Border Patrol Facilities and Tactical Infrastructure (BPFTI)

Program Management Office (PMO)

Real Estate Plan

Proposed Pedestrian Fencing
Segments O-1, O-2, O-3
Starr & Hidalgo Counties, Texas

As of:
30 November 2012

Prepared By:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District

1
 REAL ESTATE PLANNING REPORT O-1, O-2, O-3

REAL ESTATE PLANNING REPORT

PF225 Segments O-1-O-3; Rio Grande Valley Sector (Starr & Hidalgo Counties, Texas)

INDEX

SUBJECT PAGE

Summary Sheet .................................................................................................... 3

Authority .............................................................................................................. 4
Project .................................................................................................................. 4
Site Selection Team ............................................................................................. 4
Sites Inspected ..................................................................................................... 4
Description of Selected Site ................................................................................. 5
Relocations ........................................................................................................... 5
Attitude of Owners and Neighborhood ................................................................ 7
Outstanding Interests and Reservations ............................................................... 7
Sales and Supporting Data ................................................................................... 7
Valuation .............................................................................................................. 8
Uniform Relocation Assistance Costs ................................................................. 8
Recommended Estate ........................................................................................... 9
Recapture Rights .................................................................................................. 10
Government-owned Property ............................................................................... 11
Proposed Construction ......................................................................................... 11
Possession Date.................................................................................................... 11
Administrative Costs............................................................................................ 12
Schedule of Acquisition ....................................................................................... 12
Summary and Recommendation .......................................................................... 12

Exhibits
Exhibit A Directive
Exhibit B Regional Map
Exhibit C Site Map
Exhibit D Vicinity Photographs
Exhibit E Project Acquisition Schedule
Exhibit F Tract Map

2
SUMMARY SHEET
PF225 Segments O-1-O-3; Rio Grande Valley Sector (Starr & Hidalgo Counties, Texas

DATE: 30 November 2012

1. Fee Title (235 Acres) $ 822,500

2. Easements (86 Acres) $ 270,605

3. Improvements $ 3,200,000

4. Hazard Removals $0

5. Mineral Rights $0

6. Damages $434,235

7. Contingencies $1,596,802

8. Relocations $391,000

9. Uniform Relocation Assistance $1,218,000

10. Acquisition Administrative Costs $ 4,700,000

TOTAL $12,633,142

ROUNDED $12,635,000

Estimated for Customs and Border Protection Planning Purposes:

DOJ Administrative Cost for Condemnation: $8,730,000

Estimate based on 95% of cases resulting in condemnation.

3
REAL ESTATE PLANNING REPORT
PF225 Segments O-1-O-3; Rio Grande Valley Sector (Starr & Hidalgo Counties, Texas)

1. AUTHORITY.

The request for this report, along with an analysis of the real estate status in project areas known
as O-1, O-2, and O-3 was via phone conversation on September 5, 2012 with Facilities
Management and Engineering (FM&E) and U.S. Custom and Border Protections (CBP) Office
of Chief Counsel (OCC).

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) authority for real estate acquisition is as follows:

Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2311 and codified at 6 U.S.C. Sections 202, 251, 551, and 557,
which transferred certain authorities to the Attorney General to the Secretary of Homeland
Security; and by DHS Delegation No. 7010.3(II)(B), which delegated land acquisition authority
from the Secretary of Homeland Security to the Commissioner of CBP; and by CBP Delegation
05-004, which delegated land acquisition authority to the Acting Executive Director, Facilities
Management and Engineering.

2. PROJECT.

The Pedestrian Fence 225 (PF225) project involves constructing pedestrian fencing intended to
deter illegal entry of persons and contraband into the United States. There are three proposed
segments of fencing, referred to as Segments O-1 through O-3. Segments O-1 and O-2 are
located in Roma and Rio Grande City, Starr County, Texas, respectively. Segment O-3 is
located in Los Ebanos, Hidalgo County, Texas.

3. SITE SELECTION TEAM.

Alignment of the proposed PF225 fence segments is based upon a collaborative effort from CBP
and the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). IBWC was involved to analyze
any potential impediment the fence might cause to the flow of the Rio Grande during flood
events. Input from CBP was based on law enforcement and operational strategies of their
agency. USACE is involved in the capacity of engineering, contractual services, project
management, and real estate.

4. SITES INSPECTED.

The proposed alignment has been strategically analyzed by CBP from a law enforcement
perspective and by IBWC from a flood control perspective. The fence cannot be placed in an
area that would potentially divert flood waters of the Rio Grande away from the United States
and into Mexico, thus violating international treaty. As a result of the strategic location of the
proposed alignment, the District has not performed a site inspection. This report will contain
suggestions to consider repositioning the proposed alignment of the fence to affect fewer
landowners, residences, and structures. However, these suggestions should be considered in
conjunction with the functionality of the proposed tactical infrastructure.

4
5. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF SELECTED SITE.

The project area is located near the Rio Grande River which serves as the international boundary
between the United States and Mexico (see EXHIBIT A). All three project areas have a
combination of native brush, commercial, and residential properties, as well as cropland in O-2
and O-3.

6. RELOCATIONS.

Depending on the final alignment of the fence, up to 25 residences could be impacted in O-1.
There is a potential for three storage buildings a transmission tower which may or may not be
part of a planned RVSS tower, and potentially one business, including 64 to 90 tenants, to be
relocated in O-2, depending on final alignment. If the USACE-RE recommendation is followed
in O-3 to shift the alignment west to follow the Felix Martinez Avenue Right-of-Way in order to
avoid potential erosion and maintain functionality of the fence, there is the potential for nine
residential relocations. The tracts potentially affected by relocation can be found in Exhibit C,
Site Map. Alignment issues affecting possible relocations for all fence segments are discussed in
section 19 of this report Summary and Recommendation. Residential and tenant relocations
are discussed in section 11 of this report Uniform Relocation Assistance Costs.

It is recommended that the new approved swath avoid the transmission tower in order to avoid
relocating it, unless the tower site is leased by CBP for its sole use. In that case, it could be
beneficial to encompass the tower in a fee acquisition to avoid paying rent in the future. This
tower is found in tract RGC-2039.

The storage buildings mentioned above, also in project O-2, are on the Port of Entry property,
tract RGC-2014. It is recommended that alignment be shifted as well to not only avoid the
buildings, but also avoid future erosion affecting the integrity and functionality of the proposed
tactical infrastructure. To determine an amenable alignment, a discussion with the Port of Entry
management team should be had. If the alignment is kept, there is an option to purchase the
improvements within the swath and demolish them for construction of fence or relocate them on
the Port of Entry property, if requested. In order to assist in the business decision to acquire the
buildings in the acquisition and then demolish them for construction or relocate them if the
landowner requests as such, a discussion of each option is below.

Using aerial imagery available on Bing and Google Earth, it appears that these buildings are
Class S buildings, with frames, roofs, and walls made of incombustible metal, and a concrete
slab foundation. One building is approximately 400 square feet, another is approximately 437
square feet, and the largest is approximately 5,400 square feet. The following map depicts the
location of the improvements on the tract.

5
Marshall & Swifts Marshall Valuation Service 2012, Section 66, Pages 10-11 discusses costs
for demolition. Using this source as a guide, it is estimated that $4.55 per square foot is required
to demolish a Class S building. This cost includes loading and hauling, but does not include
dump fees. The demolition cost for the concrete slab is $19.75 per square foot. The total cost for
demolition per square foot is $24.30. The local multiplier for this area is .78 and the cost
multiplier is 1.01. The total cost for demolition of these buildings is about $120,000.

24.30(400+437+5400) * 1.01 * .78 = $119,398.25. Rounded $120,000.

The cost to relocate the buildings includes pouring of new slab foundations, and labor to
disassemble and reassemble the buildings. The foundation cost includes labor, materials,
equipment, plus overhead and profit for the installing contractor. Using Section 51, Page 2 of the
Marshall Valuation Service manual as a guide for calculation, it will likely cost around
$385,000, adding the recommended 40% for preparatory work, a local multiplier of .78 and a
cost multiplier of 1.02 for trenching, and concrete pouring.

Concrete cost @ $7.25/cubic foot = $337,444

Trenching in Medium Earth @ 17.35/linear foot = $7,946.30

337,444 + 7,946.30 = 345,390.30 * .4 = 138,156.12 + 345,390.30 = 483.546.42 * 1.02 * .78 =

$384,709.52. Rounded $385,000

6
When the slab has set, the buildings will need to be disassembled and then reassembled on the
new slabs. It is estimated that a team of 10 laborers working 40 hours each at a rate of $15 per
hour will be required. Total for labor of relocating the buildings is $6,000. The total cost of
relocating the buildings is around $391,000. This cost is used in the cost estimate found on page
three and is most likely the highest potential cost.

The cost of avoiding the buildings is dependent on the cost of fence construction and any
additional length added to the proposed alignment. The estimated cost to build fence is about
$7.46 million per mile or about $1,413 per linear foot not taking into account slope stabilization.
If slope stabilization is necessary, it is estimated to cost $2,300 per linear foot. These costs were
a part of a 23 October 2012 Rough Order of Magnitude prepared by Michael Baker Jr. Inc for the
purpose of this report.

7. ATTITUDE OF OWNERS AND NEIGHBORHOOD

Landowner opposition to the Border Fence is expected. It is understood that some landowners
will accept the fence, although not necessarily support it, and work with the government. Others
will resist and reject any offers made. In those cases, condemnation will be necessary. Still
others could view the fence as beneficial, and will be supportive. IBWC held a landowner
meeting the week of August 27, 2012 to inform landowners of the approved acquisition swath.

8. OUTSTANDING INTERESTS AND RESERVATIONS.

Any outstanding mineral rights will not be known until title evidence is obtained. The
recommended fee estate will except mineral and water rights.

9. SALES AND SUPPORTING DATA.

USACE has identified two relevant sales comparables indicative of vacant land in the floodplain
in Starr and Hidalgo Counties.

The first comparable is located in Rio Grande City, TX, south of Water Street. The 27.40 acre
tract sold on July 2, 2007 for a purchase price of $100,000, or $3,649.64 per acre. The sale
excluded a 0.40 acre homestead, but included mineral and water rights. The tract has
approximately 700 feet of frontage on the Rio Grande River. At the time of the sale, the tract
was overgrown with native vegetation. This tract is the parent tract of RGV-RGC-2024.

The second comparable is located in Los Ebanos, TX, at the intersection of Felix Martinez Street
and Heriberto Garcia Street on the south side of Los Ebanos. The 33.40 acre tract sold on
September 20, 2007, for $108,550, or $3,250 per acre. The tract has about 500 feet of frontage
on the Rio Grande River. At the time of the sale, the tract was overgrown with native vegetation.
This tract is the parent tract of RGV-MCS-1013.

7
Without the availability of residential comparables, an estimate of $90,000 will be used as the
fair market value estimate of each residential property that could potentially be affected by the
real estate acquisition and thus requiring relocation assistance.

10. VALUATION

Though costly and time consuming, it would be beneficial to contract a gross appraisal of the
project areas. The gross appraisal would allow for better budgeting and planning of the real
estate acquisition portion of the project. It would also discuss several unknown factors such as
the value of potential damages to the dry side of the proposed and original take areas, and
identify additional sales comparables, particularly residential sales. However, because of the
cost and time involved to obtain a gross appraisal, an internal analysis of comparable properties
available to USACE has been performed in lieu of a gross appraisal. Based on the comparables
discussed in the previous paragraph, a cost of $3,500 per acre will be used to estimate the cost of
vacant, native brush land in the floodplain within the project area. Although the sales occurred
over 5 years ago, recent activity in this real estate market shows no substantial fluctuations.
According to the April 2012 edition of the Texas Rural Land Value Trends published by the
Texas chapter of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, volume and
activity in the South Texas real estate market in 2011 has not rebounded to pre-2008 levels. The
publication states after the decrease in pricing of late 2008/early 2009, land prices for the most
part have held steady.

11. UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE COSTS.

As discussed in section six Relocations, there is the potential for a total of 34 relocations,
including 30 residential properties, 3 storage buildings, and one business with about 64 tenants
but with the potential of 90 residents. The potential relocations can be found in Exhibit C.

For the purpose of this report, its assumed that decent, safe, and sanitary housing can be found
for every displaced resident within the allowed 50 miles radius, as established by the Uniform
Relocation Act (URA), Public Law 91-646 (PL 91-646). It is assumed that decent, safe, and
sanitary housing can be found within the $22,500 above fair market value relocation threshold
before housing of last resort is considered. For purposes of this report, it assumed no resident
will require housing of last resort. In addition to assisting the owner with replacement housing,
the URA requires that each owners full moving costs be reimbursed. As the cost can vary from
owner to owner an estimate of $3,391 will be used per owner. This estimate is based on a cost of
moving a three bedroom house, average 10,000 pounds of personal property, up to 50 miles
(www.movesource.com). The total cost of relocation per owner is then estimated to be $25,891.
With the potential of 30 owners being relocated, the total relocation assistance for residential
owners for the project is $776,730.

The business located in segment O-2 is a nursing home establishment. The tract number is RGC-
2012. If the decision is made to buy the tract out in its entirety, the business will need to be
relocated along with 64 residents, potentially up to 90 residents if at 100% capacity. Each tenant
will be eligible for relocation assistance. The maximum allowable amount of rental assistance is
$5,250. Tenants are also eligible for reimbursement of moving cost. Costs may vary from tenant

8
to tenant, but is estimated to be about $1,174 per tenant. The estimate is based a cost calculation
of moving a studio apartment up to 50 miles (www.movesource.com). If the nursing home
capacity stays at 64 tenants, the cost to relocate all tenants would be $411,136. If the nursing
home reaches capacity, the total cost to relocate all tenants would be $578,160.

The nursing home business is also eligible for relocation assistance. The assistance available to a
business includes reestablishment expenses not to exceed $10,000 and moving costs not to
exceed $20,000. Total relocation expense for the business is $30,000.

12. RECOMMENDED ESTATE.

For tracts where fence is to be constructed, the recommended estate is fee simple, more
particularly described below. Perpetual easements will be acquired over access roads with a
need for permanent use. Temporary four year easements will be acquired for temporary roads,
and staging areas. A term of four years is chosen because during fence construction in Cameron
and Hidalgo counties, it was learned that two years was not always a long enough term. Several
temporary staging area easements had to be reacquired for the project.

Fee Estate Language Recommendation:

No access cure:

The estate taken is fee simple, subject to existing easements for public roads and highways,
public utilities, railroads and pipelines and subject to Easements Appurtenant reserved in
Declarations of Taking or granted by the United States of America across lands acquired by the
United States for border barrier purposes to provide access to owners of property on the riverside
of the border barrier. The estate taken excludes all interests in minerals; and in water distribution
and drainage systems, provided that any surface rights arising from the excluded interests in
water distribution and drainage systems are subordinated to the construction, operation, and
maintenance of the IBWC levee and border barrier.

Access cure:

The estate taken is fee simple, subject to existing easements for public roads and highways,
public utilities, railroads and pipelines. The estate taken is made subject to a dominant easement
appurtenant for access in common with others (including the United States) at the location
depicted on the map attached as Exhibit A (Easement Appurtenant). The Easement
Appurtenant provides Owner with a right of way from __________________, a public road, to
and along a road on the riverside of the fence; to Owners property lying southwest of said
border barrier. The Easement Appurtenant shall run with title to that real estate of the Owner
lying between the Rio Grande River and the border barrier that would benefit from a right of
way.

The estate taken excepts and excludes all interests in minerals and in water distribution and
drainage systems, provided that any surface rights arising from the excluded interests in water

9
distribution and drainage systems are subordinated to the construction, operation, and
maintenance of the border barrier.

Perpetual Road Easement Estate Recommendation:

A perpetual and assignable easement and right-of-way in, over and across the land described in
Schedule C for the location, construction, operation, maintenance, alteration, replacement,
repair and patrol of road(s) and appurtenances thereto and overhead and/or underground utility
lines; together with the right to trim or remove any vegetative or structural obstacles that
interfere with the right-of-way; subject to minerals and rights appurtenant thereto, and to existing
easements for public roads, highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines; reserving,
however, to the owners, their successors and assigns, the right to use the surface of such land as
access to their adjoining land or for any other use consistent with its use for this road and utility
easement.

Temporary Road Easement Estate Recommendation:

A temporary and assignable easement and right-of-way in, over and across the land described in
___________________ for a period not to exceed 48 months, beginning with date possession of
the land is granted to the United States, for the location, construction, operation, maintenance,
alteration and replacement of (a) road(s) and appurtenances thereto; together with the right to
trim or remove any vegetative or structural obstacles that interfere with the right-of-way; subject
to minerals and rights appurtenant thereto, and to existing easements for public roads, highways,
public utilities, railroads and pipelines; reserving, however, to the owners, their successors and
assigns, the right to use the surface of such land as access to their adjoining land or for any other
use consistent with its use as a road.

Temporary Work Area Estate Recommendation:

A temporary easement and right-of-way in, on, over and across the land described in
__________________ for a period not to exceed 48 months, beginning with date of possession
of the land is granted to the United States, for use by the United States, its representatives,
agents, and contractors as a work area, including the right to move, store and remove equipment
and supplies; erect and remove temporary structures on the land; and to perform any other work
necessary and incident to the construction of the border security project described in
_________________ together with the right to trim or remove any vegetative or structural
obstacles that interfere with the right-of-way; subject to minerals and rights appurtenant thereto,
and to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines;
reserving, however, to the landowners, their successors and assigns, all such rights and,
privileges as may be used without interfering with or abridging the rights and easement hereby
acquired.

13. RECAPTURE RIGHTS.

There are four tracts in O-3 that have been re-vested and will require reacquisition. The eastern
portion of MCS-1006 was re-vested, but the new alignment passes through the portion re-vested.

10
MCS-1010 was also re-vested. The new proposed alignment passes through this tract so
reacquisition of the tract as-surveyed will be needed, in addition to an uneconomic remainder to
the north. MCS-1011 was re-vested as well. The current proposed alignment passes through the
re-vested tract and will require reacquisition if the current alignment is used. However, USACE
is recommending re-configuring the alignment so that the fence will follow the north property
line of this parent tract which will eliminate the need for an additional 725 of fencing. If the
recommendation is consummated, the re-vested tract will not need to be reacquired, but instead a
swath along the north property line. The status of MCS-2012 mirrors that of MCS-1011.

14. GOVERNMENT-OWNED PROPERTY.

Several tracts were acquired in 2008 based on an alignment other than the current plan. USACE
recommendation is to utilize those tracts already acquired where the new fence alignment
corresponds with the location of these tracts. Where the prior alignment does not correspond
with the new alignment, it is recommended to re-vest the tracts and acquire the land needed for
the new fence alignment, unless it makes sense to acquire from the new alignment to the river.
This decision has been analyzed on a tract-by-tract basis as shown on Exhibit F. For those
tracts that have been acquired where there are no plans to build fence, it is recommended to re-
vest the fee tracts, and re-acquire as-surveyed as a perpetual road easement, per CBPs
requirement.

There will be tactical infrastructure located on other Federally owned property, namely U.S. Fish
and Wildlife property in segments O-1 and O-3. The need to acquire a permit for or perform
environmental testing on these properties was waived in the original fence construction
legislation. It is assumed the waiver will be extended to this portion of the project.

15. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.

The proposed use of the property is for construction of fencing intended to deter illegal entry of
persons and contraband into the United States. This report assumes the type of fencing will be
similar to that constructed in Cameron County, TX. Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) costs
from Michael Baker Jr., Inc. estimate the cost of proposed fencing in Starr and Hidalgo Counties
to be $33.8 million for approximately 3.94 miles of fencing. This cost does not include any
slope stabilization required. If the fence is built on the slope of the riverbank in certain areas, a
slope stabilization cost estimate of $4.68 million/mile should be figured in. These cost estimates
were calculated without the benefit of development of design, as such, construction cost
estimates will vary once design development begins.

16. POSSESSION DATE.

At the time of this report, there have been no funds set aside for construction of this project. As
such, no possession date is required.

11
17. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

Historical data available from fence acquisitions in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties shows that
administrative costs including labor, travel, mapping, surveys, title evidence, valuations, and
negotiating and closing are approximately $25,000 per tract. URA costs are discussed in section
11.

18. SCHEDULE OF ACQUISITION.

Upon satisfactory completion of the necessary environmental documentation, receipt of funds,

and a directive to acquire, the District will proceed on the following schedule:

Survey 6 months
Obtain title evidence 12 months
Valuation 6 months
Negotiate 16 months
Process offer to sell 17 months
Close and obtain Final Title 16 months
Total: 24 months or 2 years

Some due diligence items will be able to occur concurrently. Please refer to Exhibit E for a
graphic representation of the proposed schedule.

In the event a negotiated agreement cannot be reached with the landowner, a Civil Action can be
filed in the U. S. District Court to obtain the necessary interests for the Government. The
estimated administrative cost to condemn is $90,000 per tract. The estimated
schedule to accomplish a condemnation is as follows:

Condemnation preparation 15 months

Condemnation proceedings 20 months
Possession Granted 15 months
Final Judgment Rendered 15 months
Total time to condemn: 23 months

Every effort will be exercised to obtain a negotiated purchase. Condemnation is mentioned in

this planning report as a last resort alternative. However, historical data shows condemnation is
likely for 95% of the tracts due to title issues or an inability to reach an amicable agreement with
the landowner.

19. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION.

In this section, decision points required by the customer will be discussed as well as USACE
recommendations. Decision points include gate locations, temporary work easements, and
potential fence realignments which could affect construction costs and relocation assistance as
deemed necessary by the URA.

12
1. Location of gates - Locations need to be determined to plan for access to the remainders or
buyout of the remainder.

Possible gate locations:

RGC-1003 A gate at this location will be necessary if the land isnt acquired at least from the
swath, to the river for RGC-1003, 1104, and 1082-1077. However, considering the estimated
cost of a gate being $230,000, and severance damages to the river and dry side remainders of the
parent tract, it is likely more cost effective to acquire to the river and forgo installing a gate.
Three different cost-scenarios are presented below, using the estimated cost of $3,500 per acre
discussed in Section 10.

1) Install gate on RGC-1003, do not acquire riverside remainder of 1003, 1104, and 1082-
1077. The estimated cost of the land, including damages to the river and dry side
remainder, and the cost of the gate itself is $304,739.
2) Do not install gate on RGC-1003, and acquire the riverside remainder of 1003, 1104, and
1082-1077. The estimated cost of the land, including damages to the dry side remainder,
is $194,650.
3) Do not install gate on RGC-1003, and acquire the entire parent tract of 1003, 1104, and
1082-1077. This option precludes the cost of a gate, and any damages. The estimated
cost of the land of the parent tracts is $271,186.

RGC-2010 (RGC ISD) A gate location was plan in the original take for this property avoid
paying severance damages. It is also possible that a nature preserve lies south of the new IBWC-
approved swath, which may require a gate for public use.

MCS-1006 - Recommend gate location where the perpetual road easement MCS-1006E-1 meets
the fence swath. There is an IBWC gauging station on the river.

West of MCS-1009 - Recommend gate location over the existing dirt road in the FWS property
west of MCS-1009. This will provide access cures to the riverside remainders of MCS-1009-
1013.

2. Temporary Work Area Easements

The list below reflects the temporary work area easements in the original project planning. A
determination will be required as to if these or any new work area easement are required. Notes
beside the tract list should assist with decision making.

RGC-1003
RGC-1079 & 1078
RGC-1010block of this proposed area is now a Dollar Store
RGC-1042E-5 now south of the new take
RGC-2027E-4-outside of the start-stop
MCS-1002E-4
MCS-1019E-4
MCS-1016E

13
3. Fence realignment:

The below list of tracts reflects USACE recommendation of deviation from the proposed IBWC-
approved alignment. The information provided is to assist in the decision making process.

O-1 Roma, Texas:

RGC-1104: Recommend shifting alignment south to avoid clipping corner of the Campobello
Subdivision

RGC-1076: Tract is on a slope; recommend considering the feasibility of re-aligning fence to

turn northerly within this tract so that it is off of the slope, and the east side of the fee tract abuts
the north line of the parent tract of RGC-1075. A pictoral representation of this recommendation
is included in Exhibit C. The yellow areas shown are recommended fee acquisition areas.

RGC-1075-1070: Based on Bakers ROM costs for slope stabilization, it would cost
approximately $380,000 to stabilize approximately 430 of the slope in order to construct the
fence south of the residences on these tracts. The estimated acquisition and relocation expenses
for the 6 residences that will be affected if the fence is built on the bluff is approximately
$695,400.

RGC-1066: Recommend shifting the alignment north, as close to the water treatment plant
improvements as possible, to avoid the fence being built on the slope of the river bank.

RGC-1065: Based on Bakers ROM cost for slope stabilization, it would cost approximately
$1,044,450 to stabilize approximately 1178 of the slope in order to construct the fence south of
the residences on these tracts. It is estimated that the acquisition and relocation expenses for the
15 residences is $1,738,365.

O-2 Rio Grande City, Texas

There is a steep drop-off in O-2 of about 30 which could affect the fence placement between the
start/stop points in tracts RGC-2011, RGC-2012, RGC-2014, RGC-2039, and RGC-2041.

RGC-2011: This tract is owned by Martin P. Garza, Jr. It appears to an unimproved tract. The
new alignment is within the slope. It would be beneficial to move it northwards onto the bluff to
avoid erosion or develop an engineering solution that allows the fence to be located within the
slope.

RGC-2012: This tract is located on the bluff overlooking the river. The tract is owned by SMV
Rio Grande City, LP, which operates a nursing home on the property. The original take, at its
closest point, is within 6 of the south side of the building. The new IBWC-approved swath runs
over a portion of the building. There are several options to consider which are outlined below.
Develop an engineering solution to build the fence in the slope. Estimated cost: $530,000.
Buy out the tract in its entirety, relocate the nursing home and its residents, and place the
fence in the tract on the bluff. Estimated cost: $5,491,430

14
 Do no build fence in this tract. Estimated cost: $0
Realign the fence to go around the north side of the nursing home, leaving an opening for
ingress and egress of traffic. Estimated cost: $565,000 depending on fence alignment.

RGC-2014: This tract is located on the bluff overlooking the river. It is owned by Starr Camargo
Bridge Company, care of Sam Vale. During negations for the original alignment, Mr. Vale
informed USACE of his battles with erosion. He suggested that we consider a new alignment
away from the river bank. In order to keep the integrity of the fence, it may be beneficial to shift
the alignment northward, further from the river. A second option is to consider an engineering
solution which allows for construction of the fence within the slope. For further consideration, if
the IBWC-approved alignment is kept as is, relocation of three Class S building may be
necessary, depending on the outcome of the negotiations. It is also important to note that this
tract was not condemned during the original negotiations due to the information Mr. Vale
introduced concerning the erosion.

RGC-2039: This tract is owned by Starr County Water Control & Irrigation District No. 2. The
IBWC-approved alignment runs within the slope of the tract. If kept as is, relocation will be
required to move a transmission tower in order to build fence. If the swath is realigned
northward, that relocation need could be eliminated.

RGC-2041: This tract is owned by Martin P. Garza, Jr. It appears to be an unimproved tract. The
new IBWC-approved alignment runs through the northern portion of this tract. If a realignment
is considered which pushes the alignment northward, the need for this tract could be eliminated.
If kept for the approved alignment, an engineering solution may be necessary to combat erosion
and allow for construction of the fence on the slope.

O-3 Los Ebanos, Texas

It is recommended to shift the alignment of the east side of the project to follow the Felix
Martinez public right-of-way. This recommendation will affect the following tracts: MCS-1010,
MCS-1011, MCS-1012, MCS-1013, MCS-1015, MCS-1016, MCS-1025, MCS-1026, MCS-
1017, and MCS-1018. It will also introduce two new tracts. It will cause about five additional
relocations. The benefit of shifting the alignment here is to avoid river erosion potentially
affecting the integrity and functionality of the fence. By shifting the alignment westward along
the right-of-way, there will be more room to safeguard and protect the infrastructure from
erosion.

SUMMARY

The construction of segments O-1, O-2, and O-3 is going to be high profile project for the
Government in addition to the affected landowners and communities. USACE-RE has presented
several outstanding issues and recommendations, as well as cost estimates to assist with CBP
decision. CBP and DHS should review the recommendations provided and determine a final
path forward.

15