From: SELF, JEFFREY (

To: (b) (6)

Subject: Fw:
Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:24:20 PM

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

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Apr 18 10:01:33 2007
Subject:

Chief,

After speaking with (b) (6) this morning about the news article in Rio Grande Valley, I called (b)
(6)

He confirmed that the stakeholders were contacted by Border Patrol Agents. These were not the initial
contact meetings but rather a follow-up with the additional “footprint” of the fence being part of the
discussion.

The meetings referred to in the article are the follow-up individual meetings with the (real estate
personnel) Army Corps attending. It appears that everything is happening in the manner in which we
outlined late last week, given the time constraints and fence lay-down issues.

He feels that it is just the initial “shock” of something happening and that the stakeholders can be
brought into an understanding and cooperative stance.

I offered our assistance in any manner and reassured him that they were handling the best that can be
expected right now.

(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)
To: ADAMS, ROWDY (
Subject: Fw: REVISED: [URGENT] S1BB - 10.16.07 - Follow up on San Pedro Fence Issue
Date: Monday, October 15, 2007 7:39:04 PM

Hey Rowdy,

Per your request.

Have a good night!

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

From: Oxendine, Jacqueline M.
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

Sent: Mon Oct 15 16:08:21 2007

Subject: RE: REVISED: [URGENT] S1BB - 10.16.07 - Follow up on San Pedro Fence Issue

Final version, unless there are any other edits. (in addition to waiver options previously sent, & revised
option just sent by (b) (6) )

(b) (6)

Business Manager, Operations

SBI - Fence Program (PF225, VF300)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

________________________________

From:(b) (6)
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 3:23 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)

Subject: RE: REVISED: [URGENT] S1BB - 10.16.07 - Follow up on San Pedro Fence Issue

Please review my proposed edits. (b)

(6)

(b) (6)

Associate Chief Counsel, Trade and Finance

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT/PRIVILEGED

COMMUNICATION -- CIRCULATION RESTRICTED

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

COMMUNICATIONS. IT IS THEREFORE NOT AVAILABLE FOR RELEASE, DISCLOSURE, OR USE
OUTSIDE OF THE AGENCY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER AND
THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, (b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 2:43 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W;
(b) (6)
Subject: FW: REVISED: [URGENT] S1BB - 10.16.07 - Follow up on San Pedro Fence Issue
Importance: High

(b) (6)

(b)(5),(b)(6)

Thank you,

(b) (6)

Business Manager, Operations

SBI - Fence Program (PF225, VF300)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

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

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 12:49 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: REVISED: [URGENT] S1BB - 10.16.07 - Follow up on San Pedro Fence Issue
Importance: High

Hey (b) (6)

See additional info from the Commissioner’s office.

Thanks,

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 12:14 PM
To (b) (6)
Cc:(b) (6)
Subject: REVISED: [URGENT] S1BB - 10.16.07 - Follow up on San Pedro Fence Issue
Importance: High

FYI - see below and attached. Adding OCC as required coordination.

I know that Alfonso Robles and (b) (6) in Chief Counsel have been very involved in this
matter as well. (b) (5)

------------------------------------------------

(b) (6)

on behalf of CBPtasking

Office of the Commissioner

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

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

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 11:54 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: REVISED: [URGENT] S1BB - 10.16.07 - Follow up on San Pedro Fence Issue
Importance: High

Tasker Name

Follow up on San Pedro Fence Issue

Lead Office(s)

SBI

Required Coordination

OCC

Product

Briefing memo and background

Notes

Please see below for details

Due to CBP Tasking

ASAP, NLT 3:00 p.m. today, October 15, 2007

Required Coordinators - Please provide input to the lead office as soon as possible.

Tasker information, contact lists, and templates can be found online at

(b) (2)
. Please ensure that your response
adheres to the guidelines set forth in the CBP Style Book, which can be found at
(b) (2) All responses should be
submitted directly to (b) (2) Please do not
modify subject lines as we use them for tracking purposes.

------------------------------------------------

(b) (6)

on behalf of CBPtasking

Office of the Commissioner

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 9:58 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: [URGENT] S1BB - 10.16.07 - Follow up on San Pedro Fence Issue - (Due: 10.15.07, 1500)
Importance: High

Please provide updated materials for tomorrow’s meeting – will need background on briefing memo.

SECRETARY BRIEFING BOOK TASKING

Event Date

Tuesday, 10.16.07 (1100-1115)

Event Name

Follow up on San Pedro Fence Issue

Lead Component

CBP

Required Coordination

OGC
Product

Briefing Memo, Background

Notes

Attendees:

S1

S2

COS/DCOS

(b) (6)

Jay Ahern

Greg Giddens

(b) (6)

Location: NAC, Secretary’s Conference Room 5110 D

OGC Coordination: Please ensure that briefing materials have been fully coordinated with OGC staff
working in your component.

Meeting Classification: Please include bullet in background section of briefing memorandum if the
meeting or any of the briefing materials are classified. (i.e., “This meeting [or any of the briefing
materials] are classified”).

Please note that all materials being shown to the Secretary must be passed through Exec Sec first.
Please do not bring anything to the meeting ES has not seen (classified or unclassified) without prior
approval. If a presentation is to be made, Lead Component is responsible for providing an appropriate
number of handouts at the meeting. (15 if the meeting takes place in Rm. 5110 D; 25 if in Rm. 5107.)

Due

Monday, 10.15.07 (1600)

DHS Briefing Book Standards and Procedures (including links to template and example) are located on
the DHS intranet at: (b) (2) . If you are having
trouble opening the link, please copy and paste the address into your Internet Explorer Browser. You
may also hold the “CTRL” button down while clicking the link with your mouse.

When transmitting to (b) (2) please use the following format for the subject
line of your email:

· S1BB – Date of Event (mm.dd.yy) – Description (1-2 words) (Recommended BriefingStaffB

member which should review) [Example: “S1BB – 01.04.06 – FEMA (PPIA, Counselors)”]

· Note: For Deputy Secretary briefing paper, please replace “S2” for “S1”.

Thank you,

(b) (6)

Secretary's Briefing Book

Office of the Executive Secretariat

Office of the Secretary

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

(b) (6) 1
From: SELF, JEFFREY (
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: (b) (6)
Date: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:47:33 AM

Ask and you shall receive. Are you happy now!

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:50 AM
To: (b) (6) Self, Jeffrey D; (b) (6) G
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: (b) (6)

(b)
(6)
Make it so.

(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
SBInet PM
(b) (6)
Sent by Blackberry

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

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) Self, Jeffrey D (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Mon May 21 18:45:34 2007

Subject: RE: (b) (6)

Sir, when you say negotiate, do you mean accept the offer? I believe we have negotiated for quite
some time now and we are now at a stalemate. I don’t believe there is really any more room which (b)
wishes give us. Please see below email chatter for more detail. In normal circumstances, I (6)
believe we would have accepted this offer without much heartburn, but since this may impact the real
estate prices for the rest of PF225, well… Again, I think the time to bicker on price is over and we
need to decide which direction we want to go.

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: Monday, May 21, 2007 6:32 PM
To: Self, Jeffrey D; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Re: (b) (6)

We should negotiate.

(b) (6)
SBInet PM
(b) (6)
Sent by Blackberry

Ron,

We received another offer from the(b) (6) and it is outlined in the message below.
In essence they now want(b) (4) dollars for a one-mile by 100’ stretch of land that we are seeking
to acquire for the purpose of erecting the east end of the (b) (6) plus legal fees which
could go as high as (b) Additionally, they want us to specify in the deed that the land will only be
(4)of patrolling the border and lastly they us to erect a five strand barbwire fence
used for the purposes
on the northern edge of the easement.

1. The price is exorbitant and far exceeds the government estimate of fair market value at(b) (4)
for the raw land.

* (b) (6) reply to that yesterday when we talked is that he does have plans for developing
that land into a retirement community and he feels that the project will detract from that. (b) (6)
also pointed out that he pays hundreds more per sf for land in El Paso. I did not make much headway
trying to support the government’s position on land values when we talked yesterday. This guy is a
very shrewd businessman and he knows he has us over a barrel.

* Paying this price is very likely to set precedent for future land acquisitions by the government in
NM and elsewhere when we begin other infrastructure projects. (b) (6) is affiliated with the (b)
which is a company that owns considerable land in Santa Teresa, NM our next target for (6)
infrastructure. I’m sure it will not escape their notice that we paid dearly for the (b) (6) in the
event we do.

2. The clause that limits the use of the land to our purposes doesn’t bother me, but as you can see
from the traffic below it does bother USACE.

3. The Fence is no problem whatsoever.

We have two other options, one of which does not address our inevitable need for the land. The other
is politically unfeasible at this time.

Option #1. We cease attempting to acquire the land and move forward with our alternative of
extending the western portion of fencing by the 1 mile we won’t be able to construct on(b) (6)
Ultimately, though we need to build fence on the east and will sooner or later have to address the issue
of (b) (6) and his exorbitant pricing.

Option #2. Condemnation proceedings. Condemnation proceedings will allow us to move forward on
the construction project at this time. We can expect; however, that litigation will follow, which could
adversely impact the project. Additionally, the cost of litigation plus whatever we would ultimately pay
for the land is unknown.

With condemnation we would possibly pay less, but there will be litigation. (b) (6) is not without
the resources to put up a considerable fight if he is of a mind to do so. A Google search on (b) (6)
clearly shows that he knows real estate and based on our discussions yesterday I don’t know that we
want to fight him even if we were of a mind to do so.

The problem with paying his asking price is the precedent it will set for others.

My recommendation is that we pay the asking price and attorney’s fees so that we can move forward
on this project without further delay.

I have attached a briefing paper on this document on the supporting documents, which are the memos
and notes I sent when asking for condemnation.

My understanding is that I need OBP approval of my recommendation. My concern is that the longer
we wait the greater the chances of the terms changing again, so I request expeditious handling and
decision please.
(b) (6)

El Paso Sector

(b) (6)

WARNING: This document is LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE and is designated FOR OFFICIAL USE
ONLY (FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of
Information Act (5 USC 552). This document is to be controlled, handled, transmitted, distributed, and
disposed of in accordance with Department of Homeland Security policy relating to FOUO information,
and is not to be released to the public or personnel who do not have a valid "need to know" without
prior approval from the Chief Patrol Agent, El Paso Sector(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:03 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: (b) (6)
Importance: High

Chief,

FYI

Regards,

(b) (6)

Assistant Chief Patrol Agent

El Paso Sector

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6) ]

Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:38 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: (b) (6)

(b) (6)
I received the below e-mail from (b) (6) last night after you had met with him and (b) (6)

Don't really see much of a change in their position.

1. Deed Restrictions: I have legal looking into this, but it would be very difficult to do. Even if we
could put language in the deed, don't know how it could cover all future possibilities; i.e. agency name
change, holding agency change or name change, ownership change. Not saying this can't be
accomplished, but not sure it can right now. If this becomes the final and only issue, we can try.

2. Price of (b) (4) plus legal fees: We do not want to start a precedent of paying high prices and
legal fees and as long as I have a responsibility of determining an appropriate value under (b) (5) ,
I cannot approve as long as the appraised value is under (b) (4) I don't recommend approval.

3. 5 Wire Fence: We can do this.

Recommendation: Condemnation - but will discuss in more detail as needed.

If we all need to talk again I'll make myself available, but he's asking too much.

(b) (6)

Chief, Real Estate Division

________________________________

From:(b) (6) ]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:37 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: (b) (6)

Dear (b) (6)

Thank you for the time you and your colleagues spent with us yesterday.

The attached communication was emailed approximately two hours after our meeting. Hopefully
your Albuquerque colleagues will take a moment and review the situation from our perspective. Their
position totally disregards your projects negative impact on the rest of our (b) (6) ( 23,000
+ deeded acres). It is a question of fairness-not dollars.

Good luck-and call if I can help you regarding any other matter. I appreciate your commitment to
our Country.

THANKS -(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
201 E. Main
4th Floor
El Paso, Texas 79901
(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6) ]

Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 6:01 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: (b) (6)

(b)
(6)
(b) (6) and I just had a very constructive meeting with (b) (6) and (b) (6) ers
of the Border Patrol regarding our land in (b) (6) We want to help the Border Patrol in their
mission. As a real estate professional, you know that this project, which includes “the lighting that
goes on and off,” will have a negative impact on the several thousand acres of deeded land that we
have which surround this sale. (How would you like to have a home that backs up to this lighted zone?
) In light of this, I believe the only remaining issues to resolve are 1) restrictions on the future use of
the land, 2) the purchase price and 3) the northern boundary fence.

Regarding the first issue, we were informed today that the Reversionary Clause that you proposed is not
feasible. In lieu of this, (b) (6) discussed the possibility of placing restrictions in the deed that
will limit the future use of the property to those specifically identified to accomplish the Border Patrol’s
mission in the area. He said that he would discuss this with his “real estate guys.”

Regarding price, in our last conversation, we discussed a value for the purchase of the land of (b) (4)
a square foot or (b) (4) plus our legal fees. Even though we feel this value is fair, if not a little low,
(b) (6) explained the difficulty of meeting this price. Previously, in our meeting with you here in
El Paso, a figure of (b) (4) plus legal fees was discussed. In an effort to have this project meet its
timeline, we are willing to “meet half way” and would agree to a price of (b) (5) plus our legal fees.

Regarding the third issue, we would like to make sure that the project includes the construction by the
government of a 5 strand fence on the northern boundary of the property to be sold.

Assuming we are in agreement, we are willing to immediately move forward.

Being very candid, we are willing to do this only because we believe in the Border Patrol’s mission. We
still have serious concerns that this project will negatively impact our overall plans in the area.

(b) (6)
Senior Vice President
(b) (6)
201 E. Main, 4th Floor
El Paso, Texas 79901
(b) (6)

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

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

Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Mon May 21 17:34:47 2007
Subject: (b) (6)

Folks,

Any decisions on where we are going with this?

Jeff
From: SELF, JEFFREY (
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: final time adjustment -- PF225 PMT meeting Wed 9 May starts at 3PM Eastern
Date: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 9:37:58 AM
Importance: High

Fyi

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

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

SELF, JEFFREY D (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Wed May 09 08:00:16 2007

Subject: final time adjustment -- PF225 PMT meeting Wed 9 May starts at 3PM Eastern

will allow (b) (6) P70 meeting to complete (2-3 PM).

same numbers: (b) (2)
(b)
(6)
________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 6:36 PM
To: (b) (6)
SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: PF225 PMT meeting Wed 9 May -- TIME CHANGE and phone number change needed
Importance: High

Something I should have brought up in the FEIT call today.

Mr Giddens is holding an SBInet all-hands meeting from 8 - 1 this Wednesday, and about half of us
should be in this meeting. So I would like to postpone for four hours, and have our PMT discussion
from 2 PM - 3:30 PM Eastern. Different call-in number: (b) (2) .

Regrets only, please.

(b)
(6)
From: SELF, JEFFREY ( on behalf of (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Updated: PF225 Public Affairs and Real Estate Strategy Meeting March 21-22
Start: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:00:00 PM
End: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 5:00:00 PM
Location: SBInet room 7.5B

(b)
You or (b) need to go to this.

Jeff

_____________________________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:35 AM
To: (b) (6)
A; SELF, JEFFREY D; ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Updated: PF225 Public Affairs and Real Estate Strategy Meeting March 21-22
When: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:00 PM-5:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: SBInet room 7.5B

Call in number for this meeting is:

DATE: 3/21/2007
TIME 1:00 PM - 6:00 PM
(b) (6)
From RRB, NP, L Street and 633 3rd Street please dia(b) (6) only
(b) (6)
(b) (2)
PORTS: 10

Attached you will find directions and nearby hotels. If you need escorted into the building, please call the front desk at (b) t have
someone bring you upstairs. You can also try calling(b) (6) at (b) or (b) (6) at (b) Please note that although
the official meeting is only on Wednesday from 1-5, the same room will be available Thursday morning for further discussions. Thank
you and look forward to see you March 21 at 1.

(b)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:06 PM
To: (b) (6)
SELF, JEFFREY D; ADAMS, ROWDY D (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: PF225 Public Affairs & real Estate Strategy Meeting 21-22Mar07
Afternoon Folks, I likely have not met all of you yet….by way of introduction I am the SBI PM for the construction of 225 miles of fence
on the SWB before Jan09. Much has transpired the last 30 days…..we are in a position now to deal with our most important
risk….Public Affairs and Real Estate Engagements. We are working on a border-wide approach to manage the message and each
engagement so to reduce friction and make way for the required speed of delivery of the fence. Our current schedule calls for real
estate transactions to start approximately 1Jul07. I was working with (b) (6) on the complexities of integrating these
activities and other touch-points with Agencies regarding land–use and environmental issues. She suggested we call this meeting and
invite each of you!
I’m currently putting flesh to this meeting….figured we’d go 2-5 on 21 Mar finish up the next morning 9-12 22 Mar….basic outcomes
are WHAT do we need to do and HOW are we going to do it. The meeting could end with folks attending the System Requirements
Review (SRR) for PF225 if desired.
I’d like to keep the mtg size to 25 ppl….if you think there are other that need to attend….pls let me know.
An “official” mtg notice will follow. Tks, (b) (6)
p.s. (b) (6) Pls forward to the right folks in your organizations…
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fwd:DRT Outreach Information
Date: Monday, June 25, 2007 10:08:21 AM

Oh... here is the attachment,

Gentlemen,

The outreach report below covers the requested information such as reason for no
contact or areas that are out of the project footprint. The column on the far
right will list these conditions. We are at 82% and expect to resolve the no
contact list by the end of this week if not sooner.

We have only one property owner at this point who will be out of the foot print
and south of the fence unless there are changes to the footprint deemed
necessary in the coming stages of survey and assessments.

Thanks,

(b) (6)
Del Rio Sector
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:50:05 PM

(b)
(6)
I just saw weaselboy (b) (6) and of course he deferred it back the Sector. He said that the location of
that project is what the Sector provided, so no solid answer from him. He did say that 1.5 miles of the
PF70 segment is along the salinity canal against the levee. I am going to put a call into (b) (6)
over in Yuma and confirm. I also looked on the PF225 chart in (b) (6) cube and it says that the current
alignment is along the levee and that the real estate issues would involve (b) (6) (b)
also said that he had worked with (b) (6) in Yuma and that he also said that the(6)
fence would be along the levee. I’ll let you know.

(b) (6)
Field Operations Supervisor
Detailed HQOBP
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Message not deliverable
Date: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:09:13 AM

---------- cc:Mail Nondelivery Report -----------

From: (b) (6)
Date: 04/30/2007 10:54 AM
To: (b) (6)
To:
To:
To:

To:
To:

To:
To:
To:
To:
To:
To:
To:
To:
To:

To:
To:
To:
To:
To:
To:
To:
To:
Cc:
Cc:
Cc:
Subject:
Unknown recipient: (b) (6)

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(superscript: 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

Office of Border Patrol

1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6.5E

Washington, D.C.20229

(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: (b) I have more questions
Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 5:09:09 PM

I am out of the office. (b) (6) (CTR) the PF225 Deputy PM will be monitoring/acting on
PF225 email from this email address for the time being...pls continue to send issues here.He can be
reached at (b) (6) or cell (b) (6) For strictly governmental issues please contact the SBI
Director of Projects (b) (6) Thanks for all you support getting PF225
moving! Not a minute to waste... (b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: GIDDENS, GREGOR( ; ADAMS, ROWDY(b FLOSSMAN, LOREN ( ; (b) (6)
Subject: Non-PF225 Condemnation Action
Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:23:05 AM

(b) (5)

(b) (6)
Office of Chief Counsel
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
((b) (6)

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED/ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

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

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 6:57 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Non-PF225 Condemnation Action

(b) (5)

(b) (6)

Acquisition Realty Specialist

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Southwestern Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) JEFFREYS, JACK (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: OBP ORBBP and Outreach Tasking
Date: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 2:11:12 PM

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

The following attachments address OBP tasks regarding the ORBBP and SBInet
Outreach programs. The document labeled “response” addresses both issues and
the document labeled as “60 Day OUTREACH” addresses the SBInet Outreach
Program. The response document is pasted in plain text in case you do not have
immediate access to your computers.

In regards to Operational Requirements Based Budget Process (ORBBP):

The El Paso Sector Stations have reviewed existing plans in ORBBP and
determined that previous requests regarding Tactical Infrastructure are still
indicative of their needs. Minor changes in priority were made by the Deming
and Ysleta Stations but this did not change the overall priority for the El Paso
Sector.

All TI projects have accompanying GPS Trimble files associated.

The only TI project immediately scheduled for construction is Deming Phase 1A

which consist of 1.5 miles of lighting and fencing west of the Columbus Port of
Entry. Progress on this project will be updated once construction begins.

In regards to the SBInet outreach program:

The attached spreadsheet identifying key stakeholders, public and private,

affected by PF-225 and the Texas Mobile Solution is attached. This
prioritization was based on both the initial proposed deployment of PF-225 and
the technology assets that may be deployed with the TMS.

Attempts to identify landowners are on going but obtaining accurate landowner

information for other Governmental agencies is proving to be difficult. This
includes the International Boundary and Water Commission, the (b) (6)
and the (b) (6)

El Paso Sector personnel are scheduled to accompany (b) (6) of the U.S.
Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) to the El Paso County Tax Assessors Office
on May 10, 2007. El Paso Sector personnel will continue to accompany
USACE personnel on any future visits to obtain landowner information.

A total of 8 stakeholders, private and public, have been contacted in regards to

the implementation of PF-225.
 The El Paso Sector is also nearing the Design Deployment Review (DDR) for
the TMS. Possible areas of asset deployment should be identified in the near
future, this will result in a significant increase of stakeholder contacts.

The El Paso Sector is determined to reach out, not only to affected landowners,
but to the entire El Paso Community. At the SBInet Outreach conference held
in Washington, D.C. on March 6th and 7th, 2007, it was determined that agents
involved in the Outreach program should have uniform, Office of Border Patrol
approved, information to distribute to landowners. This method of distribution
would avoid of any conflicting information from sector to sector.

It was also the consensus that information should be developed to educate

agents on the role of SBInet as it applies to our National strategy.

This information was to arrive in the form of pamphlets, briefing cards, and
Powerpoint presentations. To date, pamphlets and briefing cards have arrived
but no other presentations have been distributed.

The El Paso Sector would like to have access to OBP approved Powerpoint
presentations so that information regarding SBInet can be presented to a
variety of people, including agents, stakeholders, and the community as a
whole.

Take Care,

(b) (6)
Special Operations Supervisor
El Paso Sector
8901 Montana Avenue
El Paso, Texas 79925
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) H
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Outreach
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:32:05 AM

Hello All,

Per Mr. Giddens’ request for updated figures could everyone please look at my preliminary numbers
and ensure there accuracy:

437: Landowners contacted regarding SBI/SBInet (PF225 778 identified)

60: Governor’s Homeland Security Advisors briefed on SBI/SBInet
35: City Mayors and Judges contacted regarding SBI/SBInet
28: Local sheriffs contacted regarding SBI/SBInet
19: Congressional briefings given regarding SBI/SBInet
5: Town hall meetings held regarding SBI/SBInet
1: Governors’ briefed regarding SBInet

Thanks,
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
Program Management Office
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Message sent to Sectors concerning next step Outreach
Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 4:47:29 PM

The SBInet Fence Project (PF 225) is moving forward with unprecedented speed and it is imperative that initial
Border Patrol contacts be made immediately with stakeholders (land owners) within the footprint of the fence.
Earlier guidance and direction was given to all Outreach POCs to complete these initial contacts by April 16, 2007.
This date is extremely important, because shortly thereafter, real estate personnel from the Army Corps of
Engineers will begin contacting you and scheduling dates for discussing issues with the stakeholders. Chief
Aguilar has stated that Border Patrol must be the first contact for landowners and must accompany all Army Corps
encounters. The Chief does not want this fence project to be misconstrued as a DOD led initiative.

Some sectors have postponed initial contacts until the PF225 fence locations were solidified. We no longer have
time to wait for this. All sectors need to coordinate with their Tactical Infrastructure personnel and begin/continue
their outreach efforts. Secretary Chertoff is set to make the final decision on the fence’s lay down next Monday,
April 16, 2007. The construction timeline directs the Border Patrol and Army Corps real estate personnel to begin
visiting landowners on or about April 23, 2007. Your initial contacts with stakeholders need to be completed
before then. Initial contact should not be made when real estate personnel are ready to discuss land purchases.

Pamphlets have been produced for you to distribute to your stakeholders, and are currently being printed. Please do
not wait for the pamphlets to arrive to finish these initial contacts. You have all received a draft of the pamphlet to
review before it went to production, so you have that copy for reference.

Please advise OBP HQ of any outreach issues you encounter (e.g. land owner is violently opposed to any fence,
land owner will not give right of entry, etc). Be prepared to submit your contact information on a weekly basis.
We don’t have the reporting mechanism finalized, but we do anticipate regular reports initially. We may need to
update/brief the Chief and SBInet personnel frequently.

We have mailed out a database to assist with gathering contact information. You are not required to use this
database, but it contains a good sample of the data we will need here at HQ. This simple Access database can track
your initial stakeholder contacts, follow up meetings, and landowner information. We have included instruction on
how to convert your Excel files into the database. The database also has a reporting mechanism, so you will have
the ability to print out your contact information reports, and send them electronically if necessary.

Thank you in advance for the work involved in making this come together.

Please send any outreach issues or questions to (b) (6) and (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)
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Outreach Report DRT
Date: Thursday, June 07, 2007 5:23:57 PM

Gentlemen,

Attached is the latest outreach report, we have met once again with the City of
Eagle Pass concerning fence issues related to a proposed project and discussed
P225 issues as well. The city once again indicated they oppose any fence on
their property and do not wish to discuss placement or grant/sell city property
for the purpose of the fence. They remain in the RED column on this report.

Media articles regarding this visit are attached in the PDF document. NOTE:
The map in the photo is a city map of the project area from the previous project
proposal and not associated with P225. The article also addressed the Project
Development Team proposal to eradicate cane, install lights and improve patrol
roads. It was our intent to re-insert a previous proposed fence into this
project, which was overruled by the council. During discussion related to P225
fencing they do not wish to negotiate the matter at all and again, remain
opposed.

We expect to begin private landowner negotiations beginning on Monday of this

coming week. We will keep you posted.

(b) (6)
Del Rio Sector
(b) (6)