CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: RE - P70 AAR (Redacted) 1 - Re - Yuma Project (Redacted) 3

From: GIDDENS, GREGOR(
To: (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY (

Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: P70 AAR
Date: Thursday, October 18, 2007 6:22:38 AM
Will,
I do not think it will be that beneficial and not worth the investment we will have to put in it….
We have gleaned some lessons learned from PF70 (manage materials collectively, not use the NG,
have more contracts that are more incentive based) but at the heart of it we made the PF70 target
because we kept to the meat and potatoes of PM. We will be pressed to make PF225 happen as
well. We have been given extreme timelines and it will not be a comfortable ride.
Greg G
From:(
Sent: bWednesday, October 17, 2007 7:06 PM
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; ADAMS, ROWDY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: P70 AAR
Greg, Rowdy,
(b) (6) brought the folks who created the DHS Lessons Learned and Information Sharing (LLIS)
system (DeticaDFI, essentially an AAR process) to meet with (b) and me a few weeks back to give
us a presentation of the system. CBP has access to and can(6) use it, but apparently no one is really
aware of it. We thought we should consider enlisting them in doing an AAR of P70 to capture lessons
learned to hand off to P225, etc. They’d like to meet with us next week to present the process and
functionality of the system. We (DHS) own the system, so it would be at no cost to us (I’m sure that
down the road they’d love to get some follow-on consulting work out of the deal). I know we’ve all
talked about doing some sort of AAR, and I’m thinking this might provide a useful process to it. Would
you all like to meet with them, should I reach out to (b) (6) or what are your thoughts?
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Director, Office of Policy and Planning
Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY (
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) G
Subject: RE: PF 225
Date: Friday, March 16, 2007 12:03:27 PM
(b) (6)
As per our discussion, I aware of the situation and working it.
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: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF 225 brochure
Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:17:58 PM
Thanks. This is great.

(b) (6)
Director
Border Security Media Division
Office of Public Affairs
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
From:(
Sent: bWednesday, April 18, 2007 12:12 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF 225 brochure
(b)
(6)
These are being printed for use by the sectors while making contacts to the stakeholders. Any way we
can help just ask.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
Office of Border Patrol
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6.5E
Washington, D.C. 20229
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 11:24 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: PF 225 brochure
(b) (6) and (b) ,

(6)
Following up on today's story about the Border Patrol reaching out to land owners in Texas, I
have been made aware of a brochure that has been prepared for use in meeting with the land
owners.
I'd like to get a copy of this brochure as it would be tremendously helpful in crafting Public
Affairs Guidance on this issue. Reaching out to land owners will gain significant attention
I've already received follow up media interest in the below article.
In light of these developments, I'm drafting Public Affairs Guidance as a first step in dealing
with this from the media perspective. Any assistance would be helpful.
(b) (6) I want to confirm you can attend the 2:30 meeting today in room 7.5B. Thanks for
your participation.
Thanks.
(b) (6)
Director
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF 225 Communications IPT
Date: Thursday, June 21, 2007 6:17:03 AM
Are these good to send out to the Sectors ?
Jeff
______ __________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 5:06 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
'SELF, JEFFREY D'; (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF 225 Communications IPT
Good afternoon.
Attached for your awareness are two sets of approved talking points on fence.
The first, larger set was reviewed and approved up through the DHS Deputy Secretary. I may have
provided these to everyone previously. These talking points represent our basic message for fence
outreach.
<< File: Dep Sec Approved Talking Points.doc >>

The second set of talking points, which overlaps with the first, addresses the “consultation” process. A
degree of input from the community is a part of building tactical infrastructure. Since we have promised
to obtain input from the local community, it is important that we identify what that means.
<< File: Additional Messaging - 20070619.doc >>

We can discuss any questions on these talking points at tomorrow afternoon’s meeting.
Thank you.
(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF 225 message
I am good with it being the initial response leading up to the roll-out of the specifics (whenever that
may be).
I have attached some thoughts for the construction of our Sector PAO statement.
The Border Patrol has been actively involved from the start with defining which areas along
the international boundary are the most operationally significant for achieving the
Department of Homeland Security’s mission of securing America’s borders. There are many
components used to achieve this security and their applications vary from area to area.
Components such as all-weather border access roads, remote video surveillance camera
systems, ground radar and fencing projects help provide the Border Patrol Agents with the
edge in gaining and maintaining security of the border area. The landowners and land
managing entities of these areas and the surrounding areas are currently being consulted
with regarding the application of these types of components.
This is the long winded statements but I wanted to give you enough to be dangerous. The
message will need to be applicable to all sectors and give an across the board response when
handling the beginning waves of media and local calls.
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 4:55 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: PF 225 message
Following up on our meeting. For today, I'm prepared to say the below until we get closer to
formal discussions when we can be more specific...
Landowners on the border in many cases are the first to feel the effects of illegal cross border
activity as border crossers, smugglers and criminals leave behind trash, vandalize and commit
crimes on their property. CBP is committed to working with affected landowners to ensure
they are fully aware of our efforts to gain and maintain effective control of the border.
CBP Border Patrol continues to reach out to landowners with property on the border as part
of an ongoing effort to maintain awareness of CBP's efforts to gain effective control of the
border through the Secure Border Initiative. SBI calls for the right mix of personnel,
technology and infrastructure and in some cases, the deployment of these components may
affect some landowners along the international boundary. We see landowners as partners
in our strategy to gain effective control of the border and we are making every effort to keep
them informed as we move forward on implementing SBI.
Any concerns?
(b) (6)
Director
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF 225 Phase I - Agency Coordination Letters
Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:20:25 PM
(b)
(6)
The letters were not attached. I see the "letters" in the messages below but they cannot be opened. I
am not sure if the forwarding process cut them out.
(b)
(6)
-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:55 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF 225 Phase I - Agency Coordination Letters
Good morning (b) (6) Per (b) please review the letters and provide comments back to (b) (6) . Please
(6)appropriate sector POCs.
forward the information to
(b) please ensure we are good to release.

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

Subject: PF 225 Phase I - Agency Coordination Letters
(b)
(6)
Attached are agency letters I have prepared for signature thus far based on the Organ Pipe letter you
provided comments to. I took a guess on the OBP POC at the Sector based on what is currently on
their web site. Please review and provide comments as necessary. Once I receive your comments, I
shall go final on these and prepare for signature and distribution. You have seen those for the Ajo
already.
Ajo:
(b) (2)
Calexico
(b) (2)
Deming
(b) (2)
El Paso
(b) (2)
Santa Teresa
(b) (2)
I still owe you letters for Nogales.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PLANNER
ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT OFFICE
819 TAYLOR STREET, ROOM 3A28

PO BOX 17300
FORT WORTH, TX 76102
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF 225 ROE for Survey and Exploration
Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:31:42 PM
What acquisition?

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 12 15:29:59 2007
Subject: Re: PF 225 ROE for Survey and Exploration
(b) (5) (b) wrote me a few minutes ago asking the

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

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 12 15:25:53 2007
Subject: Fw: PF 225 ROE for Survey and Exploration
(b) ,
(6)
Is this the enviro ROE?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 12 15:24:44 2007
Subject: PF 225 ROE for Survey and Exploration
(b)
(6)
Do you know the status of BP's ROE for Survey and Exploration effort ?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF 225 Roll Out
Date: Friday, April 20, 2007 11:57:11 AM
That is correct from the Border Patrol side.
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 11:55 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF 225 Roll Out
Good afternoon.
Attached are the state maps of fencing for the PF 225 roll out.
For Congress and State we are using the maps that do not show the SFA.
For the Border Patrol, we are using the maps that show the SFA. The Border Patrol will include the
maps as part of their PowerPoint presentation, which will not be left with anyone, only showed at
individual or group meetings.
Please let me know if I am mistaken.
More to follow.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF-225 AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Date: Monday, June 25, 2007 5:40:27 PM
They should focus on the owners with land adjacent but identifying all is important.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 25 17:35:17 2007
Subject: PF-225 AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH
(b) (6) ,
I just received a call from (b) (6) in regards PF-225 Community Outreach. His question is do
they (Yuma Sector) need to reach out to all land owners in the area of the Colorado River or just the
ones that have land along the river. There are just a few private land owners that have land adjacent
to the river but several land owners within the River area IE, other side of the levee.
If you have any questions, please give me a call and I can explain.
Thanks, (b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Acting Assistant Chief
CBP-Office of Border Patrol
1300 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 6.5E
Washington, DC 20229
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF-225
Date: Friday, June 08, 2007 7:28:31 AM
It probably was an add on but the sector should've seen it before. Do they want it?

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jun 08 07:23:59 2007
Subject: FW: PF-225
(b)
(6)
I checked the latest version of the lay down that (b) sent me and Yuma does have fence along the
Colorado River Corridor. Has there been any change(6) that you know of?
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 6:41 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF-225
Gents,
Chief Colburn asked that I reach out to you to ascertain whether the proposed 15 miles of primary
fence along the Colorado River, here in Yuma, is actually part of PF-225. That fence was not part of the
sector's original plan but it is suspected that it came in play earlier this year when OBP was required to
identify additional fence placement to meet the 370 mile requirement. This will be important to know in
that a large portion of the Colorado River in our AOR is tribal land.
Thanks
(b)
(6)
To: VITIELLO, RONALD ( (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY(
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Lay Down Justification
Date: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:27:26 PM
Chief's
Allow me to clarify. Not only will this serve as a tracking mechanism but it is also to serve as a historical
record of operational needs being conveyed to SBI, SBInet and ACE that can't be met for one reason or
another. We're trying to track what were getting vs. what we need and why we need it. Sorry for the
confusion.
Jeff
From: VITIELLO, RONALD D
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:33 AM
To: (b) (6) ; SELF, JEFFREY D; ADAMS, ROWDY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Lay Down Justification
Sirs,
We expect to clarify these issues today (0900). RGV has indicated that as per their more detailed
evaluation, by PAICs with planners, (WED) along with some elaboration on additional capacity increases,
they will be returning to plans inclusive of construction on the levy. Let's meet and unify our
consultation to RGV and offer our assistance in developing their requirements. What is the planning
deadline? To whom?
Ronald D. Vitiello
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; VITIELLO, RONALD D
Subject: Re: PF225 Lay Down Justification
Guys,
We do need to build the proper justifications, but we also need to clear up some serious
misunderstandings between us and SBI on how this all came about. The message below indicates that
RGV moved their requirements from the levee to the riverbank, making the project untenable for Army
Corps. As I understand it, RGV planners had always wanted the fence on the riverbank and built their
oplans around that, and the change to the levee came after the engineers advised RGV that the
riverbank wasn't doable.
Also, SBI needs to understand that some of the changes from the TI bible came about after we asked
the sectors to identify more miles of fencing tha could be built to help with the project.
If my understanding is inaccurate I'll accept the hit, but we cant allow people to misrepresent how this
unfolded and lay the issues at the feet of our field planners.

From: SELF, JEFFREY D
To: VITIELLO, RONALD D
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu May 10 06:36:41 2007
Subject: FW: PF225 Lay Down Justification
Ron,
Can you get this out.
Jeff
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 5:03 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: PF225 Lay Down Justification
Sir,
Per Chief Aguilar’s direction, HQ is requesting justification from the Laredo and Rio Grande Valley
Sectors regarding their changes to the PF225 lay down. These changes are substantially different from
the Tactical Infrastructure Requirements Document (also known as the TI Bible). These sectors need to
provide further clarification on changes to their operational requirements which will in turn, assist HQ in
supporting their positions.
Laredo Sector requested that no fencing be placed in their AOR due to their ongoing EIS for the Carrizo
Cane Eradication Project. Further clarification is needed on other potential issues that could possibly
impact operations, access and relations with the City of Laredo and other agencies.
Rio Grande Valley completely changed their fencing alignment by moving fence from the levee to the
riverbank. Army Corps of Engineers has raised numerous issues to include: building on the flood plain,
possible treaty violations, lack of access roads to support construction and the presence of endangered
species. From discussions with the RGV TI folks, they are aware of all of these issues but are more
concerned about the concession of land to Mexico. It is possible that the obstacles involved with the
realignment will be “show stoppers” based on the parameters of the project. If it gets to that point, will
the sector support building the fence back north onto the levee? Either way, a detailed explanation will
be necessary to support the sector requirement.
(b) (6)
SBInet Liaison
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Phase 1 Project Assessments
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:47:43 PM
(b)
(6)
I'll have an answer for you tomorrow in the early (b)
(6)
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:56 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: PF225 Phase 1 Project Assessments
Jeff, As we began discussing yesterday and continued today!!…..last week during the Dallas
PF225 Kickoff Meeting we recognized we will not have adequate time to obtain Right of
Entry documents signed by the property owner to meet the very short timeline for PF225. It
was recommended that the person (USACE/CBP Engineer) performing the Phase 1 project
evaluation could under existing authorities “review and assess potential changes along the
border” by riding with a Border Patrol Agent on the course of a routine patrol to make a
visual inspection of the area that will be impacted by the Border Fence.
For the Phase 1 investigation (Look & See), the “engineer” riding with the agent will stay in
the patrol vehicle, not be taking any samples or engaging with public/landowners etc. If and
when it becomes necessary for a Phase 2 investigation (Suvery & Sample), a signed Right of
Entry will be required.
At the kickoff meeting closeout last Friday this process to obtain Phase 1 information was
briefed to several SBI/OBP Execs including (b) (6)
(b) (5)
I request you precede with these Phase 1 investigations and have the agents
manage any “risk” on a case by case basis during these patrols so we can move this project
quickly thought the critical System Requirement Review (SRR) phase.
With your concurrence I will pass along this process to right CBP folks so everyone knows
the intent and scope of this activity. I’d like to have these “ride-alongs” done by 22 March
07 to support the SRR scheduled for 27 March 07.
Pls advise soonest. Thanks, (b)

(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Phase I access roads.
Great! (b) and I were discussing the need for these conversations to take place.
(6)
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: PF225 Phase I access roads.
Just wanted to let you know our Districts are contacting Sector POCs to ensure that Phase I access
roads have been considered in the outreach effort. This will dovetail with the collection of outreach
data from the sectors.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF225 Q&A
Date: Saturday, April 21, 2007 9:23:58 AM
(b)
(6)
I think that you are correct. Your addition and the fact that the BP is the path for any concerns or
problems should they arise. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) L
Sent: Sat Apr 21 08:54:55 2007
Subject: PF225 Q&A
Good morning gents.
There is a question on the PF 225 Q&A I want to run by you.
Q: Will there be a designated official from the government (Border Patrol, DHS, etc.) accompanying the
contractors?
A: Not at all times.
While we will not always be there, I’d like to tell them that they are not going to be left out in the cold.
In our answer, could we add something along the lines of:
However, you can always contact the Border Patrol if you have questions or concerns.
Please let me know what you think/suggest alternate language.
Thanks.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF225 spreadsheet
Date: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 11:02:45 AM
He is the 2nd in charge of SBInet. The agents that drink the koolaid work for him. Yeah, (b) needs
to get that fixed and ASAP. Let me know if you haven't heard anything by noon. (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 10:57:41 2007
Subject: PF225 spreadsheet
(b)
(6)
Just so you know, I have not heard back from (b) (6) yet regarding my request for the spreadsheet
update. I suspect that the battle over the spreadsheet is not over, and will reengage at the meeting
this afternoon. I plan to go in and tell whoever it is with a problem that OBP must have the product as
it was prior to the recent changes. I have been told by Chief Self in no uncertain terms that is exactly
how he wants it, and I personally need it yesterday. A little insight into who (b) (6) is might be
useful, though I can not allow it to change my message.
(b)
(6)
From: SELF JEFFREY (
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 Spreadsheets
Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:55:34 PM
Let me explain.
$#^%*&&_&)*&*%%$&(*(()_+(__&$%$$#@$#&^^&&&)*)_(_)(*^**&&)(*_$%$#@%**)(*%%#@$%&)(())(*&$#$#@,
this is how it was explained to me.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY
D
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
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:52 AM
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
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 (b) is in El Paso.
Thanks
(b) (6)
Tucson Sector
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:51 AM
To: (b) (6)
SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
(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: SELF, JEFFREY(
To: (b) (6)
Cc: AGUILAR, DAVID ( (b) (6) COLBURN, RONALD (
Subject: RE: PF225 summary per PM review today
Date: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 5:55:49 AM
(b)
(6)
Here's the problem I see with this. As PMT 225 make these changes they need to keep in mind the
historical messaging that has gone out. We have consistently told the Nation, the Hill, S-1 and S-2
that we will build 225 miles of fence in 08. Now we're saying we will build 213 miles in 08. We can
speak to the fact that we our ahead of schedule and built 12 miles of the 08 225 project in 07 but I
don't think we will get much mileage out of it. We're going to be viewed as not being true to our word
and not up to the task of securing our borders and possibly being told that we're going to 225 miles in
08 regardless of how much fence we built in 07. Please speak to(b) (6) this.
Jeff
From: (b) (6) RY B.

Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 7:11 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: FW: PF225 summary per PM review today
Not that you didn’t have anything else to worry about but here’s the issue I spoke to you about. After
talking with(b) (6) it appears that they are just moving fence segments from one project to
another. They moved two pieces out of the PF225. One segment was placed into the “existing fence”
project category and the other was put under the P70 project. The three projects (PF225, P70 &
existing fence) still add up to the required 370. However, the PF225 is now listed as 213. Should I
make an issue of this? The fence will still be built, just as part of a different project.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: PF225 summary per PM review today
(b) why don’t we place the Douglas segment back on the list since this was next in priority on the
(6)
overall list and it will give us those few miles to be built in the low hanging fruit category? We can then
present it to OBP for their signature as long as these meet their prioritized requirements.
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) t
Subject: PF225 summary per PM review today
(b) (6): This is my understanding of PF225 distances and segments; please check my understanding
and provide concurrence.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: ADAMS, ROWDY (
Subject: RE: PF70 Question
Date: Thursday, November 08, 2007 4:12:20 PM
Rowdy - I believe it was you who added the three individuals; they were not on the original list; my
understanding is that (b) concurs with the assessment that these individuals had very little
(6)
involvement in PF70 (sounds like their heavy lifting has been with PF225; not PF70) and therefore
should not be part of the tier 1 recognized group. Based on what I am hearing, it appears it would be
inappropriate to include them in the PF70 unit citation. Please let me know as soon as possible if you
concur. Thank you.
From: ADAMS, ROWDY D
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:57 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: PF70 Question
No bother. I was on stage until just moments ago.
1. What is the issue with the titles? My inclination is to provide the titles as a way of recognizing what
the individual part was to the overall effort.
2 (b) (6) and(b) were doing the coordination with the BP Field components from 6th fl. The
(6)who should be recognized was left to (b) (6)
original question of as program manager for PF70. As
the government person responsible, it is his decision who should be recognized. Although (b) (6) was
heavily involved in the effort, she was not privy to all the component pieces. I agree with (b) (6) to a
tier 2 move from the perspective of Knowing what part she played (basically providing a person to
assist).
Headed to airport. Call if you wish to discuss further....
Rowdy

From: (b) (6)
To: ADAMS, ROWDY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Nov 08 11:04:23 2007
Subject: PF70 Question
Mr. Adams,
I know you are planning on calling(b) (6) later regarding our PF70 question, but we thought that maybe
we should just email you.
Issue (1): The normal Unit Citation has a position title under the recipients name. (b) (6) would rather
not have their PF70 titles listed and would like your thoughts on the subject before we submit
Issue (2): In the process of getting proper PF70 titles, it was brought to our attention that (b)
and (b) (6) had very little involvement with PF70. (b) (6) has
relayed to us that these individuals only attended a few meetings at the very end, and that maybe
these guys were inadvertently added because of their immense involvement with PF225. Additionally,
(b) (6) only contribution was one report (reportedly). It is our suggestion that these
individuals be moved to Tier 2 or removed completely.
I apologize for bothering you during your seminar, but we are being told that the engravers are on
stand-by waiting for our list of honorees, in order to facilitate a timely return of the plaques.
Please advise.
Thank you,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Special Assistant to
Director of Mission Support

Dept of Homeland Security
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: 1st set of site visits for Phase II of PF 225
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:51:23 PM
No, I missed .91 for TCA
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:50 PM
To (b) (6)
Subject: Re: 1st set of site visits for Phase II of PF 225
Entire SWB?

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Engineering and Construction Support Office
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Preliminary Final Maps
Date: Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:57:41 AM
That’s a good idea. We have to stay on top of the “living” laydown.
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Preliminary Final Maps
(b)
(6)
Looks like USACE has a way to get the laydown for P225 to Boeing after SBInet gives the approval. I
would also like to review these USACE maps with (b) and make sure it is still the same fencing that
the Sectors agreed to on our P225 spreadsheets. (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 6:29 PM
To: (b) (6) J
(b) and (b)

(6) (6)
Looks like (b) may have an efficient way to share over at least PF-225 fence information to Boeing.
(6)
Is this a feasible method for us to share info about PF-225 and PF-70 fence info for the multiple
sectors?
Thank you,
(b) (6)
CBP SBInet Project Manager
Ronald Reagan Bldg Room 7.5B
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:41 AM
To: (b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:15 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: scott.recinos@cbp.gov
(b) (6) & (b)

(6)
The link below will get you access to the PF225 maps with hybrid fence laydown locations we are
planning to cover in our NEPA documents. The vehicle Barriers we plan to address are the 462 mi (+/-
) called for in the TI handbook.
Please limit the distribution of this information. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Thanks
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6) ]

Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 5:40 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Preliminary Final Maps
The most current project maps have been uploaded to the USACE ftp site. IPT leaders, if SBI gives
final approval on the 4-26-07 list this week, these maps can then be distributed to your IPT teams.
(b)(2),(b)(6)
The maps are located in the Maps 1-5 zip folders
(b) (6)
Project Manager
USACE-PM-ECSO
(b) (6)
To: COLBURN, RONALD(
Subject: RE: Presentation that CBP will give tomorrow in Phoenix -- FYI
Date: Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:06:49 AM
10-4 Chief.
Jeff
From: COLBURN, RONALD S
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:56 AM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: RE: Presentation that CBP will give tomorrow in Phoenix -- FYI
Jeff,
I agree. To the Border Patrol's advantage, we won't change our message. SBI, and politics of the day
may "win out" sometimes (PF-225 & P-37), but our message should not change, even if they brief it.
That way, there is clear record and delineation as to where the program goes "off the path."
I forwarded your thoughts to Ron Vitiello, since he will be there.
Ron C.
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:11 AM
To: COLBURN, RONALD S
Cc: (b) (6) ; AGUILAR, DAVID V
Subject: FW: Presentation that CBP will give tomorrow in Phoenix -- FYI
Chief Colburn,
The attachment is the presentation being used by Greg to brief the Arizona State House. When Greg
and I briefed Senator Sessions on Tuesday we used the Border Calculus Slides on page 20,21 and 22. I
have concerns with using the border calculus slides, please see the following:
When we speak to Border Calculus we brief that fences will be built in the urban areas to display traffic
in the rural and remote areas where technologies will be deployed to detect, identify, and classify
allowing agents to respond and resolve. The problem with briefing Border Calculus is that we know
through P225 meetings and the SRR the likelihood of building fences in the urban areas is minimal due
to the high cost of purchasing the land and access issues. What we know and what we're saying are to
different things. My concern is that we're going to held to what we're saying. My suggestion is that we
go easy on speaking to Border Calculus. Just a thought.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ; 'GIDDENS, GREGORY'
Subject: Presentation that CBP will give tomorrow in Phoenix -- FYI
Hello and good afternoon
I wanted to send you a copy of the presentation that Greg Giddens will be giving tomorrow in Phoenix
to the House and Senate leadership and minority (see attached). As you will see, it is very similar to the
presentations that we have given to the Governor and to you.
On another note, I know that the CBP Chief of Staff has been talking to the Governor's Chief of Staff
re: an upcoming tour for you and the Governor, to see some of the Secure Border Initiative
deployments. I don’t believe that there has been a date identified, as yet, but as soon as I know
something, I will pass this along to you (wanted you to be sure that you didn’t think that I had
forgotten about this!)
Hope that you are well and look forward to seeing you sometime soon. In the meantime, pls let me
know if you need additional information.
(b) (6)
Department of Homeland Security
Special Advisor to the Commissioner
(b) (6)
To: COLBURN, RONALD( S (b) (6)
Cc: AGUILAR, DAVID (
Subject: RE: Project 225
Date: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:39:27 PM
Chief,
First I heard of it was yesterday. My take on it is that it just creates an additional obstacle that we will
have to overcome. Just my thoughts. The PMTs thought process is that they need it to make the Dec.
08 deadline.
Jeff
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:23 PM
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: AGUILAR, DAVID V
Subject: Re: Project 225
This is the first I've heard of a half-mile to a mile off-set for barriers in AZ.
Ron

From: (b) (6) L
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: AGUILAR, DAVID V; COLBURN, RONALD S
Sent: Thu Mar 22 16:59:06 2007
Subject: Re: Project 225
Jeff,
Regarding the pedestrian fence vs what they are building. I was told that they feel that keeping a
standard fence style will cost less in the long run than changing to pedestrian-only fence in urban
areas. As I understand it, their design is a pedestrian fence with a support structure that will stop
vehicles. As far as I'm concerned, as long as what they build will work for pedestrians, if the
superstructure also stops vehicles it would just be a bit of overkill in areas where vehicles can't travel.
As long as the fence style meets our operational needs, we shouldn't press too hard to have them try to
put up two different types.
On the ESC and the strategy, they did approve the laydown that the team had recommended for the
southern border followed by the northern border, maintaining the option to do the South/North mix if
politics change. .
Don't think we've talked about the union/training issue. We should discuss that with LER.
I'm concerned about them skipping sections for speed and deciding not to go for the ROEs, but I'm in
agreement with Chief Aguilar that there may be some things they will need to learn for themselves. I
think we need to sit and talk about the 1 mile offset because of the political issues we've been
discussing lately.
Thanks for the update,
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: AGUILAR, DAVID V; COLBURN, RONALD S
Sent: Thu Mar 22 16:07:44 2007
Subject: Project 225
Chief,
Situational Awareness Report:
(b)(5), (b)(6)
(b) (5)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Project List UPDATED
(b) ,
(6)
Looks good. Can you print 7 sets of these for today’s meeting? Thanks.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 9:27 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Project List UPDATED
Importance: High
With update
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 8:46 AM
To: (b) (6)
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) (5)
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

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) (5) )
ELC – 4.52 miles
SDC – 9.92 miles

2.33 mi. have been identified as needing the cooperation of (b) (NOT a given for projects within San
(6)
Diego Sector.)
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 (
Subject: Re: TRO for all projects in Arizona
Date: Saturday, November 03, 2007 7:14:52 PM
I love you. Thanks. (b)

(6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Nov 03 19:11:54 2007
(b) (5)

From: (b) (6)
To: ADAMS, ROWDY D
Cc:(b) (6)
Sent: Sat Nov 03 17:13:43 2007
Subject: Fw: TRO for all projects in Arizona
(b) (5)
Thanks. (b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Sent: Sat Nov 03 16:42:36 2007
(b)(5),(b)(6)
Thanks,
(b) (6)
Office of Chief Counsel, CBP

(b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
<Jeffrey.Self(b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; B(b) (6)
Sent: Sat Nov 03 10:53:07 2007

(b)(5), (b)(6)
Rowdy
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6) Adams, Rowdy D(b) (6)
Sent: Sat Nov 03 10:44:18 2007
FYI

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
(b) (6)
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,
(b) (5)
Thanks
(b) (6)
Tucson Sector
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
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)
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)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 6:04 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

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.
From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
CC: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Nov 01 17:34:14 2007
Thanks.
(b)(5), (b)(6)
Thanks
E(b
)
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
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)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Property Acquisition
(b)
(6)
I'm not saying your wrong, all I can say is that this situation is bigger than you and me. The lease
option was decided at the highest levels.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 1:41 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Property Acquisition
Importance: High
Sir,
(b)(5), (b)(6)
Food for thought,
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Requirements meeting
Date: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:01:37 PM
(b)
(6)
Put him where you benefit the most from him. Your call.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 12:49 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Great, We’ll get them connected into the business rhythm…I’ll assume (b) will work with the FEIT.
(6) Mgmnt) keep them informed
I’ll have the other IPTs (Real Estate, Environmental, Design/Construction,
of relevant issues and we’ll make sure your team has the opportunity to see all the IPT minutes. Tks

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:27 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Requirements meeting
(b)
(6)
Primary for these meetings will be (b) (6) and Secondary will be (b) (6)
Thanks, Jeff
From: (b) (6)

To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Jeff, Per our PF225 org chart OBP has an important role on the Fencing Engineering and Integration
Team (FEIT)….that group meets every Tuesday for 1 hour….see the attached minutes from last week’s
mtg. We need you to assign an OBP rep to that group soonest. That rep can also serve as your
“alternate” should you have to miss a PMT mtg. In general the more of your folks we get involved in
this project the better chance things will go well…. Pls let me know who you are able to assign??
For the meeting today….just show up….we’ll see review the current technical requirements and see
how the ride-along surveys are going…bring you alternate if able.
Tks, (b)
(6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: Requirements meeting
(b)
(6)
Do I owe you something at today's requirements meeting other than me showing up?
Jeff
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: RGV Op Plan
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 2:32:42 PM
(b)
(6)
I am trying to read this on bb. Is this the document that shows where you will need gates and how you
operate "south" of the fenced areas in those places where the fence will be built off of the line? What I
could read seems on track.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 14:18:02 2007
Subject: RGV Op Plan
(b)
(6)
Attached you will find RGV’s plan to address operational requirements when the proposed fence projects
are completed. Please call should you have any questions.
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: When do you plan to get to the RRB?
10-4. An interesting thing came up. You'll recall I asked the Sectors to send me the info for only fence
footprint land owners. SDC now has a grand total of 1 land owner, and that is BLM. That sounds sort
of shocking, and initially I thought perhaps we should go back to the way we were doing things...but
after some thought...if we can build within the 60' Roosevelt Reservation we don't have NEARLY the
issues. Obviously there will be some areas where it will be much cheaper to have some more temp
easement for construction, however it may be worth paying a bit more for a company to build within the
60' and roll on through the construction. Also, we can get easement where it is easy without slowing
down construction as long as NEPA documents show the entire area we might use.
The main thing I need is to know what Chief Self wants shown in the reports. I see a huge difference
in reporting a project as red due to an easement we might be able to do without and reporting it as red
due to a fence footprint owner saying he won't sell to us. I need a bit of direction here. The issue is
really not that cut and dried when you consider the RGV with it's owners S of the proposed fence
location, and there are more examples.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: When do you plan to get to the RRB?
Don't know. This is taking awhile longer than expected.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Jun 25 15:18:24 2007
Subject: When do you plan to get to the RRB?
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY(
Subject: Re: SBI Meeting in EPT
(b) (5)
This secondary meeting is to help set-up future interactions for PF225
projects. (b) (6) was setting up this secondary meeting.

From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Thu Jun 28 11:03:59 2007
Subject: SBI Meeting in EPT
(b)
(6)
Just received a call from (b) (6) in MAR about a supposed meeting in EPT today with the Corp
and IBWC concerning fencing. He believes that it is imperative that MAR be part of any discussions (or
their concerns known) relating to fencing along the Rio Grande. Is this meeting about the Rio Grande
or replacing the EPT fence in Mexico (Deming Corridor)?
Thanks,
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: SBInet Border Fence mtg. w/ S1
10-4 Chief.

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Wed May 09 20:02:43 2007
Subject: FW: SBInet Border Fence mtg. w/ S1
Jeff,
In addition to the other things on your plate tomorrow, I need you to attend a meeting with S-1 at the
NAC at 10am tomorrow. You will be attending with C-2 and Greg Giddens and the topic will be fence.
Can you take it? If so, please meet C-2 and Greg at the 14th street entrance at 0930 so you can travel
over with them and pre-brief enroute.
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: 'GIDDENS, GREGORY'
Subject: RE: SBInet Border Fence mtg. w/ S1
We will leave here for the NAC at 9:30. If you're sending someone, he can ride with Greg and me.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
I'm confusing myself. I just got a message from (b) (6) indicating 0930 for the meeting. Is that the
time its scheduled?
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
I read it the same way. I'll arrange for someone to attend from this office.
Greg,
If I remember correctly, you and Jeff Self are supposed to be on the Hill from 1 to 3 tomorrow. I
assume you will break from there and go to the NAC? If so, I may just have Jeff go over with you. If
Jeff is unable to make it I will ask Ron Vitiello.
Let me know and I'll make the assignment.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: GIDDENS, GREGORY
I read this to mean that you should send someone. See if you agree.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: SBInet Border Fence mtg. w/ S1
Looks like it is on. Ill confirm when this mtg was actually moved

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 09 19:33:08 2007
Subject: Fw: SBInet Border Fence mtg. w/ S1
FYI
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 09 19:02:01 2007
Subject: Re: SBInet Border Fence mtg. w/ S1
I spoke w/ (b) (6) earlier today -- This mtg was changed prior to 4:00 this afternoon. I believe
it was changed prior to today -- re: (b) attending for Basham (b) (6) approved) and since (b) (6)
were unable to attend - per (b) (6) (6) - we asked that a surrogate attend.
Since Greg is confirmed to attend and a CoS approved CBP member can attend w/ representation from
the Chief's office the meeting was not rescheduled for tomorrow. S1 is on intl travel beginning Friday so
this seems toi be the "best/possibly only" time.
(b) does prefer to have Basham and Greg in every meeting; not necessarily the Chief.
(6)
Hope this helps clear things up.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 09 18:29:32 2007
See below from CBP – apparently we switched timing on ref SBI meeting tomorrow; our new time runs
afoul of previous Commissioner plans to be on Hill. Need to respond to CBP on meeting status per
below.
(b) (6)
Deputy Chief of Staff
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: SBInet Border Fence mtg. w/ S1
(b) (6)
Thank you so much for your help on this
At this time the principals for this meeting (Comm. Basham and Chief Aguilar/(b) (6)
are both unavailable to attend and from our understanding, if they are unable to attend this
meeting it should not take place. The Deputy Commissioner is able to attend if necessary.
The meeting was originally scheduled for 330pm tomorrow in which the Commissioner was available to
attend, but since it was changed at 4pm this evening he has since become unable to attend.
Please let me know if this meeting will still take place or will be cancelled due to the lack of principals.
I appreciate any guidance you can provide, sorry for asking at such a late hour !
Thank You
(b) (6)
Office of the Deputy Commissioner

(b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ; VITIELLO, RONALD (
Subject: Re: SBInet Fence/Communication Messaging - Giddens, (b) (6)
10-4 Chief.

From: (b) (6) NL
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; VITIELLO, RONALD D
Sent: Wed May 16 20:57:09 2007
Subject: FW: SBInet Fence/Communication Messaging - Giddens, (b) (6)
Jeff, Ron,
Please be prepared to attend the below 9am meeting with me tomorrow in the Deputy Commissioner's
office.
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ; GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: SBInet Fence/Communication Messaging - Giddens, (b) (6)
PLEASE BE SURE TO BRING YOUR UPDATES TO THE OUTREACH PLAN AS WELL AS THE TALKING
POINTS.
Thank You
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Subject: SBInet Fence/Communication Messaging - Giddens, (b) (6)
Importance: High
THE ABOVE SUBJECT MEETING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW (5/17) @ 9AM, PLEASE
ADJUST YOUR CALENDARS ACCORDINGLY.
Thank You
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: RESEND of Earlier EMAIL: REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR SBInet OUTREACH
Date: Sunday, May 06, 2007 2:34:21 PM
(b) (6)
At the time of this writing, we are setting up an information bank in our Sector Website. Each Station
will be able to input their contact/stakeholder information into this site where data totals, as well as
other pertinent information will be easily accessed for this weekly report.
I do not have a total number of private land owners that may be affected or have interest in SBInet. I
am not sure who needs to be included in this number. I’ll contact you Monday so I’ll be clear on the
response. However, I have received a partial set of numbers from some of the Ranch Liaison Unit.
45 private landowners have been contacted

7 have identified a concern
6 miles of concern area
I have received a partial accounting on public lands:
3 entities
1 contacted
? concern
May be 20 miles of concern area
I have sent this to meet the deadline, I am sure to have everyone’s numbers to send Friday.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 8:41 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RESEND of Earlier EMAIL: REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR SBInet OUTREACH
Outreach POCs,
As this process continues, many of the program managers are requiring somewhat specific information
in order to brief the Commissioner and the Secretary. The information you have been and continue to
provide is being used to evaluate not only progress but direction for the project.
SBInet is requesting that all Border Patrol Sectors within the PF-225 footprint, to supply HQ with
quantitative information weekly. Please complete all highlighted information and return it to me by no
later than Monday May 7 th . Updates of this information will be due by the close of business every
Friday until the project is complete.
The information being requested is simply totals of what you have been compiling since your Outreach
Workshop. This should be essentially a fill in the blank. I would ask all SWB sectors to complete this
requirement. They have been asking for information on all of the SWB sectors.
Any questions or concerns then please contact me at the numbers listed below.
Thanks in advance.
PRIVATE LANDOWNERS (all non-federally owned land)
Number………………………..…X
Number contacted……............X
Number of concern……...........X
Number of miles of concern.....X
PUBLIC LANDOWNERS (only federally owned land)
Number………………………..…X
Number contacted……............X
Number of concern……...........X
Number of miles of concern.....X
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: SBInet Rollout
Date: Friday, May 18, 2007 6:14:50 AM
(b) (6)
I have no problem with getting him the information and even having him participate in the
Communications IPT but he should not be getting any word out to the tribes. All messaging concerning
SBInet are being formulated and sent by the IPT.
Thanks,
Jeff
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: SBInet Rollout
(b)
(6)
(b) (6) came to talk with me about SBInet. He works in SPEC Ops and handles Native American
issues. He would like to get a schedule of locations where SBInet plans to deploy resources. His
concern is the same as what we have been dealing with over the past three weeks - getting the RIGHT
word out to the tribes before something blows up.
He already knows about P28, P37, PF225, etc. He is mostly interested in northern border locations. We
all understand that future SBInet planning is akin trying to nail Jello to the wall. Having said that, can
we get a tentative roll-out schedule for SBInet for the next 2-3 years? Point me to whoever I need to
speak with. (b) (6) s only interested in locations and is not concerned about what may actually be
deployed.
Just FYI - Chief Adams has agreed to make an SBInet presentation to the National Native American Law
Enforcement Association this October in Memphis.
Thanks.
(b) (6)
Branch Chief
Analysis Branch
Operations Planning and Analysis Division Office of Border Patrol
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: C2 TASKER - SBINet/Border Patrol
Date: Thursday, May 03, 2007 9:20:53 AM
Wait for guidance and take (b) (6) and (b) (6) with you. Good luck. So you know this a big
one has the attention of the S1.
Jeff

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

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

From: (b) (6)
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; AGUILAR, DAVID V; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Wed May 02 14:22:44 2007
Subject: C2 TASKER - SBINet/Border Patrol
OBP,
Two taskers resulted from this morning's SBINet/Border Patrol meeting with the Deputy Commissioner
and both were assigned to OBP with Jeff Self as the lead. I am sending these out formally for tracking
purposes.
1. The Deputy Commissioner requested that BP develop an 8-week calendar focused on outreach
priorities to get the correct mission out to the interested parties (state/local, congress, etc.) regarding
this initiative. She suggested staging townhalls, meetings, etc. She has requested that this calendar be
completed Friday, May 11, 2007.
2. The Deputy Commissioner also requested an analysis summarizing difficulties and/or resistance with
regards to laying fence on the Texas border. Border Patrol has the lead on this and will work closely
with SBINet to complete this tasking. She has requested this analysis be complete by Friday, June 1,
2007.
Please copy (b) (2) on your response to these taskers, or just send me a note to let
me know when they have been submitted to C2's office.
Thank you!
(b)
(6)
------------------------------------------------
(b) (6)
Office of the Commissioner
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6) Jeffrey.Self(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Seeking some time on the Commissioner"s schedule on Monday
Date: Thursday, June 07, 2007 12:07:45 PM
Yes and no. The Deputy Commissioner wants to look at the status of the Texas Sectors and what
factors led to our decision for determining that status.
Look at the green was for Gregs benefit to go to S-1 to ask to start in those areas.
As for the 15th...it depends on who you talk with. In the ESC, C-1 couldn't remember. Greg says it
was due the 10th.
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To: Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jun 07 11:49:47 2007
Subject: Re: Seeking some time on the Commissioner's schedule on Monday
Jeff,
The traffic light deadline for tomorrow is to indicate which lands the Sectors have already determined as
green lights (low hanging fruit).
The total red, yellow, green classification is due on the 15th.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Adjutant to the Deputy Chief
HQ Office of Border Patrol
(b) (6)

From: SELF, JEFFREY D (b) (6) >
(b) (6) ; Giddens, Gregory
(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Thu Jun 07 09:29:21 2007

Subject: RE: Seeking some time on the Commissioner's schedule on Monday
(b) (6)
I'm open on Friday so whatever you have I'll take. In addition to this subject the Deputy Commissioner
wanted me and Greg to brief the Commissioner on the Traffic Light on Friday.
Jeff
________________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 9:23 AM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6) Giddens, Gregory
Cc: (b) (6)
Friday is tight, but let’s see what we can do…the easiest way might be for you to give me some times
that would work for all of you and I’ll see what works here…please advise..thanks..mcd
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: SELF, JEFFREY D(b) (6) v]

Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 5:21 AM
To: (b) (6) Self, Jeffrey D; Giddens, Gregory; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Yes for me!
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To: Self, Jeffrey D; (b) (6) Giddens, Gregory; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Is Friday an option (b) (6) , Greg, Jeff?
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)

From: SELF, JEFFREY D (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ; Giddens, Gregory (b) (6) ;
(b) (6) >
Cc:(b) (6) Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 21:09:36 2007
All,
I will be with Mr. Giddens and Chief Aguilar on the Hill at this time.
Jeff

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

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

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

From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 15:12:13 2007

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

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

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

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

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) E
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 16:40:48 2007
Ok, just let me know...i have tentatively blocked the time on Thursday
of this week...if it doesn't happen then, we'd be looking at when he
returns from travel on June 18...mcd
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 3:16 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
The only day that (b) (6) was available this week was Monday.
The Chief should be in all week. Both the Chief and the (b) (6)
will be in this Monday, but I think C1 is out.
I'll find out if the Chief wants to meet C1 without the Deputy on
Thursday.
(b) can you field that one?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From: AGUILAR, DAVID V (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 11:31:58 2007

Subject: Re: News Articles
(b) (6)
I absolutely like the idea of an "open house"! This would insure

balanced audiences and interested parties represented.
Let's gin this up for proposal to the Commissioner for early this week.
We do not need too much detail for the Commissioner. We should keep it
at the conceptual level. Next step would be for us (CBP) to market this
to DHS.
Let's try to get on the Commissioner's Schedule Monday.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: Aguilar, David V (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jun 02 11:03:43 2007

Subject: Re: News Articles
Chief,
I see a couple of balanced messages in these articles, but also some

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

should try to reduce the 135 miles of fence designated for Texas, as
detailed in a map drawn up by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
DHS officials have called the map, which was part of a confidential memo
leaked to the media last month, "preliminary."
While some landowners argued for taking their concerns to Border Patrol
individually, the consensus among elected officials was for a unified
opposition.
"The bigger we are, the more input we will have," McAllen Mayor Richard
Cortez said.
"If you know somebody at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or the farmers
associations ... call them."
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief / HQOBP
1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Room 6.5E
Washington, DC 20229
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: GIDDENS, GREGOR( ; ADAMS, ROWDY (
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: SHORT NOTICE TASKER DUE COB TODAY _ _ COS Sweet Tasking - S1 Event Participation
Date: Friday, October 19, 2007 5:04:58 PM
SBInet Program
1. Technical Event for Project 28 Conditional Acceptance: December
SBI TI Program
1. PF225 Construction Commences: December
SBI Transportation
1. The Continuing Resolution has put on hold our plans to conduct operational evaluation of
medical escort/guard service in the San Diego area followed by full deployment of a medical escort
program.
2. If there is a SBInet demo contemplated we should consider showing how BP apprehension

supported by new SBInet tools is supported by contracted transport to detention or as a VR.
Sir(s),
Above are the events provided by SBI Program Managers per DHS COS request. Please
review/approve.
(b) (6)
Once approved by SBI leadership could you please forward to SBI ExecSec (b) (6)
Thank you,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 3:31 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: FW: SHORT NOTICE TASKER DUE COB TODAY _ _ COS Sweet Tasking - S1 Event
Participation
It could be risky based on how testing goes but a possible tech event for S1 participation could be a
visit to P28, Tucson, mid-to-late December assuming we have Conditional Acceptance 9 Nov. Final
Acceptance Testing should be ongoing 15 Nov to EOM December. He could visit Tucson HQ and view
ongoing testing, potentially view a vehicle with MDT, etc
(b) (6)
Chief of Staff
SBInet Program Office
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
I agree it could be risky timewise--I would suspect maybe mid-to-late Dec might be a suggestion, as
it's the only game in town at the moment--as long as S1's schedule could be flexible....
(b) (6)
SBInet
1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington DC 20229
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) N
Cc: (b) (6)
Importance: High
All: I talked to (b) (6) . It could be risky based on how testing goes but a possible tech event for
S1 participation could be a visit to P28, Tucson late Nov to mid-December assuming we have
Conditional Acceptance 9 Nov. Final Acceptance Testing should be ongoing 15 Nov to EOM
December. He could visit Tucson HQ and view ongoing testing, potentially view a vehicle with MDT,
etc. Need everyone’s input by 3:00 PM today. Thanks! (b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Chief of Staff
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 11:39 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc:(
b
Subject: SHORT NOTICE TASKER DUE COB TODAY _ _ COS Sweet Tasking - S1 Event Participation
Importance: High
Ideas? I’ll check with each of you after lunch or respond to this email. (b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Chief of Staff
(b) (6)
From: GIDDENS, GREGORY (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) )
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: COS Sweet Tasking - S1 Event Participation
We should look for a transportation linked event as well as tech and TI.
Greg G

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (2) ; GIDDENS, GREGORY
Sent: Fri Oct 19 11:15:38 2007
Subject: RE: COS Sweet Tasking - S1 Event Participation
FYI, the deadline is COB todayJ.
(b) (6)
Gregory Giddens, Executive Director,
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6) On Behalf Of GIDDENS, GREGORY

To: (b) (6)
Cc (b) (2)
Subject: FW: COS Sweet Tasking - S1 Event Participation
Importance: High
Hi (b) (6)
Greg left this one in his box, needs to be tasked out, maybe to (b) and (b) (6) ?
(6)
Thanks!
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Gregory Giddens, Executive Director,
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:55 PM
To: (b) (6)
; GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: COS Sweet Tasking - S1 Event Participation

Importance: High
Hi Everyone –
COS(b) (6) was tasked by the DHS COS ((b) (6) with coming up with 6 CBP events total that S1 could
participate in – 3 in November, 3 in December. He’s asked me to generate some ideas for him to present to COS
(b) (6)
Some parameters are below:
* Naturally, they want it by COB tomorrow – any help on accomplishing that deadline is MUCH appreciated.
* Can be either a pre-existing event (ie INATR Trade Symposium) or an event that could be made for S1’s
participation.
* I’ve attached the form that S1’s scheduling office uses for events – though it doesn’t have to be exactly in this
format, similar information should be included in your entries.
* Understandably, COS (b) is very keen on S1’s participation in events that relate to S1’s goals and priorities
(6)be aware of as you think about particular events.
(attached). Just something to
Can you all assist with some ideas from within your division? Please submit your ideas to (b) (6) in
the Commissioner’s Office (cc’ed), she will compile a single document that(b) (6) can present to(b) (6)
Thanks everyone as always.
Thanks all,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Stakeholders
Date: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:16:02 PM
Yet another exclamation point! It is a good day No?!
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 12:14 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Stakeholders
Thanks (b)
(6)
From my perspective, the number that we have contacted is impressive!
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:40 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Stakeholders
(b)
(6)
There are 778 stakeholders identified thus far for PF225 and 341 hsve yet to be contacted.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Texas Mobile trip plan
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:27:22 AM
(b)
(6)
I understand the time issue and that other ROEs have been used in the past by different sectors.
Because of the huge PF225, P70, Texas Mobile, and the Yuma, Tucson, and El Paso IPTs(that is what is
currently in process, the norhern border is beginning) that are all at varying stages and have varying
levels of sensitivity issues, it was deemed that a standard ROE, that has been vetted will help control
the information. If there are concerns with the vetted ROE then please advise. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D;(b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 09:18:59 2007
Subject: RE: Texas Mobile trip plan
Gentlemen,
Attached are two examples of ROEs. The first ROE, labeled as "Texas Mobile ROE" is similar to what we
used for Operation Jump Start. This is what we prefer to use for initially gaining access to Texas Mobile
tower sites. I want to emphasize that the initial visits to these tower sites is only to determine if the
site is feasible and to ensure that we have not made any grave errors in the selection of the site. While
we do intend to have an environmental contractor with us during the visit, they will only be looking
around to ensure that the area does not host numerous endangered plants, species, etc.; there will be
no digging, boring, etc.
The second sample, labeled "ROE", seems to be a form that would be used once we are reasonably
sure that the tower site is where we want to actually want to place the tower. It seems that it would
take a lot of explaining to get landowners to sign this ROE, when really, it may not be relevant because
there are other factors that would preclude us from placing a tower on the selected parcel of land.
Boeing would like to begin visiting these tower sites for the Texas Mobile Project on Monday, June 11,
2007, that gives us three days to collect these ROEs if we receive guidance by the end of the day. We
can delay the visits but this could jeopardize Texas Mobile timelines.
If there are any additional questions, please let me know.
Take Care,
(b) (6)
Special Operations Supervisor
El Paso Sector
8901 Montana Avenue
El Paso, Texas 79925
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 2:29 AM
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: Texas Mobile trip plan
Importance: High
(b)
(6)
Good morning. Received this message last night from El Paso Sector. Please inform on how you would
like to procede and guidance for them. At the time of this message, (4:22 AM), I have not received the
message from (b) (6) with the example(s) of the ROEs which may or may not influence your resonse.
Your response is awaited. I have included (b) (6) and (b) (6) in this message.
Thanks
(b)
(6)

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

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

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

Mobile sector to assess the tower sites (8 sensor and 2 relay), identify
alternates and determine if existing towers at stations and headquarters
can hold additional comm equipment. We want to travel on Sunday June
10th in order to start working on Monday morning.
Please let me know if we need other attendees. This will be a hard and
fast several days so come ready to work.
<<Texas Mobile Tower assessment visit.doc>>
Thank you,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: are you around this morning?
Date: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:18:17 AM
Will do.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri May 25 07:16:59 2007
Subject: are you around this morning?
can you meet me at 8 AM at the 14th street visitor's entrance, and then join me in an 8:15 meeting
with (b) (6) about processing/approving these PF225 letters?
(b)
cell (b) (6)
(6)
To: (b) (6) ; GIDDENS, GREGOR( ; (b) (6)
COLBURN, RONALD (
Cc: (b) (6) VITIELLO, RONALD ( ; (b) (6)
Subject: Re: planning for Saturday"s town hall meeting in Brownsville, Texas
Date: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:11:09 AM
(b)
(6)
I agree, when and where?
Jeff

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

From: GIDDENS, GREGORY
To: (b) (6) COLBURN, RONALD S; SELF, JEFFREY
D
Cc: (b) (6) ;
VITIELLO, RONALD D; (b) (6)
Sent: Tue May 08 19:08:13 2007
Subject: Re: planning for Saturday's town hall meeting in Brownsville, Texas
We need to ensure Ron has all the lastest nuances on the fence issue....
Greg G

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

-- At 12:45 pm, Chief Colburn arrives along with the county judge, judge pro-tem, and county
administrator
-- At 12:55 pm, the Senator arrives and has a "meet and greet" with Chief Colburn and the
judges/administrator
-- 1:00 pm: Town hall meeting begins
-- Senator: 10 -- 15 minutes of remarks
-- Chief Colburn: 10 --15 minutes of remarks
-- Open forum for questions and answers. Some of the questions that will likely come up are:
-- Seized land/eminent domain
-- Long delays at the POEs. Concern of some local citizens that CBP's border security efforts will
further slow down the flow of legitimate trade and travel
-- The cane issue
--At least one attendee is one of the "big property owners who is very upset"
-- The event will conclude with 15 minutes of "press availability"
Given the importance of this event, and the risks and rewards associated with it, I highly recommend
that we come together on Thursday for a "murder board" to ensure that CBP/OBP message, as delivered
by Chief Colburn, is on course. Thoughts?
(b) (6)
Special Advisor to the Commissioner
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Unisys folks who need to visit theTucson CBP Stations with us
Date: Saturday, July 07, 2007 4:15:12 PM
(b) (6)
Was there another issue with this?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

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

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

From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jul 06 20:02:51 2007
Subject: Unisys folks who need to visit theTucson CBP Stations with us
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 3:35 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Standard COP
(b) (6) and I will be there Wednesday morning. We both have conflicts
on Friday, I will determine if someone else can join on Friday.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6) | Chief Architect | Federal Systems Unisys | 3199
Pilot Knob Road | Eagan, Mn 55121 | (b) (6)
Mobile
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY
MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail
and its attachments from all computers.
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 10:37 AM
To: (b) (6)
I totally agree that you should be with us.

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

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

Mobile

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Our trip next week does not involve meetings to discuss which type of
COP the Border Patrol Stations will be getting. Per the Boeing Tucson
Sector Specification S333-104001-1 dated May 31, 2007, the Border Patrol
Stations are listed as getting Standard COPs. The purpose of our trip to
Tucson next week is two fold, one set of folks, Road Civil Engineers,
will be traveling through the desert looking at road infrastructure. The
remaining four of us will be going to all the Tucson Sector Border
Patrol Stations to see what their Station's infrastructure currently is.
I will be looking at the following:
Questions about stations:

Is there space on the station tower for one or more solid microwave
antennas? Number? Is there space at a appropriate height?
Is there space and power(including backup) in the equipment room/shelter
for several microwave radios and network equipment? Estimated number?
Is the tower structurally sound for adding additional antennas?
Antenna height? Tower Lat/long?
Is there communications fiber to the station? Is there available
communications fiber near the station? Distance? Owner? Is OIT
already working with owner?
Contact info for station OIT responsible person.
Is there space for a new tower and shelter if required? Power
available?
Is there a visible obstruction that would limit microwave
communications? Approx height? Direction?
Is there a nearby restriction for building a tower? Airport, etc...
Is their space in the station to physically locate a Standard Cop
Workstation and any associated racks.
Here is our aggressive agenda for the trip
Wednesday 11th
7 AM - 8:30 AM, Tucson Border Patrol HQ
9 AM - 10:30 AM Tucson Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
Lunch
1 PM - 2:30 PM Casa Grande Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
4:30 PM - 6 PM Ajo Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
Thursday 12th
9 AM - 11 AM Nogales Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
Lunch
1:30 PM - 3 PM Sonoita Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
Friday 13th
8:30 AM - 10 AM Wilcox Border Patrol Station
Lunch
1 PM - 2:30 PM Douglas Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
4 PM - 5:30 PM Naco Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Design & Integration
Electrical Systems Engineer
Boeing, SBInet Program
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
It is important to work together as a team to provide CBP the best
solution. The COP is very complex yet flexible in its design. We need
to understand the requirements before we decide if they get a full COP,
MDT Workstation or WebCop. Each of these will require different
resources. A rule of thumb is 1M for a video stream. The more images
you display on a single screen, the higher the bandwidth.
It is important that Unisys attend the communications meetings with the

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

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

Mobile

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6) , please coordinate with (b) (6) who has the best handle on
getting your question answered.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 9:14 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Standard COP
(b) (6)
Good Morning Hope you had a nice 4th.
Quick question,
Pertaining to the Standard COP, whenever a Standard COP is utilized, are
the two 19" racks, like those in the P28 FOB required also or were those
racks necessary to support the system out in the Remote area?
The reason for the question is I will be going to the CBP stations out
in the Tucson Sector next week and I will look at their current space
availabilities to see if we will have to provide a Command & Control
trailer or if we can use existing facility space. For the Standard COPs,
do you know or could you estimate the required operational bandwidth
needed? I'll find out what their current backbone is and I'll be looking
to see if a Comm tower is located their also.
Also, when I was at the Port of Entrees, I was asked what the Web COPs
bandwidth requirements were. Some of the Ports were worried that with
their current bandwidth usage, their current internet system may not be
adequate to support both the Web COP and their current hardware usage.
The AZ Port of Entrees currently feed all their Video feeds up to the
Tucson OFO's Video Command Center.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Date: Saturday, July 07, 2007 4:49:35 PM
That is exactly what they have been told. If any sector has problems with the SBInet and it's minions
please make sure to bring it up. Jeff has been very clear to them on that point. I know (b) and
Rowdy put out a specific message to them about it also. (6)
So is the early August date the most probable?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jul 07 16:46:19 2007
I imagine that they are going to want to go out to the nation. Sector does'nt want any contrator on the
nation without someone very familiar with ti along. +t saves on miscommunication with th TON if we do
the talking.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jul 07 16:15:11 2007
(b) (6)
Was there another issue with this?
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat Jul 07 16:13:06 2007

(b)
(6)
Plwase forward this to all boeing personel
No boeing or their subcontractors will visit any current infrastructure or future infrastructure projects
without a BP escort. We will facilitate the visits with boeing on monday.
(b) (6)

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

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jul 06 20:02:51 2007
Subject: Unisys folks who need to visit theTucson CBP Stations with us
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 3:35 PM
To: (b) (6)
(b) (6) and I will be there Wednesday morning. We both have conflicts
on Friday, I will determine if someone else can join on Friday.
(b)
(6)
Pilot Knob Road | Eagan, Mn 55121 |(b) (6)
Mobile

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
I totally agree that you should be with us.

Are you able to support the schedule next week?
I am staying at the Tucson Airport Embasy Suites.
The HNTB A&E folks are meeting me Wednesday morning in my lobby at
6:30AM.
HNTB is the A&E firm subcontracted to L-3 Com GSI, "(b) (6)
We need to have someone on your team call in to the 2:00 PM CST
telecons. The telecon is where these types of trips are mentioned.
I wish you guys had been involved with the site trips I have already
been on. I have visited all the Texas Mobile, Yuma and Tucson POEs. I am
looking at their physical Infrastructure upgrade needs such as extra
cameras, lights, fenceing etc..
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b) (6) ,
Does Boeing plan a second trip to each station for Unisys to ask their
facility questions before we send our proposal to Boeing?
When do I get to review the communications in each station? I need to
understand the network to be able to configure the routers in the C3 and
on each tower. It was very disappointing to see the Microwave network
at the Fort Hancock station hanging on a wall when I was told it was not
yet available from Boeing.
(b)
(6)

Mobile

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Our trip next week does not involve meetings to discuss which type of
COP the Border Patrol Stations will be getting. Per the Boeing Tucson
Sector Specification S333-104001-1 dated May 31, 2007, the Border Patrol
Stations are listed as getting Standard COPs. The purpose of our trip to
Tucson next week is two fold, one set of folks, Road Civil Engineers,
will be traveling through the desert looking at road infrastructure. The
remaining four of us will be going to all the Tucson Sector Border
Patrol Stations to see what their Station's infrastructure currently is.
I will be looking at the following:
Questions about stations:

Is there space on the station tower for one or more solid microwave
antennas? Number? Is there space at a appropriate height?
Is there space and power(including backup) in the equipment room/shelter
for several microwave radios and network equipment? Estimated number?
Is the tower structurally sound for adding additional antennas?
Antenna height? Tower Lat/long?
Is there communications fiber to the station? Is there available
communications fiber near the station? Distance? Owner? Is OIT
already working with owner?
Contact info for station OIT responsible person.
Is there space for a new tower and shelter if required? Power
available?
Is there a visible obstruction that would limit microwave
communications? Approx height? Direction?
Is there a nearby restriction for building a tower? Airport, etc...
Is their space in the station to physically locate a Standard Cop
Workstation and any associated racks.
Here is our aggressive agenda for the trip
Wednesday 11th
7 AM - 8:30 AM, Tucson Border Patrol HQ
9 AM - 10:30 AM Tucson Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
Lunch
1 PM - 2:30 PM Casa Grande Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
471-6489
4:30 PM - 6 PM Ajo Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
Thursday 12th
9 AM - 11 AM Nogales Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
Lunch
1:30 PM - 3 PM Sonoita Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
Friday 13th
8:30 AM - 10 AM Wilcox Border Patrol Station
Lunch
1 PM - 2:30 PM Douglas Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
4 PM - 5:30 PM Naco Border Patrol Station (b) (6)
(b) (6)
((b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
It is important to work together as a team to provide CBP the best
solution. The COP is very complex yet flexible in its design. We need
to understand the requirements before we decide if they get a full COP,
MDT Workstation or WebCop. Each of these will require different
resources. A rule of thumb is 1M for a video stream. The more images
you display on a single screen, the higher the bandwidth.
It is important that Unisys attend the communications meetings with the

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

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

Mobile

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6) , please coordinate with (b) (6) who has the best handle on
getting your question answered.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 9:14 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Standard COP
(b) (6)
Good Morning Hope you had a nice 4th.
Quick question,
Pertaining to the Standard COP, whenever a Standard COP is utilized, are
the two 19" racks, like those in the P28 FOB required also or were those
racks necessary to support the system out in the Remote area?
The reason for the question is I will be going to the CBP stations out
in the Tucson Sector next week and I will look at their current space
availabilities to see if we will have to provide a Command & Control
trailer or if we can use existing facility space. For the Standard COPs,
do you know or could you estimate the required operational bandwidth
needed? I'll find out what their current backbone is and I'll be looking
to see if a Comm tower is located their also.
Also, when I was at the Port of Entrees, I was asked what the Web COPs
bandwidth requirements were. Some of the Ports were worried that with
their current bandwidth usage, their current internet system may not be
adequate to support both the Web COP and their current hardware usage.
The AZ Port of Entrees currently feed all their Video feeds up to the
Tucson OFO's Video Command Center.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Updated PF225 Spreadsheet
Jeff just said to make sure we did what could to make it work. Lots of help. Please just work close
with (b) (6) to get those out to the right people. Thanks again.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Jun 06 11:49:19 2007
Subject: Updated PF225 Spreadsheet
(b)
(6)
Got it. It looks alright, though I will give it a good going over. I am shooting off the email to the
Sectors as soon as I get back from a quick lunch. I know you were going to call Jeff, so I’ll hold off
until then in case you have instructions. Please give the following email a quick look. Also, I left you a
voice mail, which you can ignore.
(b)
(6)
All,
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will be mailing out Environmental Assessment notification
letters to the appropriate Native American tribes in your respective areas of operations, as well as to the
appropriate State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO.) The letters will explain site location of possible
infrastructure insertion. These assessments do not imply that work will definitely be done.
It is recommended that you conduct a Risk Assessment based on your relationship with recipients to
identify the appropriate method of notification. Your analysis should determine the mode of
communication e.g. face-to-face meeting, telephonic notification, etc. Our objective is to reach out to
the recipients in advance of the letters, to explain the purpose. This will require immediate response, as
the letters are mailed via Federal Express, and will arrive the day after they are sent. USACE mailed the
Santa Teresa project letters yesterday, June 5, 2007. The Nogales project letters will go Friday.
Attached is a copy of the letter sent to the tribes for each project, as well as the letter to the
appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer. Accompanying these letters is the list of the tribes to
receive the letters. I have sent this correspondence to all of the SBI Points of Contact (If I missed
anyone, please let me know.) If there is any question as to which Sector bears responsibility for any
contact(s) please ask. The letters to the SHPO should be reviewed for specific contact information.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Updates
(b)
(6)
I think things are pretty bad. In my opinion, some high level discussion needs to take place so that a
good game plan can be engaged re RGV. The discussion with (b) (6) was interesting on Fri.
He (remember, he told us it made sense to go to CEQ) now thinks that alternative arrangements won’t
happen. He spoke with CEQ, and their take was “what emergency.” Really, since they could not affect
cultural or endangered species by giving us alternative arrangements, that is not a big loss. At least
that is the case in most places. It does leave a problem in Brown Field’s area. (b) (6) did mention
some very short time frames for EIS (5 mo) which I think we’ll have to run by the CORPS and GSRC.
We need to know whether or not they can do it. A report from a general officer stating that it is
possible (or not) would be very helpful, as we’d have an idea as to what is a reasonable course of
action going forward. With a knowledge deficit in this area, it is very difficult to come up with
reasonable expectations for folks.
Another item that is bothering me is the details of our fence plan in RGV. If we are going to build on
the levy, how many folks do we really affect? Could we not develop a good message showing that we
are concerned with the T&E species ? I believe I could make a strong argument for that position.
Could we not develop a message to let folks know our plan to keep from taking away their ability to
make a living (I’ve heard we plan to keep the cattle from getting to the river)? Could we not reassure
the NGOs that we plan to work with the birders, etc. so that their ability to study the critters will be
enhanced, not stolen? Couldn’t the combination of these messages, with a good BMP (for the species
in question) with USFWS, possibly remove us from the EIS threshold we are looking at with all of these
things up in the air?
I am afraid that fear is carrying the day in the RGV. How’s that for a statement ?
(b)
(6)
From:(
Sent: bMonday, June 04, 2007 2:26 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Updates
Exactly. They might try to change it to reflect progress or that things aren't "that" bad.

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

To (b) (6)
I believe he will to get us to conform to their ideas to color coding. I am not interested on what makes SBInet
looks good only in what the real situation is.

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

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

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

To: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Request from USACE for document
(b)
(6)
Unless I'm missing something the Chief has already approved the building of the fence off the border.
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed May 23 15:20:45 2007
Subject: Request from USACE for document
Jeff,
The USACE is requesting that the Sectors, such as RGV and Yuma, create a document that outlines their
plan/concept for patrolling the areas “south” of the fence. This is not for use by the USACE but rather
because they feel Chief Aguilar will not move forward with fence building “off the line” unless those
issues have been addressed. I believe this came from speaking with RGV agents directly last week.
Just passing along as it came up in the PMT.
Also, the USACE and (b) (6) are requesting the specific directions/orders that dictate how things
are moving from here. Basically what the Commissioner has said will happen, such as everything must
go through SBI/OBP for review before release.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY (
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita
Date: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:04:46 PM
Super.
Any update on the IA?
Greg G
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:57 PM
To: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY; ADAMS, ROWDY D
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Subject: FW: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita
Greg, to follow up to our conversation yesterday: Asset Mgmt staff indicates completion of the
Reimbursable Work Agreement and submission to the Corps.
(b) (6)
From: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 11:30 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
thanks
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ;
FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
(b) (6)
The RWA has been signed and submitted to the Corps.
Thank you and have a Happy Thanksgiving!
(b) (6)
Asset Management
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Importance: High
Thanks (b) . We appreciate your hard work on moving this. The Corps need the funding no later
(6)
than Monday, 26 November so the RWA needs to be signed today or Friday.
Who will sign the RWA and when in OFAM?
Would it assist the process if I send an email or call to (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Budget and Finance Director, SBI
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
I am very sorry for the delayed response.
The funds have been committed in SAP and the RWA is currently pending signature within Asset
Management.
Upon the document being signed it will be forwarded to the Corps for execution.
Once the document has gone to the Corps we will advise.
Thank you
(b) (6)
Asset Management
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:29 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Please let me know the status of this RWA with ACE, we need to have the funds obligated to them for
these TI projects, (b) (6) will be briefing the SBI Program Director on this today.
thanks
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:31 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Please see the email below. The PMP will not be ready until January however the Corps is requiring
funds for planning now. We are working this issue today and will advise.
I will be in an all day meeting but will monitor my blackberry
Thank you
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:10 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita
Yes, VF300 will develop a PMP. Will be completed during January 2008.
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Nov 19 16:08:13 2007
Per the e-mail traffic below, particularly the 11/15/07 e-mail from (b) (6) , will SBI be
developing the VF300 PMP and when should that effort be completed?
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 3:53 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: VF funds to USACE for TON, Papago Farms, and Sonoita
(b) - I am not sure. SBI was taking that on. But similar to pf225 p, we need to get funds so as to
(6)
start all of the required up front planning efforts.
Please note that to date we do not have a pmp for pf225.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
CC: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Nov 19 14:36:42 2007
Per the e-mail traffic below, when will the PMP for VF300 be sent to
OFAM?
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

All,
I've requested a meeting this afternoon with SBI and USACE to discuss
how we are going to track and report. Setting VF300 up similar to PF225
makes sense. As for the various segments, you are correct in that
several are already started (a portion of the TON 35 miles and Sonoita
are started with military units). We are augmenting these with
commercial contracts in order to meet the mileage and date commitment.
PMPs were done for these original segments but a PMP is being done for
all of VF300.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
I'm not sure, but based on the conversations in Dallas a couple of weeks
ago, it looks to me like SBI 1499 (b) (6) ) and 1718 (b) (6)
) have somehow been rolled up together. Both are under
construction, 4.48 miles completed on the TON project, 5.4 miles on the
(b) (6) . There is an RWA, #20024927.1, dated 2/22/07, that
added (b) (4) to make a total of (b) (4) . (expired 9/30/07) The scope of
work is 35 miles of Vehicle Barriers on the TON. I think this is the
part of the same project as the one mentioned by(b) (6) . The dollars
for both don't add up, the milage for both don't add up, but the 35
miles seems to be the same. I have a PRD for the #1499, titled TCA-JS-1,
without signatures. (there might be a signed one somewhere, I couldn't
find it). I don't seem to have anything on 1718, or 1414 (Sonoita
retrofit).
I haven't gone back to the COE yet for more information. On some of
them, I don't think they have anything yet. I'm not sure if we're
talking about the same projects, I'm not sure if we are just modifying
the existing RWA or starting fresh.
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:33 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Please see the emails below, (b) (6) is asking that these funds be
processed as soon as we get them, however the only documents I have so
far are attached to this email. We will need a PMP for this project; do
you have any further information on this?
Are we setting this project up as we set up PF225, one project in

project systems and (b) (6) creating the individual assets in the
end; or are each of these segments to be their own projects? I think a
similar PF225 setup would be the best route to take, but I don't know if
that is my call to make. Let me know what your thoughts are on this.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Fyi - let's roll!
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

The change has been processed that includes your request.
(b) (6)
Office of Finance
Budget Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:22 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Re: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita
Debra please advise to all when the transfer to OF is complete

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

Sent: Fri Nov 09 15:43:21 2007
The fence segments are the (b) (6) (b) (6) and
Sonoita. Other costs are associated costs for Environment, Real Estate,
program Oversite, etc. There will be a spreadsheet with the request.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita
Thanks (b) Do we have a list of projects?

Thanks (6)
(b) (6)
Director, Resource Management Division
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Nov 09 15:33:15 2007
Subject: FW: VF funds to USACE for TON,(b) (6) and Sonoita
(b) (6) please process the pending S request to transfer (b) (4) to OFAM
for the VF 300 projects
(b) and(b) (6) heads up that this is coming for RWA referenced in
(6)
attachment
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
________________________________
From: (b) (6)

To (b) (6) R)
Cc: (b) (6)
FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

(b) (6)
Subject: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita
(b) (6) ,
I requested our Financial Team send funds to the Corps to start the TON,
(b) (6) , and Sonoita VF projects. The paperwork I submitted is
attached. Please coordinate with (b) (6) to track the flow and
establish reporting procedures between you and SBI and you and the
Corps. The Corps POC is (b) (6) (on Cc line). (b) (6) will
be back from New Orleans Friday.
Thanks,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Weekly Outreach Report
Importance: High
(b) (6)
A couple of issues. The PF225 document is not a report you need to complete, but was sent to you for
your information.
The spreadsheet with the colored columns is a required report, and several of the blocks in yellow and
red have not been filled out correctly. Please show the proper categories for each of the land owners.
For example, the total number of owners under red should be broken down into type of owner
(fed/private/state).
The other item that is due each week is the land owner database. (b) (6) has been trying to get
it to me, with some difficulties. I believe (b) (6) has found the solution, however.
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Weekly Outreach Report
Gentlemen,
Attached please find this weeks reports for DRT Sector.
I included some additional land owner information and status updates on the
HQ_Weekl file that might give a better idea of where we stand. Once the
moratorium on outreach has been lifted we will proceed on the unidentified
owners and those we have not contacted for an official stance on the matter.
I will get these reports to you as instructed each Thursday. (b) (6) will
not be conducting outreach activities and will not be sending any reports
related to the program (P225).
Thanks,
(b) (6)
Del Rio Sector
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Weekly Reporting Requirement
Date: Monday, May 07, 2007 6:20:08 PM
(b)
(6)
I am attaching our weekly report of PF225 stakeholders, please let me know if I require anything else.
Thank you,
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 10:54 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Weekly Reporting Requirement
Outreach POCs,
As this process continues, many of the program managers are requiring somewhat
specific information in order to brief the Commissioner and the Secretary. The
information you have been and continue to provide is being used to evaluate not
only progress but direction for the project.
SBInet is requesting that all Border Patrol Sectors within the PF-225 footprint,
to supply HQ with quantitative information weekly. Please complete all
highlighted information and return it to me by no later than Monday May 7th.
Updates of this information will be due by the close of business every Friday
until the project is complete.
The information being requested is simply totals of what you have been compiling
since your Outreach Workshop. This should be essentially a fill in the blank.
I would ask all SWB sectors to complete this requirement. They have been asking
for information on all of the SWB sectors.
Any questions or concerns then please contact me at the numbers listed below.
Thanks in advance.
PRIVATE LANDOWNERS (all non-federally owned land)
* Number................................X
* Number contacted..................X
* Number of concern.................X
* Number of miles of concern.....X
PUBLIC LANDOWNERS (only federally owned land)
* Number................................X
* Number contacted..................X
* Number of concern.................X
* Number of miles of concern.....X
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ; Ronald.Colburn(b) (6) ; (b) (6)
RONALD (b) (6)
Cc: David.Aguila (b) (6) (b) (6)
Subject: Re: YUM hosting SBInet mtg
Date: Saturday, May 19, 2007 5:43:02 PM
Will do Chief.
Jeff

From: (b) (6)
To: COLBURN, RONALD S (b) (6)
Self, Jeffrey D
(b) (6) Vitiello, Ronald D(b) (6)
Cc: AGUILAR, DAVID V (b) (6)
Sent: Sat May 19 17:16:37 2007

Thanks Chief Colburn.
Chief Self, please have someone on the team begin working with Yuma to iron out logistics for a
workshop in their AOR. Also, we'll want to finalize the agenda for the Yuma session shortly after El
Paso, so we can incorporate any "lessons learned" from El Paso.
Chief Vitiello, please have your Division reach out to the Arizona and California Sectors, have them
identify their core teams the way Texas did, and let them know of the intent to conduct a workshop in
Yuma on the 30th and 31st of May.

To: (b) (6) >
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D; VITIELLO, RONALD D; AGUILAR, DAVID V; (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Sent: Sat May 19 16:51:17 2007
(b) (6) ,
Yes, YUM can commit to this.
-Ron Colburn

From: (b) (6)
To: COLBURN, RONALD S; (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D; VITIELLO, RONALD D; AGUILAR, DAVID V
Sent: Sat May 19 11:41:49 2007
Subject:
Chief Colburn,
As you already know we’re involved in a significant effort to improve our outreach related to the SBInet
deployment and the fence under PF 225. Next week (Wednesday and Thursday) we will be in El Paso
conducting a workshop to develop standardize messages and train to re-ignite the outreach effort in
Texas with the hand-picked outreach teams.
In order to accelerate the overall effort and get our outreach moving again, we need to be planning
immediately for the follow-on workshop(s) that will allow us to prep the sectors responsible for the
other three states.
I’m wondering if Yuma would be willing/able to host the workshop the week following the El Paso
effort. That would put us in Yuma on Wednesday/Thursday (May 30-31).
This would allow us to have a location that would be easy for the sectors to attend. Also, given the fact
that you will be expected to be one of the Headquarters core group when you take over my desk, this
will allow you to participate in the workshop.
If Yuma can host the effort, we should be able to take much of what is developed in El Paso and use it
as the starting point for the message development and outreach effort in the other three states.
Let me know, and we’ll either begin planning or start working contingencies.
Thanks,
(b)
(6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Yuma meetings next week
(b)
(6)
Travel on June 5th, meet on 6 and 7 and travel back on the 8th.
Jeff
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: FW: Yuma meetings next week
(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)

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

To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY D
(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)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Updated: Environmental Planning Discussion for the Yuma Project
IPTs are large enough to get everyone on the same page. Could we make a request to (b) (6)
to send a representative or have someone from the Corps call into the IPT to coordinate PF
70 and PF 225 actions?
(b) (6)

From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Apr 25 16:29:28 2007
Subject: RE: Updated: Environmental Planning Discussion for the Yuma Project
(b) (6)
At the risk of making this IPT very large…and to honor (b) (6) request for a Tactical Infrastructure
person…Could you add (b) (6) to the meetings? He works with (b) (6) and is very
knowledgable. Thanks. (Officially (email) his name is (b) (6) )
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
_____ ___________________
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Will do.
Have a nice day!
Warm Regards,
(b) (6) PMP
U. S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
Notice: The Contracting Officer is the sole individual that is authorized to make changes to the contract.
The contents of this e-mail are not intended to change the existing scope of contract. If the Contractor
considers any part of this communication to constitute a change in scope, the Contractor shall notify the
Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR Clause 52.243-7, Notifications of Changes.
_____ _________________________
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) )
Cc: (b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Could also include Seth Winnick on all of the Yuma IPT meetings? He is the coordinator for SBI
Communications. Thanks.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b)
(6)
Assistant Chief
OPA Division
(b) (6)
_____ _____________________
From: (b) (6) R)
To: (b) (6)
<< File: Yuma Sched - Draft PMR-04-11-07.mpp >> << File: Environmental Checklist
Process_draft_(b) list-4-10-07_(b) .doc >>
(6) (6)
Hello (b)
We are(6)very happy to have your participation in the Yuma IPT. Attached are some documents, I will be
sending you more.
Have a nice day!
Warm Regards,
(b) (6) PMP
U. S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Notice: The Contracting Officer is the sole individual that is authorized to make changes to the contract.
The contents of this e-mail are not intended to change the existing scope of contract. If the Contractor
considers any part of this communication to constitute a change in scope, the Contractor shall notify the
Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR Clause 52.243-7, Notifications of Changes.
-----Original Appointment-----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Accepted: Updated: Environmental Planning Discussion for the Yuma Project
When: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:00 PM-2:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: Room 7.5C (room now available)

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: RE - P70 AAR (Redacted) 1 - Re - Yuma Project (Redacted) 3

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: RE - P70 AAR (Redacted) 1 - Re - Yuma Project (Redacted) 3

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

From: GIDDENS, GREGOR(

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

As per our discussion, I aware of the situation and working it.

From: (b) (6)

Thanks. This is great.

From: (b) (6)

(b) (6) and (b) ,

Are these good to send out to the Sectors ?

Cc: (b) (6)

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

Subject: RE: PF 225 Communications IPT

<< File: Dep Sec Approved Talking Points.doc >>

<< File: Additional Messaging - 20070619.doc >>

Secure Border Initiative

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Re: PF 225 Phase I - Agency Coordination Letters

(b) please ensure we are good to release.

Sent: Wed May 23 09:37:15 2007

819 TAYLOR STREET, ROOM 3A28

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

(b) (5) (b) wrote me a few minutes ago asking the

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

That is correct from the Border Patrol side.

From: (b) (6)

Subject: PF 225 Roll Out

Please let me know if I am mistaken.

Acting Assistant Chief

CBP-Office of Border Patrol

1300 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 6.5E

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

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

Can you get this out.

From: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Subject: PF225 Phase 1 Project Assessments

Pls advise soonest. Thanks, (b)

From: (b) (6)

Good morning gents.

There is a question on the PF 225 Q&A I want to run by you.

A: Not at all times.

Please let me know what you think/suggest alternate language.

Secure Border Initiative

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

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

From: (b) (6) RY B.

From: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

No bother. I was on stage until just moments ago.

Headed to airport. Call if you wish to discuss further....

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

Director of Mission Support

Secure Border Initiative

No, I missed .91 for TCA

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

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

Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Thu Jul 19 12:37:03 2007

From: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

1. Yuma (Monday and Tuesday)