CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: FW - 1 BP Sectors (Redacted) 3 - FW - 8 DRAFT Follow-Up Letter (Redacted) 7

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

Subject: FW: BP Sectors
Date: Thursday, May 10, 2007 5:32:37 AM
(b) (6)
(b) (5)
(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 09 13:37:24 2007
not sure what you weren't looped in on this
(b) (6)
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Special Advisor to the Commissioner
(b) (6)
-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6) A
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 1:13 PM
To: (b) (6) AD
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6) and I can't think of any reason not to give this to Cuellar, but
then again, it isn't necessarily our role to provide landowner info to a
Congressman.
Should we give it to him or direct him to land commission?
Want to get good direction here before making any moves on tactical
infrastructure right now.
(b) (6)
Office of Congressional Affairs
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: BP Sectors
You are both more in touch with this issue. I don't know how you want
to proceed with (b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) >
Sent: Wed May 09 12:36:43 2007
Subject: RE: BP Sectors
(b) (6)
As the Department tries to move this Fence Issue from DHS to CBP, the
Congressman will need your assistance. DHS / CBP is now looking at BP as
the front line in outreach .
Since BP will be / is working with the local landowners along the Rio
Grande - Can you get me a list of landowners along the Rio Grande and
contact information for District TX-28?
Thanks
(b) (6)
Senior Advisor
(b) (6)
Office of Congressman Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
336 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(b) (6)
http://www.house.gov/cuellar
To receive e-mail newsletters and updates from Congressman Cuellar,
please visit:
http://www.house.gov/cuellar/newsletter-signup.shtml
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:32 AM
To: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
As requested:
The Texas Sectors going down river (west to east)
El Paso Sector: Paul Beeson Acting CPA / from El Paso (Straddles NM and
TX) in TX up to about (but not including) Sierra Blanca
Marfa Sector: John Smietana CPA / from Sierra Blanca to an area on the
river after Sanderson and before Comstock
Del Rio Sector: Randy Hill CPA / from just up river of Comstock to an
area on the river south of Eagle Pass and north of Laredo
Laredo Sector: Carlos Carrillo CPA / from just north of Laredo to Falcon
Dam south of Zapata
Rio Grande Valley Sector: (b) (6) / from Falcon Dam to the
mouth of the Rio Grande at Boca Chica
Thanks.
To: VITIELLO, RONALD(
Subject: Fw: [URGENT] Please send back to CBP for their review
Date: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:00:20 PM
Importance: High

From: (b) (6)
To: Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6) Adams,
Rowdy D (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 16 19:30:23 2007
Jeff,
Late night tasker for your review. Due by 8:00 tomorrow.
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 16 19:00:14 2007

From: (b) (6)
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)
AGUILAR, DAVID V; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) <DHS Detail>; (b) (6)

Sent: Wed May 16 18:55:50 2007
Subject: [URGENT] Please send back to CBP for their review
HRM, SBI, and OBP,
Please see the below request from DHS. Please review the numbers used in this document for S1's
SBInet/border fence update meeting and submit comments or concurrent to (b) (2) by
8:00 a.m. tomorrow. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
(b)
(6)
_____
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: Please send back to CBP for their review
(b) (6)
Please send these instructions to CBP ESEC:

Please review the numbers used in this document for your briefing of S1 tomorrow. This is the
document we would like you to use to brief S1. We will be making slight aesthetic changes between
now and tomorrow, but the content is final from our end.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
Special Assistant to the Secretary
for Stakeholder Affairs & Information Integration
(b) (6)
<http://www.dhs.gov/> www.dhs.gov
_________________________________
Be prepared: www.ready.gov <http://www.ready.gov/>

From: SELF, JEFFREY(
To: (b) (6) NRY
Subject: FW: Chief Testimony Brief Book - Issue Paper Request
Date: Monday, June 04, 2007 4:15:59 PM
FYI
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 4:11 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D

Subject: RE: Chief Testimony Brief Book - Issue Paper Request
Chief has requested the book tomorrow. Please submit your papers by noon tomorrow, June 5, 2007.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D

Subject: RE: Chief Testimony Brief Book - Issue Paper Request
Deadline: COB Tomorrow, Tuesday, June 5, 2007.
Sorry about that.
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D

Subject: Chief Testimony Brief Book - Issue Paper Request
On Thursday, Chief will be testifying at a Hearing before the United States House of Representatives
Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border Maritime and Global Counterterrorism
regarding Project 28: The Future of SBInet.
(If I have listed you responsible for something you aren’t please let me know.)
Chief has requested the following items be included in his Brief Book:
National Guard Talking Points (b) (6) )

OJS Drawdown Talking Points (b) (6)
Number of BPAs before OJS & # now
OJS Drawdown memo that was signed today (b) (6)
Project 28 in Sassabe ((b) (6)
How many miles are on the Nation?
Vehicle Barriers on TO Nation Status
(b) (6) – elected Chief of the Nation
Background
Present Climate of Nation
The PowerPoint used for the Commissioner and Chief to speak to Napolitano (Southwest
Border)
Air & Marine Issues (El Tallon)
Issue Paper – Fallen agents this calendar year (b) (6)
Name, Location, Date, Cause of death
Photos of 20,000 lbs. dope load (b) (6)
Operation Northguard (b) (6)
Maps showing the overlay of PF70, PF225, and Secure Fence Act of 700 miles
Please submit your issue papers to me electronically by COB Tuesday, June 19, 2007.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
To: AGUILAR, DAVID ( STEVENS, KEVIN(b (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Conference Call with Congressman Rodriguez
Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 5:20:57 PM
Chief,
The below is a list of confirmed and unconfirmed participants for tomorrows conference call.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 4:47 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: RE: Conference Call with Congressman Rodriguez
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 Clint). 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 (b) (6)
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)
(b) (6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY D

Sent: (b) (6)
To: AGUILAR, DAVID V
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Conference Call with Congressman Rodriguez
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)

Cc:(
b
Subject: Conference Call with Congressman Rodriguez
Below are the details for tomorrow's conference call. The call is scheduled for 1pm, and the plan is for
all CBP participants to call in from the Reagan Building.
Congressman Rodriguez will be on the call, and at least staff from Congressman Reyes' office (if
not Reyes himself) will also be participating. Congressman Rodriguez's office is coordinating on the
local officials calling in, and I will keep checking back with his office to get their list of invitees.
Just for background: The conference call is at Congressman Rodriguez's request, after his office was
provided advance notice on Friday that letters would be going out to a handful (8, I believe) of
landowners requesting rights of entry to their land in order to perform survey and exploration for
potential technology deployment under Texas Mobile System. Rodriguez's office requested a
conference call with local officials to provide them with a general background on Texas Mobile - since
there is not much that can be shared at this point, it will have to remain at a fairly high-level SBInet
discussion. One of the concerns right now is that it is unclear how much fencing is associated with the
project - some of the (tentative) plans, which overlap with PF225 plans, show planned fencing in areas
where there is already fence. (b) is working with El Paso Sector and SBI to clear this issue up.
(6)
(b) (2)
(b)
(6)

(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Contractor Protocols
Date: Monday, May 21, 2007 6:37:38 AM
Guys,
How are we coming with SOP for the contractors?
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 4:08 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: FW: Contractor Protocols
Jeff,
Think the team can develop a simpler version of the protocol paper, that maybe tries
to cover the complex issue with a series of steps/bullets?
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Contractor Protocols
(b) – I know you’re focusing on the Texas fence issues, but I think we do need the one pager
(6)
describing what the Army Corps, Boeing, etc., will be required to do before and during their work on
the border. If you could have someone draft this in the next week, that would be good. The paper you
provided at the ESC is a bit complicated – I am just looking for a short SOP to be distributed to
contractors. The rest you can provide the sectors from OBP and SBI HQ.
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Fence
Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 5:24:42 PM
Jeff,
What I still don't know is what was originally reported.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 5:16 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: RE: Fence
Here are your answers and a small ppt map.

To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Fence
Importance: High
(b)
(6)
Can you put this into simple terms for the simple minded.
EXAMPLE:
Total of miles of IBWC fence: 12.5
Total of miles of fence that EPT built that is in front of the IBWC fence: 4.2
Total of IBWC fence that serves as primary fence: 8.5
Thanks,
Jeff
From: BEESON, PAUL A

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)
(b) (7)(E)
(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: David.Aguila (b) (6) (b) (6) Ronald.Colburn(b) (6)
Subject: Fw: Fencing
Date: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 5:13:23 PM
Chief,
(b) was seeking the below information to brief S-2. Concern is that placement of infrastructure 3 ft
(6)
north of the border will likely result in construction crews making incursions into Mexico when building
the fence and concern that we may end up building in Mexico again. He asked me if you had already
had this discussion with S-2. I told him I didn't know. He said with recent events it would more than
likely come up.
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)
concerning the 3 ft set back of fence construction. The telcon included
(b) (6) , and (b) (6) .
(b) was concerned about the 3 ft set back, where it had come from, was
(6)
it enough to use construction equip on the south side for repairs, etc?
OBP raised their concern of the potential use of too much set back for:
1. Mid-wife shacks, 2. complaints that US was ceding territory, and 3.
Officer Safety/Operational constraints with having to patrol an area
south of the fence (in areas where there might be yards south of fence,
like a river environment).
These were discussed at length, as was the history of the 3 ft set back
(the Douglas incident where OBP/NG was working from a verbal by IBWC to
work from the Mex side of fence). We also discussed current efforts with
the IBWC to formalize the actual location of the International Boundary,
a 3 ft set back and access for the IBWC markers, and our work under PF
225 with the flood plain.
The call lasted about 45 minutes. (b) stated that he was happy with the
responses but wanted a white paper(6) outlining our discussion and steps to
formalize the work being done with the IBWC (both Commissions), which
(b) 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)
Subject: Re: Fencing
Sounds good. Yes (b) (6) the deputy COS.
A conference call could likely suffice. (b) (6) could set up the
bridge.
(b) (6)

From: ADAMS, ROWDY D (b) (6)
To: Giddens, Gregory; (b) (6) Self,
Jeffrey D
Sent: Sun Jul 01 10:47:04 2007
Gentlemen
I will contact (b) 1st thing Monday to arrange a meeting to discuss

the set back (3(6)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

From: GIDDENS, GREGORY (b) (6)
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 Kevin Duffy 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) will appreciate this. It was part of a brief

(6)
discussion yesterday when S1 was advised the incursion fence removal had
begun.
Rowdy. I am out next week. Please invite (b) (6) from my office at
(b) (6)
Thanks.
(b) (6)

To: (b) (6) ; Adams, Rowdy D
Cc: (b) (6) B
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) (6) would definitely like to have the
(6)
discussion. I would like to sit in, but am out this coming week.
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)
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)
Cc: Aguilar, David V (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 30 14:37:02 2007
Subject: Fencing
Greg:
Given world events, I just left a meeting with(b) (6) and others here at
the NAC. I understand that removal of the approximately one mile of
fencing that was several feet into Mexico has begun.
As we go to the cost of removing and replacing the section of fencing,

the question that has come up is what space margin or set back are we
using between new fencing and ground based systems and the MX-US border?
A related question is what is the thought process/reasoning for any
particular space margin / setback we are using?
My recollection regarding the BGMR is that the set back would permit
vehicle access on either side of the fence to permit any needed future
repairs without entering Mexico.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Rear Admiral, RDML
Military Advisor to the Secretary
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: File
Importance: High
FYI
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 11:32 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: File
Importance: High
(b) here are the GPS coordinates and general data on PF70. I am still waiting on (b) to give me
(6)
the San Diego project coordinates as well as the Calexico. I will pass these along to(6)
you once I have
them. Let me know what else you need. I would eventually like to place these into the same format as
PF225.
Thank you,
(b) (6)
Branch Chief, Infrastructure
SBInet, Program Management Office
(b) (6)
Warning: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of
Information Act (5U.S.C. 552). This document is to be controlled, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS
policy relating to Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) information and is not to be released to the public or other personnel who do not have a valid
"need-to-know" without prior approval from the originator. If you are not the intended recipient , please contact the originator for disposition
instructions.
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: File
(b) (6),
I’d appreciate the specifics. I have only been here a week, however in that time I have learned that
seemingly obscure information may be needed at a moment’s notice.
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

To:(
b
Subject: RE: File
(b) , what are you looking for? I have a few different spreadsheets depicting PF70. If you need just
(6)
the general locations or are you looking for lat/longs?
Thank you,
(b) (6)
Branch Chief, Infrastructure
SBInet, Program Management Office
(b) (6)
Warning: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of
Information Act (5U.S.C. 552). This document is to be controlled, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS
policy relating to Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) information and is not to be released to the public or other personnel who do not have a valid
"need-to-know" without prior approval from the originator. If you are not the intended recipient , please contact the originator for disposition
instructions.
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: ADAMS, ROWDY D; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Subject: RE: File
(b)
(6)
I am awaiting the spread sheet from (b) (6) and I’ll be able to answer your question. I’ll let you
know as soon as I have accurate information.
(b) (6)
SBI Liaison
OPA Division
Office of Border Patrol
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6.5E
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 11:35 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: ADAMS, ROWDY D; SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: RE: File
Good morning(b) (6) and (b) .

(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)
Secure Border Initiative
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
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. (b) will bring you a larger print asap. Or you can print 11x17 up there also.
(b) (6)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: File
Here it is.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: Latest pf 225 list
Date: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 1:20:31 PM

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue May 01 13:18:21 2007
Subject: FW: Latest pf 225 list
From: (b) (6) l]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 10:51 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Latest pf 225 list
Our latest version, you should have this already.
From:(b) (6) WF
To (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Latest pf 225 list
Talked with him this morning. He is due to receive an updated version from
(b) (6) this a.m. I will forward him our latest version as well.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6) F
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Latest pf 225 list
I got a voice mail late last night from (b) (6) He wants to ensure he
has the latest update - he had heard about possibly a new version with more
miles in laredo an was concerned about that.
Please email him latest version.

To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Meeting Minutes
Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 5:38:26 PM
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:44 AM
To: (b) (6)
ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Subject: Meeting Minutes
Please see the attached draft meeting minutes from yesterday’s PF225 SRR. If you have any additions,
feel free to contact me. Also, feel free to send these to others who were there but not on the original
invite list sent out on behalf of (b) (6) thanks!
(b) (6)
___________________________________________
(b) (6)
SETA Support for SBInet PMO
(b) (6)
To: AGUILAR, DAVID(b (b) (6)
Subject: FW: PF 225
Date: Friday, March 16, 2007 12:14:15 PM
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)

Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:52 AM
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
Assistant Chief Patrol Agent
(b) (6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY( on behalf of (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: PF 225 Communications IPT
Start: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:30:00 PM
End: Thursday, May 10, 2007 4:00:00 PM
Location: Conference Room 7.5B
FYI
_____________________________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 11:03 AM
To: (b) (6)
'SELF, JEFFREY D'; (b) (6)
Cc (b) (6)
SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Subject: PF 225 Communications IPT
When: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:30 PM-4:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: Conference Room 7.5B
Sorry for the late notice.
Call-in information:
(b) (2)
From RRB, NP, L Street and 633 3rd Street, please dial (b) only
(b) (2)
If there is anyone I may have left off the list, please forward this invitation to them. Conversely, if you'd like to be left off this list in
the future, please let me know.
Thank you.
From: (b) (6) on behalf of (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Start: Thursday, June 28, 2007 3:00:00 PM
End: Thursday, June 28, 2007 4:00:00 PM
_____________________________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:12 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

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

When: Thursday, June 28, 2007 3:00 PM-4:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Update: The meeting will start at 3:00 pm.

____________________
ACCESS: (b) (2)
From RRB, NP, L Street and 633 3rd Street, please dial (b) only
(b) (2)
Thank you.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Following up re 25 June PF225 "Green Miles" discussion with Mr. Giddens
Date: Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:20:38 AM
FYI – pretty good synopsis of the current situation

Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 7:32 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) Adams,
Rowdy D; (b) (6) Self, Jeffrey D
Subject: Re: Following up re 25 June PF225 "Green Miles" discussion with Mr. Giddens
(b) (6)
Not sure I understand the distinction you are making.
All,
I do not agree that the 2 part messgae is hard to deliver. In order to make most informed decisions, we are
contacting landowners, conducting outreach, engineering analysis, and enviro analysis - all without having made
final decisions. We need that input to make final decisions.
Greg G

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) Giddens, Gregory (b) (6) >
Cc: (b) (6)
dams, Rowdy D
(b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 27 12:22:22 2007
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)
From: (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
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: PF225 PMT meeting
Date: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:58:41 AM
Fyi

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: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: revised PF225 laydown (Draft)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: revised PF225 laydown (Draft)
(b) (6)
Substantial revision per your instructions on Friday;
Changes from prior (271 mile) laydown:
A) Total here is ~230 miles, which is in line with your instruction to not show buffer;
B) Tucson D6 and El Paso K2B&C are dropped (because they did not show a TI book number);
C) Laredo N1A/B, N2A/B and N4 added back in (because they have a TI book number);
D) Rio Grand Valley ONLY includes O1, O2, O3, O4, O6, O7, O9, and O10 in Rio Grande Valley
does not include O5 (Hidalgo) or O8 (Los Indios), because your map does not show these
as TI book locations.
I'm not real confident the RGV mileage is highly accurate, will need to check.
Have kept all "dropped" segments at the bottom of the worksheet.
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: [URGENT] War room tasking - DUE NOON TODAY
Date: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:47:42 PM
From: BORKOWSKI, MARK S

Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:37 AM
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: [URGENT] War room tasking - DUE NOON TODAY
Here’s the answer for number 2, which I’ve coordinated with HRM.
You should receive the coordinated OBP/HRM answer on number 1 directly from HRM.
QUESTION 2:
(b)(2), (b)(5)
(b) (6)
Executive Director, Mission Support
U.S. Border Patrol
Customs and Border Protection
Contact: Executive Assistant (b) (6)

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

To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: FW: [URGENT] War room tasking - DUE NOON TODAY
Importance: High
(b) Jeff:
(6)
We have a VERY QUICK turnaround on the questions below. Some are personnel and some are
infrastructure. Please respond.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

To: AGUILAR, DAVID V; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: [URGENT] War room tasking - DUE NOON TODAY
Importance: High
OBP,
I've been informed that Mark Borkowski is the best person to address #2. Let me know if
you have any questions.
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
------------------------------------------------
(b) (6)
Office of the Commissioner
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc (
b
)
Subject: [URGENT] War room tasking - DUE NOON TODAY
Importance: High
HRM, SBI, OTD, and OPP:
Today, on very short notice, White House and DHS War Room staff met with Majority and
Minority Senate staffers on Title I (Border Enforcement) of the Comprehensive Immigration
legislation package. There were a number of requests for information from CBP at that
meeting. Please coordinate with other offices as necessary and submit responses to the
following questions to (b) (2) NLT noon today. I apologize for the short
turnaround on this tasker - do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
1. The number of BPAs now, the number of BPAs hired over the last 12 months, and the
attrition factor relating to BPA hirirng (actual growth number versus number hired)? There
were questions from staff as to how we were going to meet our hiring goals (18,000) as they
may eventually be specified in the trigger language.
2. What is CBP plan for the ratio of BP supervisors to BPA non-supervisors if workforce
will reach 18,000 agents hired within 18 months?
3. Number of miles of vehicle barriers currently in place?
4. Number of miles of fence built in the past year (12 months)?
5. Actual cost to build that number of miles of fence during past year?
6. Cost projection for remaining fence (roughly increasing from 70 miles of fence to 370
miles)?
7. Formal "Construction Plan" for building 370 miles of fence. (Is this available?)
8. Reports: What reporting requirements in the Dem bill does DHS think it already does or
does in a similar fashion?
9. What training are CBP employees currently given re federal land or culturally sensitive
land preservation?
10. What happens when CBP employees cause damage, or see damage caused by illegal alien
activity, on federal or culturally sensitive property?
11. Is CBP currently limited by DOI (or others) from patrolling/enforcing on federal or
culturally sensitive property? Is it fair to say that CBP should be responsible for damage
caused by illegal alien traffic on these types of lands?
Thank you,
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Office of the Commissioner
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: Your request
Date: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:09:10 PM
Importance: High
I didn't intend for the POC list to be sent but since they did...can you update the POC list. (b) sent it
out with the message. No big deal. (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 04 12:05:15 2007
Subject: FW: Your request
(b) and (b)

(6) (6)
(b) (6) requested that I provide the following corrections on the POC spreadsheet.
Those corrections would be:
Removing (b) (6) from the Sector POC column as he is now the DCPA here.
Removing (b) (6) as the fence POC and replacing my name there and also including (b) (6) as
an outreach POC for Marfa.
Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions.
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Sat 6/2/2007 11:09 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Make sure they change to you as the poc. Thanks. Carry

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 17:02:29 2007

Subject: FW: Your request
(b)
(6)
(b) (6) was out on his blackberry and asked that I forward this information to you.
(b) (6)
ACPA Del Rio Sector
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6) ]

Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 5:36 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
If you could cut and paste the following for forwarding to the sector POCs. One attachment is the
Sector POCs. Thanks again.
(b)
(6)
All,
This attachment was cleared through CBP for the Army Corps of Engineers to use to formulate their
Phase 1 EA letters. Please use the list(located at the end of the attachment) to identify any
stakeholders, within your sector, that will be receiving a letter similar to the "sample" letter that is
outlined in the attachment. Sometime on Monday, June 4th, we should be receiving the actual letters
from the corps. The corps has been instructed to begin sending the letters on Tuesday the 5th.
If any of the stakeholders that you have identified, are deemed, by YOUR SECTOR, to need a "qualified
BP representative" to preempt the reception of the Corps letter with a visit, then take the letter (you
will receive) and make that visit ASAP. If there are any concerns or questions, then do not hesitate to
call my cell or email my blackberry (I will be in Detroit all week) and I will answer you. If I have missed
any contacts or you are "out of pocket" then please ensure that your sector staff receives this. Chief
Self should be speaking directly to the Sector CPAs about this again on Monday before he travels. Just
a reminder that this is the "beginning" of the outreach again and is being scrutinized at all of the
highest levels of CBP and DHS. Thanks for all of the updates and consistent quality work.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
ACPA HQ
OBP Liaison to SBInet
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jun 01 18:03:39 2007
Subject: Your request
(b)
(6)
I believe I’ve attached all you wanted. Let me know if you need other stuff.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY (
Subject: FW: Yuma meetings next week
Date: Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:09:51 PM
(b) (6)
The Yuma contacts are listed below. You should be good to go. I unfortunately have no idea on the
schedule for next week though.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:57 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Yuma meetings next week
(b)
(6)
Please let (b) (6) and (b) (6) know that (b) (6) and (b) (6) will
be their POC.
Thanks, (b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: RE: Yuma meetings next week
(b)
(6)
I’ll get a hold of Yuma and ensure that someone if available for this.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: FW: Yuma meetings next week
(b)
(6)
Can an agent help out the PF225 contacts (b) (6) and (b) (6) with an on the ground
fence update? They will be in town for the meetings next week. Please advise.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Subject: Yuma meetings next week
(b) Jeff:
(6)
For PF225, (b) (6) was at the El Paso discussions last week, (b) (6) and I will attend at Yuma next
week.
Any sense of next week's agenda at Yuma? Should we plan to be there both 6/7 June or just one of
those days?
Especially if just one of the days, is there a Yuma sector POC we could talk with about a short recon
of parts of their fence area ? I think a look at the north/south river area would be helpful to us, I'm
guessing we would need an agent for half a day to do this? Reasonable request?
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: Yuma Travel
(b)
(6)
Please send me your travel itinerary once you know it so I can try to mimic.
FYI-I spoke briefly to (b) yesterday about the Yuma meetings and he thought one of the days was
going to entail internal(6)
OBP meetings that might not warrant our attendance. His understanding was
that there was going to be one day of substantive outreach discussions that he thought would be
beneficial for us to participate in. He also thought an agenda was being prepared and indicated he
would forward to us once received.
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: PF 225
FYI
From: AGUILAR, DAVID V (b) (6) ]

Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 8:52 PM
Cc: Colburn, Ronald S
Subject: RE: PF 225
Jeff,
One other thing that I would ask for is that Laredo send in a formal request to adjust their TI “Bible”.
This will make for good recordkeeping and tracking.
Same should be done for any other sector making dramatic changes to their original document. I would
also anticipate that somewhere down the road in a full blown SBInet laydown effort we should also be
recording adjustments to our TI requirements based on the SBInet capability enhancements. Maybe
next year’s ORBBP process would be a start ?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 8:58 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: Aguilar, David V; Colburn, Ronald S
Subject: Re: PF 225
Thanks Jeff. It will be important for us to maintain good records of how this has evolved, as I'm certain it will
continue to evolve and change as we move forward. You are correct to retain the history while looking forward.
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat May 05 20:50:00 2007
Subject: PF 225
Chief,
Now that I have had time to review the e mail storm concerning the PF 225 Communication Plan I would like to
make the following known:
In reviewing the messaging between Greg the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner, yes I did approve the
Communications Plan and do still think it is a viable plan. What's not mentioned in the e mails is my continuous
warnings to SBI that it was not being executed as written. Critical steps were missed and expedited for time
savings. When I found out that ACE was contacting the County Assessors Offices before any outreach had begun I
told them that these communities were close knit and this would get out. I advised that we would be viewed as
being sneaky and under handed. I told SBI that the present execution of this plan was a snowball headed for Hell
and it arrived there last week.
Fence Laydown:
Chief,
This was not executed correctly from the start. SBI was given the TI Bible with the warning that it was outdated
and anything it was used for, OBP should be advised so the SMEs could identify the problems with using it for the
desired purpose. SBI is claiming that OBP has changed the laydown three times which is a threat to the delivery
date. This is not the case, we have simply gone back and taken the critical steps they missed.
I became a member of the 225 PMT a month after they had already started work. During the first meeting I was
advised that ACE Engineneers were in the field with the TI Bible looking at the desired laydown of fence
locations. OBP and the Sectors had no knowledge of this. I again told them that the TI Bible was a historical
document and fence locations needed to be identified with coordination with the Sectors. It was to late. ACE had
picked and surveyed the locations and because of time constraints they had initially declined to accept any
changes. We pushed back and SBI agreeded to allow us to verify the locations with the Sectors. Some Sector had
different operational needs for fence. This was change number one.
Change two came about when ACE said that they can't build fence in Texas because there were to many red flags.
We disagreed with this but were once again told time and funding were driving this mission.
Sometime later S-1 was given three options because we didn't agree with their laydown. S-1 decided we would go
with the original 370 laydown vs the desired SBInet plan. Once again this is where they say OBP changed the
laydown again.
The claim of change three is connected to change two. I told SBI that the original 370 option needed to be
presented to S-1 with the caveat that there would be no fence in LRT. This was not done and they are claiming
that we have changed it three times now.
You may already know this but I wanted to make sure. There is a lot of historical data that has led us to where we
are today and it is the result of the SMEs not being listened to. I just want you to know that I am focused on the
road ahead but keeping the past in mind so history doesn't repeat its self.
Jeff
From: SELF, JEFFREY ( on behalf of (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Start: Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:30:00 PM
End: Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:00:00 PM
(b)
Can you or Pat go to this?
Jeff
_____________________________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:57 PM
To: (b) (6)
ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; (b)

(6)

When: Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:30 PM-4:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
When: Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:30 PM-4:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Thanks for your support for the PF 225 Communications IPT.
The objectives for Thursday’s meeting are to (1) review the first draft of the communications spreadsheet, identifying stakeholders and
required outreach; (2) discuss what efforts are already taking place; and (3) identify and prioritize our next steps.
I am still waiting for some input on the spreadsheet, so I will send out the latest version just before the meeting. It is currently in
11x17 format, but I will have paper copies at the meeting if you have problems printing it out. Also, if you have any communications
materials or plans, I would very much like to see them.
(b) (6)
From RRB, NP, L Street and 633 3rd Street, please dial (b) (2)
(b) (2)
If there is anyone I may have left off the list, please forward this invitation to them. (Conversely, if you'd like to be left off this list in
the future, please let me know.)
Thank you.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: revised PF225 laydown (Draft)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue May 01 13:18:37 2007
Subject: FW: revised PF225 laydown (Draft)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: revised PF225 laydown (Draft)
(b) (6)
Substantial revision per your instructions on Friday;
Changes from prior (271 mile) laydown:
A) Total here is ~230 miles, which is in line with your instruction to not show buffer;
B) Tucson D6 and El Paso K2B&C are dropped (because they did not show a TI book number);
C) Laredo N1A/B, N2A/B and N4 added back in (because they have a TI book number);
D) Rio Grand Valley ONLY includes O1, O2, O3, O4, O6, O7, O9, and O10 in Rio Grande Valley
does not include O5 (Hidalgo) or O8 (Los Indios), because your map does not show these as
TI book locations.
I'm not real confident the RGV mileage is highly accurate, will need to check.
Have kept all "dropped" segments at the bottom of the worksheet.

(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Date: Friday, May 11, 2007 3:58:39 PM
(b)
(6)
Can you please send(b) a the list of landowners.
(6)
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Hi Jeff,
Can you or someone from OBP (or Army Corps, if they obtained it) please provide this list?
Thanks very much!

(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b)(5)
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

(b)(5),(b)(6)
(b) (6)
Office of Chief Counsel
(b) (6)
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED/ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

This communication might contain communications between attorney and client, communications that are part of the agency deliberative
process, or attorney-work product, all of which are privileged and not subject to disclosure outside the agency or to the public. Please consult
with the Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Customs and Border Protection before disclosing any information contained in this email.
From: (b) (6)

Thanks Jeff.
(b)(5),(b)(6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (5)
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 09 13:37:24 2007
not sure what you weren't looped in on this

(b) (6)
Special Advisor to the Commissioner
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) AD
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) and I can't think of any reason not to give this to Cuellar, but
(6)
then again, it isn't necessarily our role to provide landowner info to a
Congressman.
Should we give it to him or direct him to land commission?
Want to get good direction here before making any moves on tactical
infrastructure right now.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: BP Sectors
You are both more in touch with this issue. I don't know how you want
to proceed with (b)
(6)
From: (b) (6) >
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 09 12:36:43 2007
(b) (6)
As the Department tries to move this Fence Issue from DHS to CBP, the
Congressman will need your assistance. DHS / CBP is now looking at BP as
the front line in outreach .
Since BP will be / is working with the local landowners along the Rio
Grande - Can you get me a list of landowners along the Rio Grande and
contact information for District TX-28?
Thanks
(b) (6)
Senior Advisor
larry.plotkin@mail house.gov
Office of Congressman Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
336 Cannon House Office Building
(b) (6)
http://www.house.gov/cuellar
To receive e-mail newsletters and updates from Congressman Cuellar,
please visit:
http://www.house.gov/cuellar/newsletter-signup.shtml
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:32 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: BP Sectors
(b)
(6)
As requested:
The Texas Sectors going down river (west to east)
El Paso Sector: Paul Beeson Acting CPA / from El Paso (Straddles NM and
TX) in TX up to about (but not including) Sierra Blanca
Marfa Sector: John Smietana CPA / from Sierra Blanca to an area on the
river after Sanderson and before Comstock
Del Rio Sector: Randy Hill CPA / from just up river of Comstock to an
area on the river south of Eagle Pass and north of Laredo
Laredo Sector: Carlos Carrillo CPA / from just north of Laredo to Falcon
Dam south of Zapata
Rio Grande Valley Sector: (b) (6) / from Falcon Dam to the
mouth of the Rio Grande at Boca Chica
Thanks.
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: PF 225
Date: Monday, May 07, 2007 5:54:30 PM
FYI
From: AGUILAR, DAVID V (b) (6)

Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 8:52 PM
To:( SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc:bColburn, Ronald S
Subject: RE: PF 225
Jeff,
One other thing that I would ask for is that Laredo send in a formal request to adjust their TI “Bible”.
This will make for good recordkeeping and tracking.
Same should be done for any other sector making dramatic changes to their original document. I would
also anticipate that somewhere down the road in a full blown SBInet laydown effort we should also be
recording adjustments to our TI requirements based on the SBInet capability enhancements. Maybe
next year’s ORBBP process would be a start ?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6) v]

Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 8:58 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: Aguilar, David V; Colburn, Ronald S
Subject: Re: PF 225
Thanks Jeff. It will be important for us to maintain good records of how this has evolved, as I'm certain it will
continue to evolve and change as we move forward. You are correct to retain the history while looking forward.
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat May 05 20:50:00 2007
Subject: PF 225
Chief,
Now that I have had time to review the e mail storm concerning the PF 225 Communication Plan I would like to
make the following known:
In reviewing the messaging between Greg the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner, yes I did approve the
Communications Plan and do still think it is a viable plan. What's not mentioned in the e mails is my continuous
warnings to SBI that it was not being executed as written. Critical steps were missed and expedited for time
savings. When I found out that ACE was contacting the County Assessors Offices before any outreach had begun I
told them that these communities were close knit and this would get out. I advised that we would be viewed as
being sneaky and under handed. I told SBI that the present execution of this plan was a snowball headed for Hell
and it arrived there last week.
Fence Laydown:
Chief,
This was not executed correctly from the start. SBI was given the TI Bible with the warning that it was outdated
and anything it was used for, OBP should be advised so the SMEs could identify the problems with using it for the
desired purpose. SBI is claiming that OBP has changed the laydown three times which is a threat to the delivery
date. This is not the case, we have simply gone back and taken the critical steps they missed.
I became a member of the 225 PMT a month after they had already started work. During the first meeting I was
advised that ACE Engineneers were in the field with the TI Bible looking at the desired laydown of fence
locations. OBP and the Sectors had no knowledge of this. I again told them that the TI Bible was a historical
document and fence locations needed to be identified with coordination with the Sectors. It was to late. ACE had
picked and surveyed the locations and because of time constraints they had initially declined to accept any
changes. We pushed back and SBI agreeded to allow us to verify the locations with the Sectors. Some Sector had
different operational needs for fence. This was change number one.
Change two came about when ACE said that they can't build fence in Texas because there were to many red flags.
We disagreed with this but were once again told time and funding were driving this mission.
Sometime later S-1 was given three options because we didn't agree with their laydown. S-1 decided we would go
with the original 370 laydown vs the desired SBInet plan. Once again this is where they say OBP changed the
laydown again.
The claim of change three is connected to change two. I told SBI that the original 370 option needed to be
presented to S-1 with the caveat that there would be no fence in LRT. This was not done and they are claiming
that we have changed it three times now.
You may already know this but I wanted to make sure. There is a lot of historical data that has led us to where we
are today and it is the result of the SMEs not being listened to. I just want you to know that I am focused on the
road ahead but keeping the past in mind so history doesn't repeat its self.
Jeff
From: SELF, JEFFREY( on behalf of (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Start: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:30:00 PM
End: Thursday, May 10, 2007 4:00:00 PM
FYI
_____________________________________________
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)

When: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:30 PM-4:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
(b) (2)
From RRB, NP, L Street and 633 3rd Street, please dia(b) (2) only
(b) (2)
Thank you.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: Memo to accompany disks
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 7:34:52 AM
(b)
As soon as we hear from(b)
(6) (west coast time) and he confirms that all is good with that ROE he
(6)Texas Mobile deal then the ROE alone can be sent to (b) (6)
worked on is good for this I want to
get the ROE out to everyone also but let's focus on EPT first. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY D (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 07:26:38 2007
Subject: RE: Memo to accompany disks
Sounds good (b) If (b) is good with it the go with it but tell (b) to send only the ROE and nothing
else. (6) (6) (6)
________________________________
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) jumped in when he found out that PF225 project was expecting EAs and site
assessments (6)to be done under "our patrol ability to enter onto private lands". So as to not bother you
later, if (b) is good with the latest ROE, can we send it out? Thanks.
(b) (6)
(6)
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) ]

Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:53 AM
To: Self, Jeffrey D
Subject: Fw: Memo to accompany disks
Importance: High
Can I get this ROE to the Texas Mobile crew or is there a seperate issue? The Texas Mobile contractors
need to go do site assessments on the 10th. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 06:50:28 2007
Subject: FW: Memo to accompany disks
This should answer your question. I have the disks and DHL mailers in my desk. I can mail it out
today. I just need an accompanying memo, or could send out along with an email. I lack only the
permission to send it. If someone needs it sooner, I could email the file.
________________________________

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)

Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 3:29 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Memo to accompany disks
Chief,
I have looked into the Right of Entry issue. It seems that there was no environmental ROE prior to this
version. One (maybe more) of the sectors have developed ROE to use for environmental purposes on
their own. 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: Fw: Updated PF225 Spreadsheet
Date: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 4:18:23 PM
Are you two treehuggers happy now!

From: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 16:14:39 2007

Subject: RE: Updated PF225 Spreadsheet
Some minor changes: New RE language for SD: "BLM Cooperation Necessary"
Note the date (6-07-07) within the file name. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
(b) (2)
(b) (6)
Project Manager
USACE-PM-ECSO
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY ( ; (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: DRAFT Follow-up Letter
Date: Friday, June 15, 2007 8:57:05 PM
(b)
(6)
For your records and update for your PoC list
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jun 15 12:09:17 2007
Subject: FW: DRAFT Follow-up Letter
(b) ,
(6)
Please put me down as the POC for Outreach instead of (b) (6) I’ve been already working with
(b) (6) and PAO (b) (6) on the outreach.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief Patrol Agent
Yuma, Arizona
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 7:40 AM
To: (b) (6)
Note (b) (6) message, I didn’t know if you’d received it
thanks
(b) (6)
ASSISTANT CHIEF PATROL AGENT
YUMA SECTOR
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: COLBURN, RONALD S (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:22 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: DRAFT Follow-up Letter
FYI

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) BEESON, PAUL A; (b) (6) COLBURN,
(b) (6) FISHER, MIKE J; (b) (6)
GILBERT, ROBERT W; Hill, Randy R; (b) (6)
MANJARREZ, VICTOR M; (b) (6)
SMIETANA, JOHN J; (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D; STEVENS, KEVIN L; (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 13 10:14:07 2007

All,
Good morning. This is an informational message in a proactive effort to assist you in capturing
information that will occur with your inception of “hand delivered” letters that you will be involved with
in the near future. With your decision to distribute letters to land owners/managers by hand, it will be
necessary to document and record the event. In the attachment(s) you will find a word document and
a spread sheet that contains questions that will be necessary to answer and document the information
you and your Outreach Team members have obtained during the visit.
Submission of this information to me electronically should occur on a daily basis until completion of
delivery of all letters.
If you have any question, please do not hesitate to contact me. The format of the documents can be
altered, but the context should remain with the accept ion of additional information you may
recommend to HQOBP. A comment portion to the documents is available for pertinent information that
you feel of value to any particular visit.
Your comments and suggestions are welcomed and anticipated. Please have your suggestions and
comments and alterations to me as soon as physically possible, allowing me time for fabrication and
distribution.
Thanks
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 7:56 AM
To: (b) (6) ; STEVENS, KEVIN L; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Subject: RE: DRAFT Follow-up Letter

Sensitivity: Confidential
Thanks (b)
(6)
I think the file has all the necessary information.
I think it would be a good idea to send it to the sectors for their concurrence as soon as possible.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) STEVENS, KEVIN L; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Good morning. If I recall, it was mentioned and the fact that two individuals would conduct the
delivery. The agents would document the hand delivery, to include delivery, time, place, and name of
recipient should be included in the documentation. With approval, I can get this guidance out to the
sectors. I placed a draft word document in the attachment for your comments. This can be forwarded
to the sectors for completion and submission to HQOBP, and then to USACE.
Please inform of your decision on forward movement.
(b)
(6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; STEVENS, KEVIN L; (b) (6)

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)

To: SELF, JEFFREY D; STEVENS, KEVIN L; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

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)
(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)
RONALD S; (b) (6) FISHER, MIKE J; (b) (6)
MANJARREZ, VICTOR M; (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)

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)

RONALD S; (b) (6) FISHER, MIKE J; (b) (6)
ANJARREZ, VICTOR M; (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)

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: FW - 1 BP Sectors (Redacted) 3 - FW - 8 DRAFT Follow-Up Letter (Redacted) 7

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: FW - 1 BP Sectors (Redacted) 3 - FW - 8 DRAFT Follow-Up Letter (Redacted) 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From: SELF, JEFFREY (

To: (b) (6)

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

not sure what you weren't looped in on this

Should we give it to him or direct him to land commission?

From: (b) (6)

The Texas Sectors going down river (west to east)

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

Late night tasker for your review. Due by 8:00 tomorrow.

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

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

Cc: (b) (6) <DHS Detail>; (b) (6)

HRM, SBI, and OBP,

From: (b) (6)

Please send these instructions to CBP ESEC:

Special Assistant to the Secretary

for Stakeholder Affairs & Information Integration

Department of Homeland Security

Be prepared: www.ready.gov <http://www.ready.gov/>

From: (b) (6)

Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D

From: (b) (6)

Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D

Deadline: COB Tomorrow, Tuesday, June 5, 2007.

Sorry about that.

From: (b) (6)

Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D

National Guard Talking Points (b) (6) )

From: (b) (6)

Jeff - Below are participants invited for tomorrow's call.

Contacted but not Confirmed yet

From: SELF, JEFFREY D

From: (b) (6)

Office of Congressional Affairs

How are we coming with SOP for the contractors?

From: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

What I still don't know is what was originally reported.

From: (b) (6)

Here are your answers and a small ppt map.

From: SELF, JEFFREY D

Total of miles of IBWC fence: 12.5

Total of IBWC fence that serves as primary fence: 8.5

From: BEESON, PAUL A

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

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

I will contact (b) 1st thing Monday to arrange a meeting to discuss

I saw (b) mentionmed in the first couple of emails in this string. Is

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

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

Thanks Greg. (b) will appreciate this. It was part of a brief

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

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

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

As we go to the cost of removing and replacing the section of fencing,

Rear Admiral, RDML

Military Advisor to the Secretary

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

From: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)