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 st  Nov. 1 and Nov. 2nd (DOJ)  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  ACPA (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: Diana 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


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.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful