From: To: Subject: Date: Importance:

(b) (6) (b) (6)
FW: Del Rio Sector Fence Segment - Real Estate Issue Wednesday, September 19, 2007 9:30:58 AM High

Del Rio issues.

From: (b) (6) Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 9:22 AM To: (b) (6) Cc: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W Subject: FW: Del Rio Sector Fence Segment - Real Estate Issue Importance: High had to re-send: From: (b) (6) Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 9:18 AM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) 'FLOSSMAN, LOREN W'; (b) (6) Subject: Del Rio Sector Fence Segment - Real Estate Issue Importance: High

(b) (6) We met yesterday with Del Rio Sector OBP and walked M-1, M-2A & M-2B.
M-1 requires an executive decision be made asap regarding real estate acquisition, so the Corps has a chance of delivering the needed land by March '08. As you know, our strategy is to buy all land south of the fence in 'urban' areas, rather than have multiple access gates in a short span of fence. This area is what I'd refer to as suburban, a patchwork mix of sub-1-acre parcels and 30-40 acre small ranches. Of 17 landowners, there are 10 or 11 homes that fall to the river side of the proposed fence alignment; some are right in line with where the fence will be. We have RoE for S&E for all landowners I'm told. OBP expressed that ideally they would buy and control all the land on the river side of the fence. At the same time however, they are concerned about backlash of condemning unwilling landowners and actually buying city-owned land by the POE. They don't believe anyone there will sign an RoE for C, which is actually irrelevent in some cases, because some homes are directly in the way of construction anyway. Moreover, they've met with the city recently and discussed an 'easement' for land needed for the land strip needed for fence only. 1. We must acquire and relocate small parcel owners at a minimum, and relocate homes on larger parcels in the way of construction. - fence here also needs construction/maintenace road along it on the river side, as the public road is too busy to be used as a working construction road. 2. USACE RE is concerned with treating larger landowners any differently and ultimately leaving the gov't with a patchwork of federally-owned land. - Concern also of defining a size of parcel above which we won't press for acquisition (i.e. 10 or 20 or 30 acres). Lays groundwork for other land owners on other segements of that size that we acquired to argue that they were treated inequitably. - Concern over leaving patchwork of relatively small fed-owned parcels behind the fence; difficult to maintain.


3. There is an option of buying city land and leasing it back to them...apparently they have hopes of building a park there, though currently it's undeveloped **4. We identified an option of building fence behind the homes along with a patrol road, reducing impacted landowners to six vs. 17. The fence would still be out of the flood plain, but OBP expressed concern that the fence would be up against cane field, limiting their visibility on the river side. We weren't in a position to commit to full cane irradication or to a maintenance contract to outsource routine cane clearing on river side of fence. That's the situation in a nutshell, I'm on my way back to DC today, so we can discuss further tomorrow. Thank you, (b) (6)

(b) (6)

2000 Corporate Ridge McLean, VA 22102-7805 (b) (6) P (b) (6) F The opportunity to make a difference has never been greater. www.lmi.org