(b)
_____________________________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 8:48 AM
To: (b) (6)

Subject: USFW/Section 7 Streamline Process for PF225/SBINet projects

When: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:00 AM-1:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: Ronald Reagan building-specific location TBD
Importance: High

All

(b) (6) and I met with (b) (6) (USFW National Section 7 Coordinator) yesterday regarding PF225.
The purpose of the meeting was to update (b) on our current proposed NEPA & Section 7 approach for PF225, review the PF225
timeline, discuss ways to minimize impacts to endangered and threatened species potentially affected by PF225, and identify methods
and means to streamline the Section 7 consultations that will be required for the RGV sector and Brown Field fence segment in the San
Diego sector so that they can be completed in-time to allow construction to proceed in accordance with the current proposed schedule
baseline.

After much discussion, the following approach was identified as the most efficient and the one most likely to result in the successful
and timely Section 7 consultation(s)) as well as an EA/FONSI in S Texas.

USFW will immediately assign two (2) of their most experienced Texas biologists exclusively to PF225 (and other SBI Net projects as
needed). USFW will hire two (2) temporary biologists to handle their “other” non-CBP projects/workload.
USFW will identify the species and habitat of concern that may be potentially impacted by PF225 (and other SBI Net projects as
needed).
USFW will work with CBP to identify Best Management Practices that will eliminate/reduce adverse impacts of PF225 (and other SBINet
projects) to species of concern.
USFW will draft the necessary biological opinions for PF225 (and other SBINet projects as necessary).
USFW will assist with the writing of the applicable EA sections for PF225 (and other SBINet projects as necessary).
USFW will populate the USFW/CBP web-based Information, Planning and Consultation (IPAC) system with the information developed in
steps 1-5. This information should greatly streamline future CBP/SBI Tactical Infrastructure projects (e.g. Texas Mobile).

Many of the tasks described above are not typically performed by USFW so CBP would have to provide some funding assistance. (b)
is the estimated cost for Texas. An additional (b) s estimated for New Mexico, which would also be developed at this time. The on-
going work in Arizona, which is similar in nature to that which is being proposed in TX and NM and has already been funded by CBP
will continue.

To make this work for PF225 and Texas, time is of the essence. (b) (6) is available to meet with us on Tuesday from 11-1 to
discuss further and answer questions. Obviously CBP’s senior management will need to approve this approach so (b) (6) and
(b) (6) attendance at this meeting is critical. In addition to the PF225 key staff, I recommend that we also invite other SBI Project
Managers as their projects could also benefit from the approach we are proposing.

We will set up a conference call in-number for folks that cannot attend in person. Please let me know ASAP if you cannot attend this
meeting.

Thanks

(b)
From: SELF JEFFREY(
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: PF225 Spreadsheets
Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 5:00:28 PM

-----Original Message-----
From: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:56 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Spreadsheets

Let me explain.
$#^%*&&_&)*&*%%$&(*(()_+(__&$%$$#@$#&^^&&&)*)_(_)(*^**&&)(*_$%$#@%**)(*%%#@$%&)(())(*&$#$#@,
this is how it was explained to me.

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:35 PM
To: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: PF225 Spreadsheets

Fencing in the Sonoita AOR is a waste of tax payers money and goes against the National Strategy. Maybe I don't get it.

(b) (6)
Deputy Chief Patrol Agent
Tucson Sector
(b) (6)
Honor First - Excellence in All We Do

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:52 AM
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Spreadsheets
Importance: High

(b) (6)
Can we please have an extension to COB Friday to finalize Sector approval? We have operational concerns about the
proposed fencing in the Sonoita AOR. We need to brief the Deputy on Friday.

(b) (6) will not be back until tomorrow. (b) and I will be in Phoenix, and Shawn is in El Paso.

Thanks

(b) (6)
Tucson Sector
Assistant Chief Patrol Agent
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:51 AM
To: (b) (6)
SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)

Subject: PF225 Spreadsheets

To all,

The Project Fence 225 System Requirements Review meeting yesterday was attended by various entities associated with
the fence project to include the POCs from each sector (Marfa was the only sector not represented). The attached
spreadsheets outline every project proposed for PF225. Each project was identified by Army Corps. and placed according
to "achievability"
in either the PF75 or PF150 spreadsheets. PF75 projects are considered "low hanging fruit" that have minimal real
estate/environmental/engineering issues. The more challenging projects were listed under PF150.

Several columns were added to allow each sector to list concerns and issues for each proposed project. Please review the
spreadsheets thoroughly and fill in all requested information pertaining to your sector projects. For any pertinent
comments not applicable to the categories listed on the spreadsheets, you can use the additional comment tab and list in
bullet form. Note: the priority column requires all projects within you AOR must be numerically prioritized.

The Sector POCs were given these instructions yesterday during the meeting. They were tasked with briefing their sector
chain of command, reviewing each project listed within their AOR and commenting on the attached forms before
submitting back to me by COB tomorrow.
Every sector listed on the project list must provide comment and submit the additional information requested on each form
(to include Marfa and Loredo). If no comments are received by COB tomorrow, the spreadsheets will be submitted to the
PMT as is.

I am in the process of switching over to Microsoft Outlook so please copy your responses to (b) (6)
Regards,

(b) (6)
OBP/SBInet Liaison
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Project List UPDATED
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 9:26:54 AM
Importance: High

With update

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 8:46 AM
To: (b) (6) J
Subject: Project List

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

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

EPT – 37.06 miles

Included in the above:
6.32 miles of total is within New Mexico – Gov. Richardson has expressed objections.
1.5 mi. (H-2B) – 1 owner not yet contacted, however Roosevelt Easement exists for construction,
located within NM
1.11 mi. (J-1 EPT-STN-1) – 5 owners unsure, however Roosevelt Easement exists for construction,
located within NM
19.76 mi. (K- 2B&C) – Some portion of this project is of definite interest to (b) (6) for ceremonial
view purposes, though their land ownership ends north of the construction zone. This project may
actually be 10 miles longer. I have emailed the CORPS regarding coordinates.
3.36 mi. (K- 5) – The land owners are proving very difficult to find due to court records issues in the
county court house. Still, Sector does not see red flags.

TCA – 15.51 miles

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: ADAMS, ROWDY(
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: TRO for all projects in Arizona
Date: Saturday, November 03, 2007 5:13:44 PM

(b) (5)
Thanks. (b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6) H
To: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Sent: Sat Nov 03 16:42:36 2007
Subject: Fw: TRO for all projects in Arizona

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

Thanks,
(b) (6)

Office of Chief Counsel, CBP

(b) (6)

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

From: ADAMS, ROWDY D
To: (b) (6)

<Jeffrey.Self(b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

Sent: Sat Nov 03 10:53:07 2007

Subject: Re: TRO for all projects in Arizona

We wil be workin\ with the attorneys 1st thing Monday morn (8-830) (b) (6) is POC. We have to
get their thoughts on DOIs proposal. E options to consider but bottom line is we hope to have a
ROE/permit by Monday evening.

Rowdy

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

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6) Adams, Rowdy D (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Nov 03 10:44:18 2007
Subject: Fw: TRO for all projects in Arizona

FYI

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

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

Sent: Fri Nov 02 18:57:44 2007

Subject: RE: TRO for all projects in Arizona
Sir,

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

Thanks

(b) (6)
Tucson Sector
Assistant Chief Patrol Agent
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 3:16 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: TRO for all projects in Arizona
Importance: High

Sirs,

We just received this information from OJS reference a possible law suit on Tactical Infrastructure in
Arizona. The ACE made the initial request.

Thanks

(b) (6)
Tucson Sector
Assistant Chief Patrol Agent
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 2:00 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: TRO for all projects in Arizona

(b)
(6)
Could you pass this info along to whom ever needs it.

TF DBK averages (b) a day for P&A. For equipment rental it is (b) a day and
(4)
this includes construction EQ, pick-ups, phones. This totals (b) (4) a day.

Thanks

(b) (6)
CDR, TF Diamondback
((b) (6)
-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6) ]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 10:43 AM
To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: TRO for all projects in Arizona

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

Thanks

Please note new cell phone number below

(b) (6)
Chief, Tactical Infrastructure Branch
ECSO
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 6:04 PM
To: (b) (6)

Cc:(b) (6)
Subject: Fw: TRO for all projects in Arizona

All - need a rough order of magnitude cost for impacts to fence projects in
your aor. Need it by daily cost impact

(b) (6) - can you provide cost impact for ng?

Please reply back to all. Need a rough estimate tomorrow.
-----Original Message-----
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6) L
CC (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Nov 01 17:34:14 2007
Subject: Re: TRO for all projects in Arizona

Thanks.

The attorneys expect this question to come up.

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
CC: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Nov 01 17:21:28 2007
Subject: TRO for all projects in Arizona

(b) (6)

Can you all create an estimate for all the costs that we will incur for the
stop work on all projects in Arizona . Please consider costs associated with
the contractors staff and equipment, and security for material (if any) and
the staff you all hired to cover Title II services. (b) (6)
have requested that the number be determined as a "cost per day" and
seperated per project.

He mentioned he needed an estimate by tomorrow. Thanks, (b)

(6)

(b) (6)
PF-225 Program Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
819 Taylor Street (4A05)
Fort Worth, Texas 76102

(b) (6)