OBP004955

From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Border Miles
Date: Friday, January 25, 2008 7:58:46 AM
Attachments: (b) (6)

Attached is an e-mail I sent on 8/30/07.

This issue is not new.

The problem is that SBI TI folks are dabbling in our business rather than taking on whole programs, lock
stock and barrel. For tracking tactical infrastructure that means we are constantly struggling to align
our collection protocols with their collection protocols. In fact, we have not been able to establish
protocols because we never know what SBI is doing or how. This creates chaos.

The bottom line is that we need a single entity in charge of tracking all tactical infrastructure.

Also, it's not just a matter of collecting data with a Trimble. The Trimble GPS is very accurate; however,
we also need to have a protocol for reviewing, processing and merging Trimble data as it will be coming
in from hundreds of different collectors.

I do not believe this issue is as complicated as it sounds. It's just a matter of having centralized
command and control of the program along with clear roles and responsibilities.

(b) (6)

Assistant Chief Patrol Agent (GIS)

Office of Border Patrol

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection

1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Room 6.5E

Washington, DC 20229

(b) (6)

Office (b) (6)

Cell (b) (6)

Fax (b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:56 PM
To: (b) (6) ; SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: Border Miles

With regards to trimbling existing TI, that has already been accomplished and TI weekly reports from
OBP004956

the sectors are prepared to reflect any new construction. This data is collected by our GIS folks to map
and accurately measure. There is no need to go back and "re-collect" the data OBP is reporting since
(b) (b) (6) s Shop and the Sector TI Coordinators have spent many hours verifying all existing TI to
report accurate data.
(6)

(b) (6)
Acting Associate Chief
Office of Border Patrol / Headquarters
Facilities / Tactical Infrastructure Branch
(b) (6) cel
-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 2:46 PM
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Re: Border Miles

(b)
I am reading this string on bb and couldn't find the 2 sets of numbers that were reported, but that has
(6)
been an issue throughout SBI reports. This definitely has to be addressed but no matter who is right or
wrong at this point...an effort to have all of the fencing "trimbled" and verified needs to begin
immediately. Right now, both sides will say they believe they are correct. I believe we can utilize our
agents that have the trimble training to do this. This is going to be an issue more and more as the
PF225 and the various military units are building fence in '08.

I can say that everytime SBI asks for fencing #'s we get them from (b) and (b) . If SBI reports
different #'s without vetting, then that is where the problem lies in this
(6)issue. (6)

Also, the verbiage (way) below from (b) (6) email states that....some of the gains were due to
4 ground surveillance radar systems....the word "mobile" should be added to that so noone assumes we
gained anything from P28 to date.

(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jan 24 14:16:38 2008
Subject: FW: Border Miles

(b) and (b) -

(6) (6)
As you can see from the email string below, we’re having an issue with our fencing numbers not
matching SBI’s numbers. I understand that performance measure was ours for ¾ of the year, but SBI
now owns it and that this issue originally surfaced at the end of FY07. One issue is that the fencing is
intertwined with our “Miles Under Operational Control” measure which is still ours. We wanted to report
our fence numbers in reference to our miles under control success this year, but OPP is insisting that we
change the wording of our explanation of results to match SBI’s reported numbers for the PAR. I know
that we have attempted to get the numbers aligned, but haven’t had much luck. The problem is that
we have reported out our numbers to many different entities, including GAO-types, and now our
numbers will be different in this DHS PAR. It’s a bit of a mess.

I am hoping that you can give me some of the background on this whole numbers not matching issue.
One of us has to correct our numbers and we’d like to sit down and compare reports with SBI so we
can find the discrepancy wherever it is, get it corrected and move on from there. As time goes on it
will only compound and then we’ll all have egg on our face if/when we get called on the carpet for
OBP004957

inaccurate reporting. Any insight that you can give me is much appreciated.

(b)
(6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:45 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Border Miles
Importance: High

(b)
(6)

I met with (b) (6) today to discuss the status of bringing the number discrepancy to resolution.
He advised that although everyone agrees on the critical need to resolve the conflict in the numbers
and align the reporting language both offices are reporting for the Tactical Infrastructure, little progress
has been made. Our TI group has been unable to get an explanation from SBI for how they arrived at
the numbers they reported so that we could consider making the appropriate adjustments to ours and
align for future reporting. In the meantime, we have consistently reported the same cumulative
numbers internally and externally for FY07 end of year and FY08 to date in a number of formal and
informal venues which differ with the SBI reported numbers.

There are obvious consequences to consider but of course the primary one is the cumulative effect that
the conflicting information will have. The level of rework for the current data to align the numbers will
increase over time as well as the number of explanations that will be necessary to our stakeholders if
we cannot bring this to a quick resolution. We will also have to come to agreement on an explanation
for the discrepancy and the action we decided to take to be able to address this for our reporting
venues as well as with the field for a consistent voice that supports accurate reporting as accuracy and
data integrity has been the primary goal for our HQ TI group.

(b) (6)

Program and Management Analyst

Department of Homeland Security

Customs and Border Protection

Office(b) (6)

BBY (b) (6)

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

OBP004958

Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:47 PM

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Border Miles

(b) ,
(6)

Incorporating the two adjustments, the Explanation of Current Year Results (for Border Miles Under
Effective Control) has been changed to the following.

Thanks again for your help on this,

(b)
(6)

Explanation of Current Year Results

Border Patrol exceeded its 524 mile target in FY 2007 through the continued application of the
Border Patrol’s multi-year strategy to deploy the right mix of personnel, tactical infrastructure and
technology to secure our borders. Most of the gains were attributable to the 2,270 new Border Patrol
agents hired during the year. The Border Patrol also received augmentation by National Guard troops
participating in Operation Jump Start (OJS). OJS National Guard troops manned Entry Identification
Teams which brought additional miles of the border under surveillance. The Border Patrol completed
construction of 72.3 miles of fence and 52.5 miles of vehicle fence along the southwest border
enhancing its enforcement capabilities. Finally, the Border Patrol added four ground surveillance radar
systems that greatly enhanced its ability to detect illegal entries in some of the vast, remote areas on
the southwest border.

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:47 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Border Miles

(b) ,
(6)

Unfortunately, we are going to have to change it in FYHSP. Both explanations are being provided to
Congress in the DHS Annual Performance Report and therefore the numbers must be consistent.
OBP004959

Please give me a call if you have questions.

Thanks,

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:31 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Border Miles

Agreed. It was my understanding that SBI would be the reporting office on TI but of course the
difference in the numbers is due to SBI reporting the incorrect numbers at year end and since the
numbers are gathered by the BP field and we have not gone back and “changed” our actuals to match
what was incorrectly reported, we will continue to see the differences. I am meeting with (b)
this afternoon to catch up on what communication may be in progress on this. It(6) may not be
an issue this fiscal if there was agreement on the numbers that I do not know about. I’ll let you know
what info comes out of that discussion.

As far as FY07 end of year, I’m not sure what to submit for a response to PA&E on the difference other
than to just say that there was a difference in the OBP and SBI reported actuals for FY07.

(b) (6)

Program and Management Analyst

Department of Homeland Security

Customs and Border Protection

Office (b) (6)

BBY (b) (6)

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

OBP004960

Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:12 AM

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: CBP comments-Highlights Report

(b) ,
(6)

We received word from DHS letting us know that CBP execsec told them to use SBI’s numbers. I just
wanted to let you know. In the future, we are going to have to figure out a better way for the numbers
from OBP and SBI match.

Thanks,

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:55 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Border Miles

(b) ,
(6)

While these are 2 separate milestones…the fence is a contributor to miles of effective control. Either
way, the fence numbers need to be accurately reported. As this is an FY07 year-end drill the numbers
SBI reported as during the FYHSP update should be used - The TI piece below is correct.

As far as the Effective Control piece….OBP reports on Effective Control – I would note though, that the
TI portion of this milestone should reflect the same numbers used in the TI milestone and should be
changed to read that either DHS or CBP completed construction…..vs BP completed construction.

Does this help?

Let me know if you need anything else.

Thanks,
OBP004961

(b) (6)

Secure Border Initiative

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:23 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Border Miles

Excellent, Thank You.

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 1:48 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Border Miles
Importance: High

(b)
(6)

Here is the entire EOY explanation we submitted at the end of FY07 so you can properly place the
sentence. PA&E had the sentence in bold missing which of course is a significant piece of exceeding 07
targets.

“Border Patrol exceeded its 524 mile target in FY 2007 through the continued application of the Border
Patrol’s multi-year strategy to deploy the right mix of personnel, tactical infrastructure and technology
to secure our borders. Most of the gains were attributable to the 2,270 new Border Patrol agents hired
during the year. The Border Patrol also received augmentation by National Guard troops participating in
Operation Jump Start (OJS). OJS National Guard troops manned Entry Identification Teams which
brought additional miles of the border under surveillance. The Border Patrol completed construction of
approximately 67 miles of fence and 59 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border enhancing
its enforcement capabilities. Finally, the Border Patrol added four ground surveillance radar systems
that greatly enhanced its ability to detect illegal entries in some of the vast, remote areas on the
southwest border.”

(b)
(6)
________________________________
OBP004962

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:33 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Border Miles

Thanks (b)
(6)

I’m fixing it now, where about was this sentence. At the end?

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:11 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Border Miles
Importance: High

The sentence that was part of our explanation of results for Border Miles Under Effective Control, “Most
of the gains were attributable to the 2,270 new Border Patrol agents hired during the year.” Was taken
out of our explanation of results and is key to our gains in FY07”. That should not have been removed.

Will get back to you on the TI a little later.

(b)
(6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:24 AM
To: (b) (6) A
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Border Miles

(b) (6)

We received the below message regarding two CBP performance measures. Can you help clarify which
mileage figure is correct.
OBP004963

Thank you,

(b)
(6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:26 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Border Miles

(b) , will you please take care of this in (b) (6) s absence? You can probably check with(b) (6) and
(b) to determine which stat is correct.
(6)

Thanks.

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:36 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Border Miles

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

There are two CBP measures that have a similar "explanation of current year results" in FYHSP.
However there may be an inconsistency in the number of miles of fence included in the two
explanations:

Border Miles Under Effective Control:

Explanation of Current Year Results

Border Patrol exceeded its 524 mile target in FY 2007 through the continued application of the
Border Patrol’s multi-year strategy to deploy the right mix of personnel, tactical infrastructure and
technology to secure our borders. The Border Patrol also received augmentation by National Guard
troops participating in Operation Jump Start (OJS). OJS National Guard troops manned Entry
Identification Teams which brought additional miles of the border under surveillance. The Border Patrol
completed construction of about 67 miles of new fence and about 59 miles of new vehicle barriers
OBP004964

along the southwest border enhancing its enforcement capabilities. The Border Patrol added four
ground surveillance radar systems that enhanced its ability to detect illegal entries in some of the vast,
remote areas on the southwest border.

Total number of cumulative miles of permanent tactical infrastructure constructed:

Explanation of Current Year Results

In FY 2007, SBI programs completed construction of nearly 155 miles of additional permanent
tactical infrastructure. This includes an additional 72.3 miles of primary fence (for a total of 154.67),
another 20 miles of all-weather roads (for a total of 74.3) were constructed, an additional 52.5 miles
vehicle fence were added (for a total of 109.5), and 10.1 miles of lighting (for a total of 61.7) were
installed on the border to support border enforcement activities. Providing for over 400 miles of tactical
infrastructure.

Can you confirm whether these numbers are consistent? For example, should both measures report the
name number of miles of new fence or is there a distinction in terminology that I am missing? At the
moment we have included the first description above in the Performance Highlights document; please
advise if I need to correct the mileage to match the second explanation.

(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Department of Homeland Security
(b) (6) (Office)
(b) (6) (Mobile)
(b) (6) (Fax)
(b) (6)