Page 1 of 1

(b) (6)
From: Sent:

(b) (6)
Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:23 AM LOREN W

To: FLOSSMAN, (b) (6) Cc: Subject: Importance: High

IBWC_Floodplain_Issues Paper_Prep for G1

Attachments: IBWC-FloodplainIssues_August 13th.doc Loren The attached document summarizes the flood plain issues we have with IBWC that I believe are the topics Commissioner Marin wants to discuss with G1. While you have the Commissioner on the phone, please inquire on the status of (1) approval to build the retaining wall in M-2A; and (2) approval to proceed with the Laredo Cane Control pilot program. Thanks

(b) (6) (b) (6) Secure Border Initiative - Tactical Infrastructure Program Management Office Cell: (b) (6)
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

4/9/2009

008666

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

AUGUST 13, 2008 UPDATE ON RIO GRANDE VALLEY & COLORADO RIVER FLOODPLAIN ISSUES RELATIVE TO PF225 & VF300 Talking Points: CBP has been working with IBWC since January 2008 to obtain their permission to install PF225 segments O-1 through O-3 in the floodplain of the Rio Grande River, and PF225 segment C-2B and VF300 segments CV-1A and CV-1B in the floodplain of the Colorado River.

Colorado River In May 2008, we received written permission from IBWC to install segments C-2B, CV-1A and CV-1B in the floodplain of the Colorado River In June 2008, a preliminary set of construction drawings for CV-1A and CV-1B were prepared and distributed to the VF300 team including IBWC for review and comment. The drawings identified (incorrectly) the northern starting point of CV-1A as being approximately 400 ft south of IBWCs Morelos Dam. In July 2008, the draft final set of construction drawings showed the northern start point of CV-1A as being at the IBWC Morelos Dam per Border Patrols request. The drawings also depicted vehicle fence being installed over the spillway of the Dam. In early August, IBWC contacted SBI TI concerned about the fencing proposed over the Dams spillway. They also believed the additional 400 ft added since the preliminary drawings were outside of the scope of the approved floodplain study. SBI TI informed IBWC on August 11th that the proposed fence over the spillway of the Dam would be removed. In addition, we acknowledged that the flood plain study assumed the fence would stop 40 ft (not 400 ft) south of the dam (vs at the Dam) and requested that they approve the additional 40 ft without requiring us to update the flood plain model/study. On August 13th, IBWC notified SBI TI that the floodplain model would need to be updated for the additional 40 ft.

Rio Grande River Baker Engineers have conducted extensive hydraulic modeling of the proposed alignments of O-1, O-2 and O-3 using an updated version of IBWCs hydraulic model. Baker has concluded that the proposed fencing will have no significant impacts on the flood plain. However, IBWC does not concur with this conclusion. In June 2008, we abandoned our attempts to convince IBWC that the O-1, O-2 and O-3 fencing would have a negligible impact on the floodplain and developed a completely removable bollard fence design. In July 2008, we received verbal concurrence from IBWC on installing completely removable fencing in segments O-1, O-2 and O-3 as long as CBP agreed to remove the fence from the floodplain within 72 hours when instructed to do so by IBWC. IBWC also FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Prepared by: (b) (6) (b) (6) SBI TO Technical Manager, (b) (6)

008667

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

indicated they would require our MOU to be updated to reflect the terms and conditions associated with the removal of the fencing. SBI TI (LMI) conducted a logistics analysis of removing the O-1, O-2 and O-3 segments to a storage site outside of the floodplain within 72 hours of notification and concluded that this was not feasible (e.g. would require 28 crews, 56 trucks and over 200 personnel). LMI did conclude removing the fence and placing it on the ground in proximity to the fences foundation would require significant resources but could be achieved. IBWC has indicated that they would require the O-1, O-2 and O-3 fence to be removed whenever they declared a flood emergency. To date, they have refused to provide the parameters that they use to declare a flood emergency. As such, we requested and they agreed to provide us historic data relative to their past declarations of flood emergencies so we could conduct a statistical/probability analysis to try to estimate the likely frequency in which we will have to remove the fence but to date we have not yet received this data. This week, IBWC requested that CBP conduct a buoyancy study to evaluate whether or not the removed fence segments would float in a flood event (one fence panel will weigh over 8,000 lbs).

Watch Out For/If Asked: The Corps/Baker has confirmed that the flood plain study for the CV-1A segment assumed the segment would start 40 ft south of the Morelos Dam. We are not sure what IBWC is looking for relative to the buoyancy study they would like performed for the O-1, O-2 and O-3 segments.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Prepared by: (b) (6) SBI TO Technical Manager, (b) (6)

008668

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Background: A total of 35.7 miles of pedestrian fencing is proposed for Cameron County, Texas in the Rio Grande (RGV) Sector. Current plans call for fencing to be installed outside of the flood plain primarily along the non-river side of the flood protection levees. CBP has engaged in extensive consultations with Cameron County regarding the potential feasibility of a levee-barrier alternative to the standard fence. These discussions have included staff from the Border Patrol, SBI, and Commissioners Office. Despite the recent issuance of a waiver of certain environmental laws, DHS is not compromising its commitment to responsible environmental stewardship and it is likely that extensive additional analyses are required of both the levee and security barrier portions of the proposed project. Unlike Hidalgo County, the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) has not conducted a NEPA review for the levee improvements. CBP does not believe that a levee-barrier would significantly avoid or mitigate the perceived impacts on landowners in Cameron County. Most complaints have centered on land uses south of the fence and the perception that physical barriers are not a viable solution and/or are offensive. Because the levees are shorter than those in Hidalgo County in many areas, a substantial amount of fencing would be required to meet operational requirements. Operational assessments by the Border Patrol have indicated that Cameron County is a priority for installation of fence in 2008. Apprehensions in RGV are up almost 6% vs. the same period last year compared to a 16% decreased overall. Based on the Hidalgo County levee-barrier, the cost of $3.5 million per mile is approximately the same as standard pedestrian fencing. Funding is not available to build 35.7 contingency fence miles in 2008 and a Cameron County levee-barrier project in 2009.
Comment [AU2]: I dont understand the purpose/message of this bullet Are we saying we need to assume if we go forward with Cameron County that all of their miles should be assumed high risk and not likely to meet the Dec 08 deadline and therefore we should also build 35 7 additional miles elsewhere (which we dont have identified) to ensure we meet the goal

Comment [AU1]: Im not sure this accurate IBWC is currently in the process of raising the Cameron County levees using in-house forces Id be shocked if they are not compliant with NEPA Recommend the sentence be deleted

ATTACHMENTS: A. CBP letter to Cameron County, June 27, 2008 B. Cameron County letter to CBP, July 11, 2008 C. Status of Levee-Barrier Proposal Requirements July 21, 2008 D. SBI Evaluation of Cameron County Proposal

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Prepared by: (b) (6) SBI TO Technical Manager, (b) (6)