From: (b) (6)

To: Jeffrey.Self(b) (6)

Subject: Fw: Request for Information
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 1:48:58 PM

(b)
(6)
The 2 projects listed below are slated to be put into the newspapers tomorrow for comment period.
(b) is concerned about the shortened time frames for comment. I am also concerned about the New
(6)
Mexico project. Isn't that on hold? (NM). I know there had been some discussions on comment periods
and their lengths. Any guidance?
(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Tue Jun 05 13:43:56 2007
Subject: Request for Information

(b)
(6)

I am looking for some guidance regarding public comment periods for two projects. The CORPS is
expressing an interest in shortening the time frame for public comment. The reason this is under
consideration is that the requirement for public comment for construction in these areas was met during
the generation of previous environmental documents. I am concerned with the political ramifications of
a shortened or deleted comment period.

Projects Affected:

7 miles of vehicle barriers to be replaced with pedestrian fence – location is 4.5 mi. E of Sasabe POE to
2.5 mi. W of same POE.

Issue requiring shortened time frame for public comment - I questioned (b) (6) about it, and
his reply is attached.

(b)
(6)

We are not hurrying this project. The army corps keeps telling us that they have a july start date that
was given to them by sbinet. We've had little to no say so on time frames.

(b) (6)

I have a call in to (b) (6) but so far do not see a pressing reason to hurry up.
1.5 mi. VB to be replaced with pedestrian fence (X2) – locations are 3 mi. E of Columbus NM POE to
1.5 Mi E of same POE and 1.5 mi. W of COL to 3 mi. W of same POE = total of 3 miles VB replaced
with PED fence.

Issue requiring shortened time frame for public comment – I am unable to verify any real need to
shorten the time frame for this project.

For these documents to be submitted for comment, the newspaper notification must be submitted by
tomorrow, 6/6/07. I need to give the CORPS an answer.

(b)
(6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY (
To: (b) (6) D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Requirements meeting
Date: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:26:44 AM

(b)
(6)
Primary for these meetings will be (b) (6) and Secondary will be (b) (6)

Thanks, Jeff

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:32 AM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Requirements meeting

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)

From: SELF, JEFFREY D

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 6:26 AM
To: (b) (6) P
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: SELF, JEFFREY (b) (6)
Subject: FW: revised PF225 laydown (Draft)
Date: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 10:55:31 AM

Apparently, the changes were driven by (b) (6)

(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 10:23 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: revised PF225 laydown (Draft)

(b) (6)

Substantial revision per your instructions on Friday;

Changes from prior (271 mile) laydown:

A) Total here is ~230 miles, which is in line with your instruction to not show buffer;
B) Tucson D6 and El Paso K2B&C are dropped (because they did not show a TI book number);
C) Laredo N1A/B, N2A/B and N4 added back in (because they have a TI book number);
D) Rio Grand Valley ONLY includes O1, O2, O3, O4, O6, O7, O9, and O10 in Rio Grande Valley
does not include O5 (Hidalgo) or O8 (Los Indios), because your map does not show these
as TI book locations.
I'm not real confident the RGV mileage is highly accurate, will need to check.

Have kept all "dropped" segments at the bottom of the worksheet.

(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: FISHER, MIKE ( ; GIDDENS, GREGOR( ; ADAMS, ROWDY(
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Revised Schedule
Date: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 11:41:35 AM
Importance: High

For today’s teleconference concerning BIS.

Thank you,
(b) (6)
Branch Chief, Infrastructure
SBInet, Program Management Office
(b) (6)

Warning: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of
Information Act (5U.S.C. 552). This document is to be controlled, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS
policy relating to Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) information and is not to be released to the public or other personnel who do not have a valid
"need-to-know" without prior approval from the originator. If you are not the intended recipient , please contact the originator for disposition
instructions.

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:48 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Revised Schedule

(b) (6):

Here is the revised schedule. As directed, I shorten the IBWC review time to 10 working days and
removed the amendment period [also 10 working days].

I did not revise the DOJ deliverable durations yet. I will talk to DOJ as soon as they get in the office
today. I spoke with the (b) (6) and he indicated that a temporary construction
easement is not an option [due to the County Parks land use agreement]. He also stated that it is
standard USACE policy for the land to be acquired prior to Contract Award. He did state that CBP
could direct USACE, in writing, to award the Contract prior to the completion of the land acquisition.

I spoke with the (b) (6) as well. To proceed prior to land acquisition, a
Notice To Proceed for Design can be given followed by a Notice To Proceed for Construction
scheduled for a date following the projected land acquisition date. The risk of awarding the contract in
this:

1. If the real estate acquisition gets delayed, the contractor can submit a claim and the
government has to pay for delaying them

2. If the government never gets the real estate, the government must Terminate the TO for
Convenience of the Government. This means:

a. the government has to pay the contractor all incurred costs

b. the government cannot use the design for the project because it was not procured under
Brooks Acts procedures.
I spoke with the engineer from Baker and he confirmed that OBP does not currently have construction
access to Area V via any other roads.

I will contact DOJ, San Diego this morning and discuss the revised schedule with them. At worst, it
appears that CBP would need to provide written direction to USACE to proceed prior to the completion
of the land acquisition and assume risk of splitting the Notice To Proceed..

(b) (6)

(b) (2)

(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Request by USFWS to Participate in Rio Grande Valley Site Visits for PF-225
Date: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:59:53 AM
Importance: High

Looks like this trip is developing nicely

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:30 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Request by USFWS to Participate in Rio Grande Valley Site Visits for PF-225
Importance: High

(b) (6)

At the meeting last week, you mentioned that there will be a series of site visits in the Rio
Grade Valley to review possible fence locations this week. I received a call from(b) (6)
his past Saturday and he has reached out to his field staff who will be working on the
IPAC project for SBInet and CBP. The USFWS has requested that these personnel
participate in the initial and subsequent site visits to help expedite the project.

To avoid creating an additional layer and possible confusion I would recommend that you
coordinate this directly with (b) (6) By the way I would like to continue our
discussion of last week regarding LMI if possible.
(b)
(6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: RGV HQ Outreach Reports
Date: Friday, June 08, 2007 11:23:19 PM
Importance: High

(b) (6)

Here is information received from Rio Grande Valley related to the Outreach program and status of
landowners.

(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Fri Jun 08 17:17:00 2007

Subject: RGV HQ Outreach Reports

June 8, 2007

Gentlemen,
Here are the two spreadsheets that the RGV is using to keep track of
local landowners and their information as it pertains to the proposed
fencing project. One of the spreadsheets breaks down each individual
project into three categories, which are color-coded. The green color
denotes landowners that are cooperative; the yellow color denotes
landowners that are unsure of whether or not they want the fence and
the group of landowners that have yet to be contacted. This group has
presented a special problem for us since their contact information is
either outdated, or otherwise unavailable. As of this week, we also
included all Federal Wildlife Refuge areas in the yellow color
designation. The red category denotes landowners who are strictly
opposed to the fence.

The second spreadsheet provides actual landowner information. The

miles listed per landowner are somewhat of a rough estimate at this
time. We are still trying to complete these spreadsheets so that they
can be as accurate as can be. As we proceed in this process, we will
attempt to minimize all estimate and provide absolute figures. Should
you have any questions pertaining to these spreadsheets, please feel
free to call. Thank you.

**NOTE** Project 21 is missing information on 20 landowners. It will

be collected and forwarded to you as soon as it is completed.

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: Jeffrey.Self(b) (6)
Subject: Fw: RGV Op Plan
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 2:44:58 PM

Jeff,
This is RGV's op plan for operating "south" of a fence built "off the line". It also contains the locations
for "gates" in the fence for water issues,etc. It is hard to read on bb but would like to know if I can get
it to ACE to start figuring out their engineering issues. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From:(b) (6)
To: (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: SELF, JEFFREY ( on behalf of ADAMS, ROWDY (
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: RGV Sector Discussion - Project 225
Start: Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:00:00 AM
End: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:00:00 AM
Location: 6.5 - Chief Vitiello"s Office

_____________________________________________
From: ADAMS, ROWDY D
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 3:56 PM
To: ADAMS, ROWDY D; VITIELLO, RONALD D; SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Subject: RGV Sector Discussion - Project 225
When: Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:00 AM-10:00 AM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: 6.5 - Chief Vitiello's Office

Discussion about RGV Sector Fence and way forward.

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Right-of-entry/PF 225
Date: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 2:41:50 PM

(b) (6)

Here is a copy of the CBP Legal approved ROE for phase I environmental. The only issue that still needs
to be clarified in regards to this document is who the signing authority will be at the Sector level. My
opinion is that we keep this at the ACPA level or higher.

(b)
(6)
-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 4:57 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Subject: Right-of-entry/PF 225

(b)
(6)
I(b) (5)

(b) (6)
(See attached file: RightPF225.doc)

Office of Assistant Chief Counsel

U.S. Customs and Border Protection
6650 Telecom Drive, Suite 100
Indianapolis, IN 46278
(b) (6)

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AND/OR ATTORNEY/CLIENT

COMMUNICATIONS AND, AS SUCH, IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS
INTENDED ONLY FOR THE CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT AND ANY
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) OFFICIALS WHO HAVE AN OFFICIAL
"NEED TO KNOW." ABSENT THE EXPRESS PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE ASSISTANT CHIEF
COUNSEL (INDIANAPOLIS), IT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR RELEASE, DISCLOSURE, OR USE
BY ANYONE WITHIN OR OUTSIDE OF CBP OTHER THAN THE AFOREMENTIONED OFFICIALS.
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: RLU report
Date: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:25:04 PM
Importance: High

No response as of now.

(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:05 PM
To:(
b
Subject: FW: RLU report
Importance: High

(b) (6)

I re-sent this marked urgent, because sometimes the router holds up mail for hours if it is not marked
urgent. Sorry for the repeat.

(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:04 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: RLU report

(b) (6)

10-4. I am not asking for further outreach, but for the number of owners for each project and what we
currently know about them. For example, D-5B is owned by the owner of the Buena Vista Ranch, who
I understand will not deal with us. For other projects, the owners may not have been contacted to this
point. In this case, I need the number of owners listed in the Yellow column, and identified in the ‘# no
contact’ column. Please fill in the number of land owners for each project, and indicate what we do
know; even if that is only that we still need to talk to them. That way, when the chart is reviewed, it will
show accurately what we do know at this point in the outreach.

As it looks right now, you know quite a bit about each of these projects (refer to the Tucson segment of
the PF225 spread sheet I have attached) I need to be able to show Chief Self (Who in turn will have
to show this at very high levels very soon) all that we know at this point in time. If I indicate
knowledge of only the three projects currently listed in your report, it will appear as though TCA has
done no homework to date. I apologize if the report was not very clear in what information I am trying
to gather.

If you don’t know exactly how many owners exist for a project, please list the number you know about,
and indicate that more research is necessary.

Thanks,

(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 2:31 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: RLU report

(b)
(6)

The Chief of the Border Patrol has said that we are not to talk to anyone about
fencing. Until we can, most of this chart will remain blank. What we did fill in was the
info we had prior to the Chiefs last direction.

(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 11:12 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: RLU report
Importance: High

(b)
(6)
Only three projects with information!?! Did you guys send me the wrong file?

(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 2:10 PM
To:(
Cc:b(b) (6)

Subject: RLU report

As requested

(b) (6)
Senior Tactical Coordinator
Tucson Sector Border Patrol
(b) (6)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. Parts of this document may contain sensitive security
information that is controlled under the provisions of 49 CFR 1520. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.