From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)

Subject: FW: SBInet IPTs
Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:27:28 AM

(b) It’s almost noon—I received very little input—but then most of our guys are involved with IG
(6)
interviews. Hope this helps. I’ll update you if I get any more input later today.

Here’s what I know:

Project IPTs (P28, BMGR, Yuma, Tucson, Tx Mobile)
Security
Comms
Environmental Planning IPT

There is was an IPT under Mission Engineering but I think they fulfilled their mission and moved on.

Here’s input I received from (b) (6)

- There is a joint Facilities IPT with OFAM and OBP; there soon may be an SBInet
Facilities IPT – the charter is drawn up but has not been signed.
- There is an IPT under PF225.
- Environmental Planning IPT is more than just environmental – it is also land
management and outreach. I had requested 3 OBP to support that effort.

Our group also requested one Facilities OBP and two Tactical Infrastructure OBP for
a grand total of 6. This is what is shown on my staffing plan and we would really
appreciate the OBP staff as soon as they can be made available.

Thanks!
(b) (6)

(b) (6)
Director, Projects
SBInet
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:09 AM
To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: FW: SBInet IPTs

Good morning all: Got a voicemail and below email from (b) (6) asking about the number and
types of IPTs we have here in SBInet, as Jeff Self wants to ensure there are enough agents on board
to help fill out our teams with the right expertise.
Here are the ones I’m aware of—please let me know if you know of any others:

Project IPTs (P28, BMGR, Yuma, Tucson, Tx Mobile)

Security
Comms
Environmental Planning

(b) was hoping for an answer by noon. I told him I could only promise an 80% solution! Thanks!
(6)
(b) (6)
Director, Projects
SBInet
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 4:54 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: SBInet IPTs

(b) (6)
I left you a message regarding # of IPTs working within SBInet. If you could please guide me to the
answer or who holds that answer I will be forever in your debt. Thanks.
(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: SELF, JEFFREY (
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: C2 TASKER - SBINet/Border Patrol
Date: Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:27:11 AM
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.

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

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
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Department of Homeland Security
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Snapshot
Date: Thursday, May 03, 2007 2:48:45 PM

(b)
(6)
See the outreach portion below. I outlined our discussion this morning.

Enjoy,

(b)
(6)

From:(
Sent: bThursday, May 03, 2007 12:11 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: Snapshot

Sir,

This is a quick synopsis of the events from the past week:

PF225

OBP was informed Monday that the project lay down for PF225 was going to change and be modified
to reflect only TI Bible projects

Direction change was initiated by SBInet based on their interpretation of S-2’s comments

I addressed this during the FEIT on Tuesday and again during the PMT on Wednesday, ultimately, it
was agreed to take the discussion before the Chief

Myself, Rowdy Adams and (b) (6) briefed Chief Aguilar, (b) (6) and Laredo Chief
Carrillo and it was decided by Chief Aguilar to go with the OBP approved lay down which more
accurately reflects sector’s up to date requirements. The Chief and Deputy stated that they want the
overall 370 mile fence mandate cut down to 370 from the current 416 identified with buffer. They want
a set 370 that can be sent out to the public and all other projects that do not make the first cut
removed from the spreadsheet. Subsequently, I am working with the sectors to identify the excess 40
miles to be removed from the project lay down.

Outreach Effort

During the brief, Chief Aguilar discussed a meeting he had with the Commissioner in regards to the
Community Outreach effort and the fallout over possible condemnation info being released to the
media. The Chief stated that the Commissioner wants a 60 day timetable and established protocol
measures in place in the next week.

(b) (6) has coordinated a meeting today with Chief Aguilar, Rowdy Adams and (b) (6) I
would like to attend but will be enroute to pick up the wife from the airport. The Chief is to discuss a
plan of action for heading the outreach effort.

I met with (b) and (b) (6) this morning and laid out what we felt are the necessary steps in
(6) end state. We set up a rough draft outline so that we have are ideas on paper for the
getting to our
meeting this afternoon with the Chief. As we see it, we need to complete the following:
 Complete our initial contacts with land owners so that we know all the players

Set up 3 day training (Outreach rep, PIO and PLLA from each sector) to be conducted by Army
Corps Real Estate Branch, CBP Real Estate, CBP PIO, and possibly a brief from someone from
DOI to cover the public lands angle. This ensure that all three entities at the local level are
delivering the same message and that everyone has received proper guidance when initiating
RE talks with land owners. I tied the Public Lands Liaison Agent Program into the mix because
that is another element that I feel should be incorporated from the start.

Coordinate and conduct town hall meetings with assistance and participation from CBP, DHS
and congressional. Provide official lay down and fence info.

Initiate ROE

Initiate Real Estate action and MOA concurrently

Initiate Public Lands coordination

We will elaborate further and establish timetables during the next week.

Fence Lab

Delegated test and evaluation coordination to (b) (6)

BIS

I forwarded all requested info to (b) (6) for brief to S-2

This should bring you up to the minute.

(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Stakeholders
Date: Friday, June 01, 2007 12:14:25 PM

Thanks (b)
(6)
From my perspective, the number that we have contacted is impressive!

(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(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: SELF, JEFFREY (
To: David.Aguila (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: TX Border House Members
Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:56:52 PM

Chief,

FYI

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

From: VITIELLO, RONALD D
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
ADAMS, ROWDY D;
(b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY
Sent: Wed May 23 20:54:31 2007
Subject: TX Border House Members

All,

Here’s my take RE: the meeting on the Hill with the Texas Border Congressmen

I accompanied: Commissioner Basham

Greg Giddens

(b) (6)

Present Congress members were Solomon Ortiz

SylvestreReyes

RubenHinojosa

CiroD. Rodriguez

HenryCuellar

(b) (6) San Antonio, TX (no border

constituency)

(b) (6) * From California non-border district

* Born in Brownsville, TX (has relatives there concerned about the fence)

Issues:
The most often cited issue was the communication. What do we know, when did we know it, why did
we put out an RFP? Can’t we use technology instead of a fence? The natural barrier (Rio Grande)
provides the time to interdict etc…. The next intense issue was taking land, eminent domain. Next was
the environmental concerns wildlife refuges etc… Levy deterioration is also a big concern of Hinojosa
and staff was concerned that BP may be accelerating the deterioration. The issue of owner access and
water rights also was discussed. The style and type of fence was a concern as well.

The commissioner was on message. Supported by us and was successful in convincing the group that
community input would be allowed for. The Commissioner walked everyone through the communication
plan and where people got the wrong ideas. C-1 also discussed the workshop in EPT, after Cong.
Reyes reminded us that Border Patrol Agents should be communicating the plans going forward. Some
were concerned that we did not have time to talk to stakeholders before construction was to begin.
Chairman Reyes indicated that under section 108 (SFA) could allow congress to extend the time for
delivery. This group seemed to be different in that they were resigned to the fact that fencing was
required under the law and framing at the beginning about the BP ops. assessment that gave us the
start point to begin this process

The members asked for an opportunity to facilitate the meetings interaction with cities, counties, and
land owners. We agreed and pledged to do that where it made sense and did not slow us down.

TASK :GET BACK

Members asked for an outline of the process we expect to engage in. Potentially, a fact sheet that they
could use to answer questions and allay fears of constituents. If we could limit the distribution of such
a document to members and staff (b) (6) and I believed that it was an idea worth developing. We
also assumed that the Workshop could outline such a document. I would welcome your comments on
the proposal and the team’s evaluation of the concept and what areas are essential to be in such a
document.

In the discussions with this group and C-1 G. Giddens had some verbiage that can allow us to make
progress in communications and planning.

With a clear understanding of our legal responsibilities under the Secure Fence Act; 370 miles before
the end of FY-2008.

Essential in the process of determining the feasibility of fencing data about four crucial factors must be
collected and considered by everyone.

1. The start point for where fencing is considered is based on operational assessments and security
needs developed by historical trends, activity and threat risk. The risk that BPAs only have seconds or
minutes. To make and arrest before illegal crossers can escape monitoring systems or border patrol
agents.
2. The community input that will be gathered regarding the impact of fencing, on land availability,
use, access, security and value.

3. The impact that fencing will have on the surrounding environmental habitat, water and flood
control.

4. The cost of engineering and material for particular locales considered.

These factors in a comprehensive way will be brought back to the leadership to develop the final
determination of fencing constructed. During the collection of data in factors 2-4 Border Patrol, and the
support entities must be in the border communities assessing ownership, value, and environmental
factors. While this collection is underway questions about factors and timelines should be directed to
the Border Patrol in your area.

This explanation in explainable parts seemed useful for furthering our discussions with border
communities.

I have copied those who were at the meeting to add their points of view as well.

(b) (6)
Ronald D. Vitiello

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

Subject: FW: Updated Report

Date: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 4:14:33 PM
Importance: High

This is a reminder of the reporting requirements due each week by COB Thursday. The reports are
necessary even during this time of suspended outreach.

Thanks,

(b) (6)

All,

Attached is your Sector document for reporting outreach progress. This is a modification of
(and replacement for) the document sent to you last week. It drills down further into the
specifics of each project.

The changes made to the document sent last week relate to the frequency of high level
questions asked regarding PF-225. Please carefully complete the document and return it by
close of business on Thursday of this week. COB on Thursdays will be the recurring
deadline for this product.

I need each Sector to attach its database of landowner contacts. Most sectors already had an
existing Microsoft Excel spreadsheet detailing landowners, property and situation. Sending
the excel format is preferred for several reasons including size and compatibility for insertion
with other documents. This will allow specific questions regarding projects to be answered
with fewer calls to the sector. This database should be updated to Headquarters on a weekly
basis.

NOTE: If you have land owners with more than one distinct parcel along the border, count
each property as having one land owner. This is the worst case scenario, as in reality a
smaller number of ROE and real estate documents may actually be drawn up. If we double-
count a few now, not knowing exactly what legal instruments each parcel is held under, it
makes planning easier than finding more owners later in the process. So far, this only
appears to be an issue in the Rio Grande Valley Sector.

If you cannot send the requested information by Thursday, please notify us of an expected
completion date.

I am the primary contact for this data. Please also copy (b) (6)
(b) (6)
SBI Liaison
OPA Division
Office of Border Patrol
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6.5E
Washington, D.C. 20229
(b) (6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY( on behalf o (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Updated: PF225 SRR

(b)
Need you to attend this.

(b)
_____________________________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 8:56 AM
To: (b) (6)
; ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6) ; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)

Subject: Updated: PF225 SRR

When: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:30 AM-3:30 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: Continental room C RRB

Draft Agenda Attached, directions, and hotels are below:

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ; GIDDENS, GREGOR( ADAMS, ROWDY (
Cc: (b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN (
Subject: FW: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita
Date: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:57:21 PM

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)

-----Original Message-----
From: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 11:30 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita

thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 11:25 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Subject: RE: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita

(b) (6)

The RWA has been signed and submitted to the Corps.

Thank you and have a Happy Thanksgiving!

(b) (6)
Asset Management

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:49 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Subject: RE: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita
Importance: High

Thanks(b) (6) We appreciate your hard work on moving this. The Corps need the funding no later
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)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:31 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ER
Subject: RE: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita

(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

-----Original Message-----
From:(b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:29 PM
To: (b) (6) A
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita

(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)
Secure Border Initiative
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:31 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita

(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)
-----Original Message-----
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)

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

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Mon Nov 19 16:08:13 2007
Subject: FW: VF funds to USACE for TON, Papago Farms, and Sonoita

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, (b) (6) 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.

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
CC: (b) (6) >
Sent: Mon Nov 19 14:36:42 2007
Subject: FW: VF funds to USACE for TON, Papago Farms, and Sonoita

Per the e-mail traffic below, when will the PMP for VF300 be sent to
OFAM?

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6) ]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:28 PM
To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita

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.

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:00 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita

(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)
Farms) 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)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:33 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita

(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)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 8:08 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita

Fyi - let's roll!

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3:20 PM
To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: VF funds to USACE for TON,(b) (6) and Sonoita

The change has been processed that includes your request.

(b) (6)
Office of Finance
Budget Division
(b) (6)

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

(b) (6) please advise to all when the transfer to OF is complete

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

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

Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Fri Nov 09 15:43:21 2007
Subject: RE: VF funds to USACE for TON, (b) (6) and Sonoita

The fence segments are the (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)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 3:37 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Thanks(b) (6) Do we have a list of projects?

Thanks

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

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

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) (2) 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)

Secure Border Initiative

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 12:58 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (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)

(b) (6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY (
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: [URGENT] War room tasking - DUE NOON TODAY
Date: Thursday, April 26, 2007 10:04:43 AM
Importance: High

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:30 AM
To: (b) (6) ; SELF, JEFFREY D
Subject: FW: [URGENT] War room tasking - DUE NOON TODAY
Importance: High

(b) Jeff:
(6)
We have a VERY QUICK turnaround on the questions below. Some are personnel and some are
infrastructure. Please respond.

(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:19 AM
To: AGUILAR, DAVID V; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: [URGENT] War room tasking - DUE NOON TODAY
Importance: High

OBP,

I've been informed that Mark Borkowski is the best person to address #2. Let me know if
you have any questions.

Thanks,
(b)
(6)

------------------------------------------------
(b) (6)
Office of the Commissioner
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Department of Homeland Security
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:59 AM
To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: [URGENT] War room tasking - DUE NOON TODAY

Importance: High

HRM, SBI, OTD, and OPP:

Today, on very short notice, White House and DHS War Room staff met with Majority and
Minority Senate staffers on Title I (Border Enforcement) of the Comprehensive Immigration
legislation package. There were a number of requests for information from CBP at that
meeting. Please coordinate with other offices as necessary and submit responses to the
following questions to (b) (2) NLT noon today. I apologize for the short
turnaround on this tasker - do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

1. The number of BPAs now, the number of BPAs hired over the last 12 months, and the
attrition factor relating to BPA hirirng (actual growth number versus number hired)? There
were questions from staff as to how we were going to meet our hiring goals (18,000) as they
may eventually be specified in the trigger language.

2. What is CBP plan for the ratio of BP supervisors to BPA non-supervisors if workforce
will reach 18,000 agents hired within 18 months?

3. Number of miles of vehicle barriers currently in place?

4. Number of miles of fence built in the past year (12 months)?

5. Actual cost to build that number of miles of fence during past year?

6. Cost projection for remaining fence (roughly increasing from 70 miles of fence to 370
miles)?

7. Formal "Construction Plan" for building 370 miles of fence. (Is this available?)

8. Reports: What reporting requirements in the Dem bill does DHS think it already does or
does in a similar fashion?

9. What training are CBP employees currently given re federal land or culturally sensitive
land preservation?

10. What happens when CBP employees cause damage, or see damage caused by illegal alien
activity, on federal or culturally sensitive property?

11. Is CBP currently limited by DOI (or others) from patrolling/enforcing on federal or
culturally sensitive property? Is it fair to say that CBP should be responsible for damage
caused by illegal alien traffic on these types of lands?

Thank you,
(b)
(6)

Office of the Commissioner

U.S. Customs and Border Protection
((b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: SELF, JEFFREY (
Subject: FW: Weekly Reporting update
Date: Monday, May 21, 2007 4:24:12 PM

(b) and (b)

( ) (6)
(b) 6)
sent this request to be included on future communications issues and requests for the
Tucson Sector. FYI.
(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: Monday, May 21, 2007 3:59 PM
To:(
b
Subject: FW: Weekly Reporting update

Gentlemen:

In addition to the team working on the operational component of SBI-Net the Sector has a
separate component focusing exclusively on the outreach and communication side. I am this
Sectors poc for the outreach relating to Project 28/ SBI-Net to include the ranch liaison,
public lands liaison, tribal liaison, congressional liaison and all levels of stakeholders and
community. Can you please include me in emails and requests?

(b) (6)
Director of Community Relations
Tucson Sector Border Patrol
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 3:29 PM
To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Weekly Reporting update

FYI

There will be a change or two to the reporting document for next week. I’ll re-send it to each of you as
soon as modifications are in place. Because outreach is on hold, the changes made will be from your
notes at each sector. The changes will be aimed at identifying individual portions of land with issues
that will affect real estate transactions. Thanks to those sectors who have reported in a timely
fashion.

(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 3:15 PM
To:(
b
)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Weekly Reporting

A question arose today regarding reporting requirements for the stations involved in PF225. The
progress reports need to be filled in using the supplied format and returned every Friday in the AM. So
far today, I have received response only from El Paso Sector. This data has become a regular
information item by the Commissioner's Office. Thanks to all who have continually supplied this info
with often unrealistic turnaround times.

Thanks also to the Rio Grande Valley Sector for generating the format which I have shamelessly
plagiarized and sent to each of you for reporting purposes. I do ask that each sector type in its sector
name in the top left of the form above the Project Name block.

Thanks,

(b) (6)
SBI Liaison
OPA Division
Office of Border Patrol
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6.5E
Washington, D.C. 20229
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Your request
Date: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:05:15 PM
Importance: High

(b) and(b) (6)

(6)
(b) (6) requested that I provide the following corrections on the POC spreadsheet.

Those corrections would be:

Removing (b) (6) from the Sector POC column as he is now the DCPA here.

Removing (b) (6) as the fence POC and replacing my name there and also including (b) (6)
as an outreach POC for Marfa.

Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions.

(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Sat 6/2/2007 11:09 PM
To:(
Cc:b(b) (6)
Subject: Fw: Your request

(b)
Make sure they change to you as the poc. Thanks. (b)
(6)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Sat Jun 02 17:02:29 2007

Subject: FW: Your request

Folks,

(b) (6) was out on his blackberry and asked that I forward this information to you.

(b) (6)

ACPA Del Rio Sector

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

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 5:36 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: Your request

(b)
(6)
If you could cut and paste the following for forwarding to the sector POCs. One attachment is the
Sector POCs. Thanks again.

(b)
(6)
All,
This attachment was cleared through CBP for the Army Corps of Engineers to use to formulate their
Phase 1 EA letters. Please use the list(located at the end of the attachment) to identify any
stakeholders, within your sector, that will be receiving a letter similar to the "sample" letter that is
outlined in the attachment. Sometime on Monday, June 4th, we should be receiving the actual letters
from the corps. The corps has been instructed to begin sending the letters on Tuesday the 5th.

If any of the stakeholders that you have identified, are deemed, by YOUR SECTOR, to need a "qualified
BP representative" to preempt the reception of the Corps letter with a visit, then take the letter (you
will receive) and make that visit ASAP. If there are any concerns or questions, then do not hesitate to
call my cell or email my blackberry (I will be in Detroit all week) and I will answer you. If I have missed
any contacts or you are "out of pocket" then please ensure that your sector staff receives this. Chief
Self should be speaking directly to the Sector CPAs about this again on Monday before he travels. Just
a reminder that this is the "beginning" of the outreach again and is being scrutinized at all of the
highest levels of CBP and DHS. Thanks for all of the updates and consistent quality work.

(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
ACPA HQ
OBP Liaison to SBInet
(b) (6)

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

From:(b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Fri Jun 01 18:03:39 2007
Subject: Your request

(b)
(6)

I believe I’ve attached all you wanted. Let me know if you need other stuff.

(b)
(6)