OBP005557

From: (b) (6)

To: MANJARREZ, VICTOR M; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: TxMobile Response Platforms (Canal Crossovers)
Date: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 7:47:08 PM
Importance: High

Chief,

That’s a big 10/4. Consider it done.

Regards,
(b)
(6)

From: MANJARREZ, VICTOR M [mailto:VICTOR.Manjarrez@dhs.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 5:09 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) Manjarrez, Victor M
Subject: RE: TxMobile Response Platforms (Canal Crossovers)

(b)
(6)
We will continue to put forth our requirements to SBInet and HQOBP. If the requirements are not
being met such as to what appears below on the crossovers we will need to document this in an
“Impact Statement” document. SBInet may need to look for ways to reduce the costs for individual
Sector projects for the overall project but we will not reduce our requirements due to financial
concerns. It is alright to change the requirements if operationally we have a significant change. This is
the way we need to proceed but lets ensure that we document are requirements well and what is
actually laid down as resource.

Vic

"Honor First - Excellence in All We do"

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 9:55 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) Manjarrez, Victor M
Subject: RE: TxMobile Response Platforms (Canal Crossovers)

Gentlemen – remember the Chief Manjarrez’s mantra – “once we take delivery, it’s ours”. Make sure
we get what we need, not what they want to give us.

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 9:41 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6) ; Manjarrez, Victor M; (b) (6)
Subject: Re: TxMobile Response Platforms (Canal Crossovers)

(b)
(6)
Please forward (b) the correspondence we received yesterday with attachments including my comments
(6)
OBP005558

regarding cross overs and Pecan Orchards. I'm very concerned that Boeing is backing away from our requirements
due to monetary shortfalls.

We have already heard Boeing Program Managers begin to use the Phrase "TXMS Protype". To be clear, EPT is
not interested in rececieving a prototype model. EPT will not accept a prototype. Boeing must focus on our well
documented TXMS requirements.

Regards,
(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Sent: Wed Aug 01 11:31:23 2007
Subject: RE: TxMobile Response Platforms (Canal Crossovers)

(b)
(6)
I understand the challenges and the necessity for a pecan groves solution. Where does EPT see this area for
Operational Priority? (ranking the project areas from 1 to whatever). When (b) (6) says “too difficult to
implement”, does he mean the hoops we have to jump through or the design and location requirement because I see
that (b) (6) had a meeting with the water district and it seemed to go over well. I am just trying to figure
out the “cutting corners” so I can push back to getting EPT’s needs up front over them just getting something in the
ground. Thanks for the heads up.

(b)
(6)

(b) (6)

Assistant Chief

OPA Division

Office of Border Patrol

1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6.5E

Washington, D.C. 20229

Office: (b) (6)

Cell: (b) (6)

Fax: (b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:14 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: TxMobile Response Platforms (Canal Crossovers)
OBP005559

(b)
(6)

There are a couple of things I wanted to push forward and let you know about in regards to the Texas Mobile
Solution (TxMS) in an effort to keep OBP informed about the status of the project. Specifically in regards to how
some of the decisions being made do not seem to take into account operational needs. As you already know, there
are numerous changes taking place on a daily basis but the information that I will be referring to in this e-mail is
the latest information that I have.

The El Paso Sector has concerns about the direction of the TxMS. If you refer to the attached PowerPoint
presentation, TxMS will be implemented in a phased approach. It is my understanding that these phases will be
followed until funding is no longer available. Any phase not reached or completed will ultimately be supplemented
and funded with the El Paso Sector SBInet project.

The El Paso Sector supports an overall phased approach as it makes good sense. Our concern with this approach is
that the TxMS is being viewed as a prototype instead of an operationally based fully functional laydown of assets
throughout the entire TxMS project area.

Additionally, we are concerned that some of our requirements may not be met. In the case of the TxMS, the two
requirements of concern are to be able to detect, identify, classify and resolve threats in the pecan groves that
surround the Fabens and Fort Hancock Stations Areas Of Responsibility (AOR). To this date, there have been no
acceptable solutions presented that will fulfill this requirement.

TxMS was also slated to have 8 canal cross-overs (response platforms) that would provide immediate access to the
International border. Under the current plan, there will only be 3 cross-overs constructed. Although we currently
work without these response platforms, the increase in detection capability will likely greatly increase the need for
additional access to the immediate border area. The absence of these response platforms will severely limit
response capability.

I am attaching this forwarding correspondence from Project Manager John Wells in regards to these issues so that
you can see how things are transpiring.

Thanks for your help in resolving all the recent issues that have arisen.

Take Care- (b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

OBP005560

Sent: Mon 7/30/2007 4:33 PM

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

Subject: FW: TxMobile Response Platforms (Canal Crossovers)

(b) –
(6)

Forwarded is the initial information, which begins to identify the stakeholders and organizations with whom we
will need to coordinate to build canal crossovers. The are planned 8 canal crossovers all within the TXM AOR
with only three (3) planned to be provided by the TXM project with the remaining five (5) planned to be provided
by the broader El Paso Project.

As all eight (8) are within the TXM AOR, recommend inclusion of all eight within the TXM Environmental
Assessment (EA).

Additionally, while TXM priorities have been revisited and the three canal crossovers for Ysleta are identified as a
high enough priority that the three canal crossovers for Ysleta should be funded, TXM and the broader El Paso
Sector priorities and available funding may change such that the eight canal crossovers identified herewith may or
may not all be implemented.

(b) (6) – Can the bridge design identified for the Ysleta Canal Crossover #1 serve as a canal crossover
and thus relieve us of the requirement? It looks to me that it may, but I am unsure of that at which I am looking.
Also, please find attached the latest TXM Priorities List as coordinated here within the PMO. Recommend a
thorough review with feedback of whether you agree or not.

Also, If Ysleta #1 is too difficult to implement, may I kindly ask you to prioritize the canal crossover sites to move
on to the next priority and also in the event we cannot build them all.

Best regards,

(b) (6)

Project Manager, Texas Mobile

Secure Border Initiative

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6) o)
OBP005561

(b) (6)

________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 4:26 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: TxMobile Response Platforms

All:

We had a meeting this morning with Jesus Reyes, the General Manager of the El Paso County Water Improvement
District 1(EPCWID). Also present was the head engineer for the water district, Mr. Blair. This water district is
responsible for the canal waterways in El Paso County located north of levee system. The planned canal crossovers
(Response Platforms) will have a direct impact on their operations and we wanted to pass on a few things you need
to be aware of. Overall, the meeting was very productive and Mr. Reyes expressed his gratitude for involving the
EPCWID so early in the planning process.

Of the 8 platforms from Ysleta Station to the Fort Hancock Station, platforms 1 through 6 will be on or near
EPCWID property. Platforms 7 and 8 will land in Hudspeth County Conservation & Reclamation District’s
(HCCRD) area, an organization with the same mission as the EPCWID.

Platform 1 has several unique issues already in play. (See attached Crossover Locations document for photo
illustration.) The EPCWID has several projects already planned for the platform 1 area, including a bridge design.
(Please see attached engineers drawing of the bridge design.) The EPCWID has worked out several issues with the
City of El Paso and the University of Texas at El Paso, including environmental surveys and construction plans.
They do not want to see a bridge constructed in this area unless it meets their design specifications. It is the
EPCWID’s stance that they are ready for construction in this area as soon as they can acquire funding. Mr. Reyes
seemed to think that our SBInet projects could speed up the funding necessary for the construction of this
crossover/platform. The two major problems with that are the expense of THIER bridge design, and the
specifications that must be followed for any construction project near their waterways. Platform 1 was the only
crossover that presented major issues but they added that they will not approve any crossover designs that have
supports in the actual waterway; support has to be provided from each bank.

There appear to be no other major obstacles for Platforms 1 through 6, besides the Rights of Entry (ROE) process.
There is a concern with their requirement of a $1000 fee to apply for right of use. (Please see the attached document
titled Application for Limited Right to Use District Real Property, Review Subdivision Plat, or Other Requests.)
Mr. Blair stated that one application will have to be submitted for each platform site and this fee will not be
waived. He said they currently have a ROE with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and it may be easiest for us to
submit a supplement to this ROE along with a request for an extension (See ROE Attachment). We are in the
process of checking with (b) (6) (USACE), in Albuquerque to see if he will supplement the current ROE. If this
happens, we may need detailed information about who will be conducting the crossover site assessments.
OBP005562

Regarding platforms 7 and 8, there is a different use request process. We will forward more information about the
process once we have it. Mr. Blair also serves as head engineer for the HCCRD.

We are forwarding this information so that it can be forwarded to anyone who may be able to help with this
process. We will work on getting the ROE supplemented but we need guidance on solving the 5-6K access fee
problem.

Please let us know if you have any questions and have a good weekend.

(b) (6)

Supervisory Border Patrol Agent

El Paso Sector SBInet Office

(b) (6)

(b) (6)