From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)

Subject: FW: Floating Fence Issues
Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 11:13:56 AM
Importance: High

Gents,
USACE sent in their PowerPoint Presentation on this issue.

(b) (6)
SBInet / TI
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 10:56 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Floating Fence Issues
Importance: High

(b)
(6)
This is the latest information that we have on floating fence. This is almost the same information that
RGV is currently working on.

(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:25 AM
To:(
Cc:b(b) (6)
Subject: RE: Floating Fence Issues

(b) (6)

We were asked to put together a slide show for locations where we plan to use fence on levee F-1. I
forwarded our initial draft slideshow to you last week. Enclosed is the latest slideshow I forwarded up
the chain. There is some confusion with folks when they see F-1 they automatically assume that it is
fence on levee. When in fact there are locations where we designate F-1 for use of floating fence but
where it is not on the levee. I’ll call you shortly so we can discuss further. Thanks.

(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 8:22 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Floating Fence Issues
Importance: High
(b)
(6)
Do you know anything about this?

We are currently working on this issue and RGV’s stance (in agreement with Chief Aguilar) is not to
leave any gaps in the fence. We are developing maps with comments where the proposed floating
fence is recommended. We are hoping to add possible solutions (if any) to these F-1 locations.

Please call if you have any information on this matter or why this came up.

(b)
(6)
RGV SBInet Team

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 11:10 AM
To: (b) (6)

Subject: Floating Fence Issues

Importance: High

Gents,
I just spoke with (b) (6) and he advised that (b) (6) had just mentioned that Greg Giddens
was considering completely dropping the floating fence option from the current toolbox. No reason was
given as to why that idea is being considered, but(b) (6) was thinking that we (RGV and I) need to work
on an issue paper explaining our stand on this issue. We need to be able to explain why these 12
different locations, where floating fence is currently proposed, would be totally detrimental to our
operations if they were left totally open (no fence option). (b) (6) wanted for us to answer if this scenario
was presented to RGV, would we be OK with this situation, or would we be willing to forgo the entire
project (O-1, O-2, O-3, O-6, O-7, O-10, O-11, O-12, O-14, O-17 and O-19).

I know that the “Swiss cheese” fence option did not sit well at all with (b) (6) and Chief
Aguilar was dead set against it. We need to gather up our ideas and put them on paper so that we
can present them to (b) (6) so that he can be prepared to argue our point.

Let me know what you guys think. I will be working on some issues here and will then forward them to
you so that we can discuss them together. Talk to you guys in a little while.

(b) (6)
SBInet / TI
(b) (6)
US Army Corps
of Engineers
ngi eers

Rio Grande Valley

Border Patrol Sector
Fence on Levee Summary

~ One Team – Relevant, Ready, Responsive, Reliable ~

US Army Corps PF225 RGV Sector
of Engineers
ngi eers
Fence on Levee Summary

• IBWC Levee exists in Project O-4 through Project O-21

• Location of Fence Proposed on IBWC Levee
– Project O-6 - Hidalgo Pump House (Historic Structure)
– Project O-14 - Irrigation Canals/Ditch North of IBWC Levee
– Project O-17 - Proposed Railroad POE and US 281 Expansion
– Project O-19 - Historic Structures and Landmarks
– Project O-21 – East Loop Project and Historic Structures

~ One Team – Relevant, Ready, Responsive, Reliable ~

US Army Corps PF225 RGV Sector
of Engineers
ngi eers
Project O-6 - Hidalgo Pump House

.06 miles of fence on levee proposed along

existing fence alignment at Hidalgo Pump
House to avoid impacts to grounds and
structure.

~ One Team – Relevant, Ready, Responsive, Reliable ~

 PF225 RGV Sector
US Army Corps
Project O-14
of Engineers
ngi eers Irrigation Canal and Seepage Ditch North of IBWC Levee

Irrigation canal
and seepage ditch
maintenance road Existing seepage
ditch north of
IBWC levee

• 2.59
2 59 miles
m s of fence on levee is proposed
pr posed due to existing
xisting
irrigation canal and/or seepage ditch north of IBWC levee. Existing irrigation
canal north of
IBWC levee
• Placement of fence on canal maintenance road would impact
Irrigation District’s operation and maintenance of canal and
seepage ditch. Irrigation IBWC
Seepage Canal Levee
Ditch
• Placement of fence on levee will further reduce existing
IBWC driving clearance which will require modification of
levee to ensure IBWC 16-ft driving clearance. Maintenance
Road

• Consideration could be given to moving fence north of

canal/ditch
canal/ditc in areas
ar as where
her real
eal estate
esta exist
xist such
uch as agricultura
agricu ural
field.

~ One Team – Relevant, Ready, Responsive, Reliable ~

 PF225 RGV Sector
US Army Corps Project O-17 Cameron County
of Engineers
ngi eers
Proposed Rail Road POE Brownsville, Texas

• .10 miles of fence on levee is proposed

OE
to avoid proposed Rail Road POE.

RR P
• P-3B-15 floating fence on levee will
facilitate future relocation of fence
during construction of the RR POE.
• Future location of fence may be off
levee depending on RR POE final
E
PO design/location.
RR

IBWC Levee

~ One Team – Relevant, Ready, Responsive, Reliable ~

 PF225 RGV Sector
US Army Corps Project O-17 Cameron County
of Engineers
ngi eers
Military Highway U.S. 281 Expansion
•Expansion of U.S. Military Highway
281 to 4 lanes will decrease the
distance between the IBWC levee and
IBWC Levee the current east bound lane.
US 281 Expansion
•Current land stakes appear to extend
the traffic lanes between 21 to 30 feet
Fence on which puts road adjacent to toe of
US Levee IBWC levee
28
1
•.34 miles of fence on levee is
IB recommend to accommodate future
W
CL
ev expansion of US 281
ee
•Consideration could be given to
placing floating fence at toe of levee
which would allow for some
US 281 adjustment in the future to
accommodate proposed US 281
IBWC Levee
expansion. This might require
relocation of power lines/poles.

~ One Team – Relevant, Ready, Responsive, Reliable ~

US Army Corps PF225 RGV Sector
of Engineers
ngi eers
Project O-19 – Hope Park

HOPE PARK
•.19 miles of fence on levee
proposed to avoid impacts to
historic sites
Fence on Levee
•City of Brownsville owned
public park/historical site
currently on IBWC levee.
•Park is in close proximity to the
Rio Grande River and the
historical downtown
Brownsville area.

~ One Team – Relevant, Ready, Responsive, Reliable ~

 PF225 RGV Sector
US Army Corps
of Engineers
ngi eers
Project O-19 – Fort Brown Earthworks

UT Brownsville

Fort Brown Earthworks

• Archeological site
already impacted by
IBWC levee
• .36 miles of fence on
levee proposed to Fence on IBWC Levee
minimize impacts to
historical Fort Brown
Earthworks
Golf Course

~ One Team – Relevant, Ready, Responsive, Reliable ~

 PF225 RGV Sector
US Army Corps Project O-21 – East Loop Project
of Engineers
ngi eers

• Proposed East Loop

Project will follow existing
IBWC levee alignment
ve e
Fort Brown Station C Le Proposed • Existing IBWC Levee will
I BW East
Ea t Loop
Loo
ting be relocated as depicted by
is
Ex levee proposal
• 2.0 miles of fence on levee
Levee
is proposed to
Proposal
Prop sal accommodate future East
Loop Project.
• Use of P-3B-15 floating
fence will allow for future
relocation of fence once
IBWC Levee is relocated
in conjunction with
construction of East Loop
Project

~ One Team – Relevant, Ready, Responsive, Reliable ~

 (b) (6)
PF225 RGV Sector
US Army Corps Project O-21 –
of Engineers
ngi eers

(b) (6)

•.53 miles of fence on levee is

proposed along this section of
Fence on Levee
Project O-21 to avoid impacts
to historic structures that are
in close proximity to the
IBWC levee.

~ One Team – Relevant, Ready, Responsive, Reliable ~