Customs and Border Protection Meeting Minutes Secure Border Initiative Program Management Office Meeting Title – PF225 FEIT Meeting Date – August 28 Meeting Time – 11 A.M. (EST) Purpose To discuss weekly FEIT issues, progress and action items. Attendees
Attended via Telecon CBP

Loren Flossman, SBI PM

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

SBI Deputy PM ED&C , OBP Environmental , SBI, Program Support , OBP FEIT OBP , CBP-TI/Asset Management , SBInet, RE , SBInet Project Support

(b) (6) (b) (6)

PF225 PM , , Deputy Program Manager , Environmental Real Estate PMT FEIT Lead Chief of ED&C/FEIT RE IPT lead

√ √ √ √ √ √ √

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

CBP/SBInet Meeting Minutes 11/9/2010



(b) (6)


Discussion Overview Topics Covered during the Meeting Discussion: o PF225 spreadsheet o USACE to be the primary owner for the spreadsheet o Concerns that the columns and colors are not an accurate reflection of real estate  Develop a formal procedure for when the color changes how to identify what needs to be done  Basis for defining color for the planning column  How hard is the execution part going to be? o Tracking progress vs. baseline is not as subjective o Add in a column for real estate and environmental that is more taskoriented o Identify for each project what task we’re on and what the next tasks are o Problems need to get integrated into the spreadsheet o IBWC negotiations o USACE independent technical reviews are complete o Layout pros and cons charts needed  South of the levees  On top of the levees  30 ft. north of the tow  Meet CBP’s operational needs? o Should the design on the levee be standardized?  Must meet policy o Standardized floating  Design that meets IBWC maintenance regulations but cannot meet national policy  North of the tow – we won’t need standardized design and have to meet IBWC requirements  Go 30 ft. north o Issue of going into people’s back yards  Other major IBWC issues other than maintenance  Issues of encroachment that have to be placed on levees o We will need technical solutions for the levee  Lay out risks o Who’s going to move it?  MOU between DHS and IBWC on moving those segments is critical o Contingency miles

CBP/SBInet Meeting Minutes 11/9/2010



Needs to discuss with OBP and ask if we can make use of buffer miles to make the 225 miles by 12/08 or just plan to build operational fence  The only way to do that is to condemn now in large swaths and use the S1 waiver  Need to lay out why its not possible to complete by the due date, by showing the schedule and what’s on the critical path and that there’s nothing that can be taken off  Convince DHS that money is not help in the miles by the deadline  K-1 is now in delay o It’s behind schedule because we don’t have a MOA and its supposed to go on the levee o Rights of Entry o What do we in D.C. need to do, to get the ROE’s done for USACE?  There are only 150 signatures so far  >300 landowners for Phase I assessment  Soon we’ll need “complaint-only” filing  Define the lines of demarcation  Urban vs. rural  USACE needs gate locations for appraisals to be completed – they need a strategy  USACE needs fence alignment in order to get titles and appraisals  Need to know how to do it without the gates  How do we get the gates off of the critical path for appraisals?  What are the impacts and additional cost and resources needed?  Can we still appraise the site without the gate by assuming the location and put up the gate after? o If so, there are 800 tracts to appraise o Once IBWC identifies the gates we will have less to do o Soon after the scoping the site visits, USACE will produce 15% site plan  Shows where the fence goes  Impact accessibility locations  Some have already been done  Get IBWC coordinated for site visits  Site visits are going to occur by the end of September  This Leaves USACE with only 5 months to get all of Texas RE done o It takes 4 months to condemn o We’ll need to establish the date that the waiver needs to be implemented  Will get ROE but may not build if its contaminated o Need to set up a process so as soon as we have a real estate parcel the environmental assessment begins o Need something to trigger buffer fence  Will know by March how much buffer we need  Start process of converting some to buffer or acquiring other buffer miles  Must parallel process  For every mile there should be a buffer mile planned CBP/SBInet Meeting Minutes 11/9/2010 3


 For every mile you get, a buffer mile can be dropped off o Condemnation doesn’t solve the problem with pollution or contamination  We want the right to build even if its contaminated  Clean up has to happen regardless of how we bought it  Takes segment of fence of PF225 that drives the need for the buffer  CBP needs to tell us what they want us to do  There are 3 categories of types of property acquisition  Unknown ownership condemnation  ROE for Construction  Unwilling condemnations  Moving away from performance based fencing to prescriptive fence  Going to incentivize  Rather than doing a design-build we are going to provide them a standardized fencing Action Items:  (b) (6) to add columns to spreadsheet to track execution  (b) (6) to talk with IPTs and get color scrubbed and/or discuss if colors have been scrubbed and inform (b) (6) when this will be complete (b) (6)  and (b) (6) to reflect where USACE thinks they are, based on their actual engagement by early next week o Validate colors and come back and tell us o Indicate the likelihood of success o How long will it take to do this? o Have asked real estate reps to fill out the spreadsheet with negotiations  The colors are based on initial contact and conversations that CBP had with landowners. We need that information replaced with data from actual signed documents o Add a column to track the execution side based off of the baseline o One column for planning each IPT category o One column for execution of each IPT category  Any issues that are identified as risks will be integrated into the Risk Matrix by USACE and distributed at the FEIT  (b) (6) to provide layout pros and cons chart by next week o MOU is not much of a driver except in a few discreet areas  USACE to select the highest priority segment for CBP in the Rio Grande Sector to test the case for the 70 miles in Texas o Brief this concept on 9/6  Risks to be provided by Thursday afternoon and ready for meeting Sept. 6.  (b) (6) to ask (b) (6) if he’s working of the MOV  Need to tie up loose ends with IBWC  Reorder the topics for briefing on the 5th to make the 5th and 6th meeting as productive as possible  USACE to rework baseline and integrate into the various projects as applicable tools that can be used to meet the 12/08 deadline for the 9/5 – 9/6 meeting  Planning directive on how to get all 221 miles into the ground by 12/1/08 CBP/SBInet Meeting Minutes 11/9/2010 4


   

Need sector by sector walk-through and validate footprint (actual alignment) o Identify lines of demarcation of urban vs. rural o Access roads Lay down easements (b) (6) and(b) (6) to work on standardized fencing for all of Phase 2 that incorporates our requirements on Wednesday (b) (6) will have maps uploaded to the PF225 server and they will be shared with CBP and GIS people We will have two preferred design solutions for the 9/5 meeting Look at alignment in the databases and look at the historic land use to give an indication of how many will be an issue and get this to S2 quickly

Complete Action Items:  (b) (6) sent email to (b) (6) about the status of the MOU with IBWC  (b) (6) distributed updated spreadsheet on 8/27  SBI PMO to identify Dol coordination plan to establish regional coordinators  (b) (6) and (b) (6) to distribute draft agenda for planning meeting (b) (6)  and (b) (6) provided direction to Corps to acquire 150 ft of property in state of Texas Meeting attended/minutes prepared by: Antoinette DiVittorio

CBP/SBInet Meeting Minutes 11/9/2010


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful