You are on page 1of 12

From: (b) (6)

To: PAGAN, DAVID G.- (b) (6)

Subject: RE: FenceUpdate


Date: Monday, February 04, 2008 6:35:53 PM

Good afternoon David.

The purpose of the meeting is to share information. I have questions about the levee proposal, and you
have questions about the letters. Perhaps other people have questions as well?

While I know many people have been in the loop on the levee project, others may not be familiar with
the history or the way ahead. Though I could not attend this morning’s meeting, I recommended you
and others be invited. I am interested in what the way ahead is, such as the documents that need to
be developed and what the messaging for those will be. Perhaps that has already been finalized. As
someone who has been in the loop, perhaps you can attend and share your information.

In regards to the letter, I will be glad to share what information I have at tomorrow’s meeting.

Thanks.

(b) (6)

Secure Border Initiative

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(b) (6)

For more information about the Secure Border Initiative, visit www.cbp.gov/sbi or contact us at SBI info@dhs.gov.

_____________________________________________
From: PAGAN, DAVID G.- HQ
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 6:16 PM
To: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: FenceUpdate

(b)
(6)
I know there is a lot happening with all of us this week and feel we should try to make the best use of
our limited time tomorrow when we discuss these issues. Can you please clarify the goals for this
meeting prior to 10:00 tomorrow?

I feel it would be helpful for everyone to understand:

1) The purpose for distributing the levee proposal info; I believe many of us have been in the loop on
this project during the past few days; are you looking to the group to develop a message?

2) The timeline for sending this letter and the need, if any, to develop any related messaging products.
I also feel it would be good for the group to understand how this letter fits into the overall project; that
is, by moving forward to buy land, are we now ready to indicate that final alignment decisions have
been made?
Thank you,

David

David G. Pagan

Advisor to the Commissioner and State & Local Liaison

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Department of Homeland Security


(b) (6)

_____________________________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 4:32 PM

To: (b) (6)


PAGAN, DAVID G.- (b) (6)

Subject: FenceUpdate

When: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 10:00 AM-11:00 AM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

Where: Conference Room 7.5.C

The purpose of the meeting is to dicuss two issues, the Hidalgo County Levee project and the draft
letter to landowners to initiate real estate negotiations.

Documents on these two issues are attached.

<< File: Hidalgo Status 2_04_08 FINAL (2).ppt >> << File: Value Letter - Draft - 20080204.DOC >>
Hidalgo County Levee Proposal

February 4, 2008
Loren Flossman

For
F r Official
Of cia Use
e Only
On y
Proposal Summary

The Proposal
Hidalgo is proposing to raise the IBWC levees to address flood protection concerns and is
proposing to install an 18 foot concrete wall (i.e. fence) as part of their project on the
southern side of the levee to replace the requirement for the fence SBI has proposed on the
north side of the levees. The RGV fence segments impacted by the proposal are O4 – O10
which equals about 22 miles or 31% of the RGV fence requirements. Some segments may
be a combination of fence and retaining wall (to address threatened and endangered
species concerns). Segments O-4 through O-10 are not contiguous.

OBP operational requirements – The 18 foot wall and access points meets operational
requirements.

Project Schedule - Hidalgo county has developed a project schedule that will allow
completion of the proposed levee/wall segments that align with O-4 – O10 by Dec 08.

Project Funding - Hidalgo currently has all the funding to begin and complete the levee
(b) (4)
raising project. CBP/SBI will contribute (fixed cost) for wall to be built
(b) (4)
– Total project cost for levee raising & wall:
(b) (4)
– CBP total cost for wall = )
2
Proposal Summary

•Hidalgo County would be responsible for engineering & construction


– Still need IBWC’s concurrence relative to segment O-6, which includes the
construction of some “new” levee
•CBP/SBI would perform environmental work & provide project oversight
– We envision assign a full-time CBP/SBI representative to project; rep would
work in the County’s offices
•IBWC would provide project oversight

3
Contracting Approach

• Execute a cooperative agreement with Hidalgo County


• Requires legislative action to provide S1 with authority to executed
Cooperative Agreement
– OLA/OGC leading efforts to draft legislation
– Need to preserve S1 waiver authority
• SBI’s Procurement/contracts group to seek assistance from a sister DHS
contract shop with expertise in cooperative agreements

4
Environmental Approach

•Add construction of concrete fence to our final EIS as an alternative proposed action
to building standard metal fence
– O-4 through O-10 would have two proposed actions
• Metal fence as proposed in the draft EIS
• Concrete fence as proposed in the Hidalgo proposal
•Prepare biological assessments and biological opinions for both proposed actions
for O-4 through O-10
– With regards to the metal fence, no significant issues remaining with FWS
– With regards to concrete fence,
• FWS have no concerns with O-5 & O-6 because of existing urban development immediately
north of the levees
• FWS have major concerns with O-4 & O-7 through O-10
– FWS view concrete fence as an impermeable barrier (not the case with metal fence)
– FWS have proposed a number of concepts for mitigating adverse impacts of concrete fence; all involve
leaving “gaps” in the fence segments (the concept with the least amount of “gaps” has ~57 openings (50 ft
wide) in addition to the 25 existing vehicle ramps into the flood plain
– USBP/OBP have indicated the ~57 proposed openings is unacceptable; RGV USBP is willing to keep the
25 existing vehicle ramps “open”
– May require S1 waiver of Endangered and Threatened Species Act
•No significant cultural resource issues with concrete fence that are not already
being addressed with metal fence

5
Real Estate Approach

•Additional real estate actions for concrete fence are minimal, if any
•All work to be performed within existing IBWC levee property or easement
– Most real estate acquisitions associated with metal fence footprint would no
longer be need
•Existing proposed access roads and staging areas still viable

6
Key Milestones

• CBP/SBI/DHS go/no decision NLT Feb 15


• Obtain legislative approval for Cooperative Agreement NLT TBD
• Execute cooperative agreement with Hidalgo County NLT TBD
– Complete EIS/Issue Record of Decision (ROD) NLT 15 Apr
– Assumes FWS Biological Opinion is finalized prior to 15 Apr
• SBI TI establishes and staffs a Project Office in McAllen, TX NLT TBD
• Hidalgo County begins issuing construction RFPs NLT 16 Apr
• Hidalgo County begins awarding construction contracts/building concrete
fence NLT 16 Jun
• Construction is completed by NLT 15 Dec

7
“Near-term” Next Steps

• Make go/no decision (SBI TI PMO recommends a “go”)


• Assuming it’s a “go”:
– Draft legislation language to give S1 authority to executive cooperative
agreement with Hidalgo County
– Execute cooperative agreement
– Work with FWS to complete Biological Opinion or Execute S1 Waiver
– Update/finalize EIS

8
(Date)

Landowner Name
Address

Dear Landowner:

We have completed our initial site evaluation of your property and have determined that we must
acquire the following interest(s) in your land to construct border security infrastructure that is critical to the U.S.
Congress’ mandate to gain effective control of our Nation’s southern border: a [___________ easement
affecting _____ acre(s) of land, and a ___________ easement affecting _____ acre(s) of land, and a fee
1
parcel consisting of ____ acre(s) of land ]. This (These) tract(s) is (are) identified in Government records as
Tract Number(s) _____. You will find enclosed a copy of the estates to be acquired, a legal description and a
map of your property depicting the affected acreage (and an Offer to Sell 2 ). [Also enclosed is a brochure
generally describing the federal land acquisition process to be followed for this project based on the provisions
of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (URA), 42 U.S.C. 4601, et
seq. Pursuant to this letter, we are initiating negotiations to purchase the land interests described above.

In compliance with the URA [or Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act (URA), 42 U.S.C. 4601, et seq.], we are advising you that the sum of $__________is the amount of our
approved market value appraisal for the land interest(s) to be acquired. Market value is generally defined as
the price to which a willing seller and a willing buyer would agree, neither being obligated to buy or sell. The
appraisal [value estimate] determines the value of the land based in large part upon its location, its highest
and best use, and any improvements on the land.] [Optional to add specific determinations from the appraisal
3
or estimate for landowner information. ]

[This appraisal (or offer) amount does not reflect any consideration of, or allowances for,
relocation assistance and payments under the URA to which you may be entitled. The URA provides for
reimbursement of certain relocation expenses. These benefits are separate from, and in addition to, the
amount estimated as the fair market value of this property. The enclosed brochure briefly explains the
types of assistance that may be available to you. 4 ]

This border security infrastructure project is managed by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) pursuant
to its critical mission to secure our Nation’s borders. The Army Corps of Engineers, on behalf of CBP, is
carrying out project activities including acquisition of the real estate necessary to support construction of
border security infrastructure. Throughout the planning and execution of this project, CBP has engaged
in discussions and consultations about the placement of border fencing with state and local stakeholders,
including landowners, to ensure investments effectively balance border security with the diverse needs of
those who live in border communities. The negotiation process is another opportunity for you to consult
with CBP, through its USACE representatives, with respect to the potential impacts of the proposed
fencing. Through this consultation, CBP will attempt to identify areas where it can make accommodations
that balance operational needs with the other elements in the government’s decision-making process.

1
Author needs to select fee, temporary work area and/or temporary/permanent road easement
appropriate to tract(s).
2
Offer to Sell is optional and likely only enclosed where prior owner contacts indicate willingness to sell.
3
Such data might include the highest and best use of the property and information about affected
improvements.
4
Use this language only if relocation assistance is known to be indicated by tract specifics. The
referenced brochure is the DOT brochure entitled “Your Rights and Benefits as a Displaced Person
Under a Federal Relocation Assistance Program.”
Please note, however, that the final determination as to the location of fencing will be based on
operational assessments that indicate where fencing will be most practical and effective in deterring
illegal entry into the United States.

For all lands such as yours where border security infrastructure is most practical and effective, our
Congressional mandate is to complete construction in such locations no later than December 31, 2008.
Therefore, the Government must acquire this land for its fair market value as soon as possible for project
purposes. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter, please contact [_] by phone at
[_] or email at [_]. If we do not hear from you, a representative of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will
attempt to contact you.

(Signature block for USACE District Chief of Real Estate)

You might also like