OBP004650

Tele-conference for Dallas/Ft. Worth USACE/SBInet/PF225 Reps (Sectors)

Del Rio Sector:

 Follow IBWC Levee alignment

 Economic units upon appraisal stage
 Allow owner to be bought out if she so desires
 City of Eagle Pass => refused ROE(S) => condemnation path next week
 (b) (6) present and speaking during conversation
 Nov. 1 and Nov. 2nd (DOJ)
st

 Business case + package

 4-5 actions (2 SPD)
 Justify why specific segment is critical for project (operationally)
 Letters to landowners => ROE-(C)

Rio Grande Valley Sector:

 Unresolved issues => East side of Roma POE: RGV wants to build on
lower ground (beneath bluff) so that 20+ residents are not displaced.
Possibly negotiated agreement between Congressional reps. and sector
staff. Baker Engineering wants to build on top of bluff.
 City of Roma signed ROE(S), but is opposed to fence project.
 Starr County is completely opposed to the project (Red)
 Engineering Survey not done yet (usually precedes Real Estate Survey)
 Considering 60 ft. swath for purchase for alignment of fence project
 (b) (6) decided that RGV wanted alignment on bottom
side of bluff downriver of ROM POE.
 Mentioned: Revestments (the act of returning property to their owners
after having acquired it through the condemnation route.
 O-17: (b) (6) Del Rio => opposes the fence project. Stated that the money
could be used in more productive manner
 O-4: possibly continuing with green landowners ONLY. Will possibly
leave the red and yellow owners for a later time. (Green owners are
spread out throughout the project, leaving gaps in construction)
 O-7: East side of POE => packaged for condemnation route next week
 O-8: TPWD => ROE
 All unknown landowners will be processed for condemnation proceedings.
 L1 => ?? ; L2 => ?? ; L3 => 30 ft. from toe of levee; L4 => 60 ft. from
toe of levee

The meeting ended with no agreement in terms of the final alignment of the fence. It was
determined that other pieces of vital information was lacking during this meeting to make
an accurate and adequate decision for the final alignment. It was discussed and agreed
that Baker engineers were go through the RGV segments and parcel by parcel, decide
which option (L1, L2, L3, L4) was going to be the best possible solution for the
OBP004651

individual terrain features. A comprehensive map was going to be generated, which

contained gate access including the type of gate (ped., veh. Farm), access roads including
the material used for the road, staging sites for construction, and of course, the fence
alignment.

Baker engineers, RGV personnel, USACE reps, to include (b) (6) (PM) were
to drive out the entire proposed project and make their final alignment. (b) (6)
agreed that a review of their product by RGV staff was appropriate.