FME004117

Fence Toolbox Milestones

 Toolbox finalized 12/19/07

 Approved Toolbox sent to OBP on 12/04/07

– Sectors now reviewing and selecting style needed to meet operational
requirements on specific fence segments within the sector

 Sectors completed review and selected style needed to meet operational

requirements on specific fence segments within the sector

 Sector selections Completed

– Sectors have selected fence types from the toolbox

For Official Use Only

FME004118

Fence Toolbox by Mileage

PEDESTRIAN FENCE TYPE MILEAGE

P-1 (Pickett Fence) 14.76

P-2 (Bollards) 48.48
P-3A-15 (Floating Fence with Wire Mesh) 4.63
P-3B-15 (Floating Fence with Bollards) 6.71
PV-1 (Bollards with Steel Plate) 41.40
PV-2 (Post on Rail with Wire Mesh) 50.45
PV-4 (Sand Dune Design) 9.13
Ameristar Fencing (Aesthetic Design) 4.17
Retaining Wall 6.15
Phase I (Unconstructed Mileage) 21.43

VEHICLE FENCE TYPE

VF-1 (Post and Rail) 69.00

VF-2 (Normandy Barrier) 69.00

For Official Use Only

FME004119

Segments with Outstanding Engineering Issues

to be Resolved

• C-1 (YUM):
– Corps needs to evaluate proposed fence alignment to determine if it will
impact flood level of the Colorado River (analysis required by IBWC)
• D-2 (TCA):
– NPS (Organ Pipe) Supt. Opposes fence & road over Sonoyta Hill. DoI is
assisting with acquisition of special use permit
• K-2B/C (EPT):
(b) (5)
– Sector’s preferred fence location estimated to cost per mile for 8
miles
• L-1A & L-1B (MAR):
– Sector desires retaining wall built into southern face of IBWC levee (similar to
Hidalgo County proposal)
– Corps needs to evaluate feasibility and develop cost estimates ASAP
• Misc Texas Segments w/ Proposed Floating Fence on Levee
– Corps needs to evaluate IBWC levee condition at proposed segments ASAP

For Official Use Only

FME004120

Change Control

•Formal Change Control system now in place

– PF225 Baseline set
– Change Control Board evaluates requests and provides approval/denial
recommendations to PF225 PM
•Six (6) change requests submitted to date
(b) (4)
– J1: add vehicle deterrent to fence design )-Approved
(b) (4)
– J1: utilize 4 gauge mesh instead of 9 gauge ( )-Approved
(b) (4)
– I-1A: utilize 4 gauge mesh instead of 9 gauge ( )-Approved
(b) (5)
– J1: replace ~1900 ft of chain link fence across Santa Teresa POE ( )-
Under Review
– J2: use a modified version of PV-2; 15 ft high instead of 18 ft ($ savings
TBD)-Approved
(b) (5)
– D-5A: extend fence 440 ft ( )-Under Review

For Official Use Only

FME004121

Hidalgo County Levee Proposal

For Official Use Only

FME004122

Hidalgo County Levee Proposal

SBI and Hidalgo Meetings

 Meeting with Cameron/Hidalgo County Executives present OBP and SBI

the 1st draft proposal to replace the fence with a wall -16 Nov at RRB
 Meeting with County’s engineers - 14 Dec at RRB
 SBI PMO assembling list of questions relative to planning, engineering,
NEPA compliance, funding, schedule, etc.
 Meeting with County’s engineers, IBWC and levee survey - 4 Jan 08 in Mc
Allen Tx.
 Meeting with county engineers, DOI, IBWC - 11 Jan 08 RRB
 Meeting with county engineer, DOI, IBWC - 24-25 Jan Mc Allen Tx.
 Provided SBI senior leadership with go recommendation on 28 Jan 08
 Met with FWS on 22 Feb 08 and tentatively agreed on a path forward
relative to Section 7 compliance
 Met with county engineer on 25 Feb 08 for project “kick-off” meeting

For Official Use Only

FME004123

Hidalgo County Levee Proposal

The Proposal
Hidalgo is proposing to build-up the levees and place a 18 foot concrete wall on the
southern side of the levee to replace the requirement for the fence SBI has proposed
on the north side of the levee. The RGV fence segments impacted by the proposal are
O4 – O10 which equals about 22 miles or 31% of the RGV fence requirements. These
are non-contiguous miles.

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 these
project. They do not need SBI funds to begin and complete.

Project EA – IBWC owns the levee and has completed an EA to increase the height of the
levee but not add the wall.

For Official Use Only

FME004124

Hidalgo County Levee Proposal

Hidalgo IBWC MOA - Hidalgo and IBWC have a MOA that allow Hidalgo repair
the levees at their cost. Current MOA covers our segments O-4 & O-5. Ideally,
scope will be expanded to O-6 through O-10

(b) (4)
Strong Community Support - Hidalgo Co is at risk for a flood insurance
(b) (4)
cost – Bond authority of plus

DHS/CBP/SBI Benefits –
– Positive Community and Stakeholder relations
(b) (4)
– Fence cost are fixed at per mile incl. required BP gates
(b) (4)
– Elimination of real estate needs savings

For Official Use Only

FME004125

Hidalgo County Levee Proposal

Challenges –

Legal authority for DHS/CBP/SBI – Secretary needs legislative authority to enter into a
cooperative agreement with Hidalgo

Ability to overcome the T&E concerns of FWS (DOI). FWS have major concern about
the Ocelots + 1 T&E species that the wall will impact – tentative agreement in place relative
(b) (5)
to a Biological Opinion (will require approximately in compensation from CBP/SBI to
FWS to allow ~1400 acres of habitat to be purchased)

Ability to have SBI modify current EIS to include the wall as the recommended TI
solution – Currently adding the wall to the Draft EIS. Working FWS. We believe we can
modify the SBI EIS with the wall as the preferred option – this will cause a 30 day delay in
the ROD but would not impact the construction schedule.

Ability to maintain the S-1 Waiver authority – This is critical to meet schedule

The IBWC role during and after construction of the wall – Working issues

For Official Use Only

FME004126

Hidalgo County Levee Proposal

Legal authority for DHS/CBP/SBI – to Hire Hidalgo

Use of CBP Appropriated Funds
– The BSFIT appropriations funds are available to fund border TI proportion of project
– Specifies funds can’t be used for levee improvement
MOU Economy Act/contract
– Will need a new MOU
– Economy Act only applies to transactions between to federal agencies – Hidalgo Co
doesn’t qualify
– IBWC should meet 2 of the required circumstances – (2 & 3) if they have a contract
with Hidalgo Co.
– CBP could enter into a cooperative arrangement with Hidalgo Co because the
proposed project benefits the United States.
• There are additional completion requirements that need to be met.
• Contract would have to be executed through SBI’s Acquisition office

For Official Use Only

FME004127

Cameron County

• Met with County officials on 26 Feb 08 and discussed the challenges to entering
into an arrangement similar to Hidalgo County

For Official Use Only