Aug 14 2008 CBP IBWC Issues

7/31/2019 Aug 14 2008 CBP IBWC Issues

1/4

From:

Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:23 AM

To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W

Cc:

Subject: IBWC_Floodplain_Issues Paper_Prep for G1

Importance: High

Attachments: IBWC-FloodplainIssues_August 13th.doc

Page 1

4/9/2009

oren

The attached document summarizes the flood plain issues we have with IBWC that I believe are the topics Commissioner Marwants 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-2And (2) approval to proceed with the Laredo Cane Control pilot program.

Thanks

Secure Border Initiative - Tactical InfrastructureProgram Management OfficeCell:

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

b)6)b) (6)

(b) (6)


2/4

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY


Prepared by: SBI TO Technical Manager,

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 PF225segment C-2B and VF300 segments CV-1A and CV-1B in the floodplain of the ColoradoRiver.

Colorado River

In May 2008, we received written permission from IBWC to install segments C-2B, CV-1Aand CV-1B in the floodplain of the Colorado River

In June 2008, a preliminary set of construction drawings for CV-1A and CV-1B wereprepared and distributed to the VF300 team including IBWC for review and comment. Thedrawings identified (incorrectly) the northern starting point of CV-1A as beingapproximately 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 alsodepicted vehicle fence being installed over the spillway of the Dam.

In early August, IBWC contacted SBI TI concerned about the fencing proposed over theDams spillway. They also believed the additional 400 ft added since the preliminarydrawings 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 Damwould be removed. In addition, we acknowledged that the flood plain study assumed thefence would stop 40 ft (not 400 ft) south of the dam (vs at the Dam) and requested that theyapprove 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 updatedfor the additional 40 ft.

Rio Grande River

Baker Engineers have conducted extensive hydraulic modeling of the proposed alignments ofO-1, O-2 and O-3 using an updated version of IBWCs hydraulic model. Baker hasconcluded 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-3fencing would have a negligible impact on the floodplain and developed a completelyremovable bollard fence design.

In July 2008, we received verbal concurrence from IBWC on installing completelyremovable fencing in segments O-1, O-2 and O-3 as long as CBP agreed to remove thefence from the floodplain within 72 hours when instructed to do so by IBWC. IBWC also

008666

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


3/4




indicated they would require our MOU to be updated to reflect the terms and conditionsassociated with the removal of the fencing.

SBI TI (LMI) conducted a logistics analysis of removing the O-1, O-2 and O-3 segments toa storage site outside of the floodplain within 72 hours of notification and concluded that thiswas not feasible (e.g. would require 28 crews, 56 trucks and over 200 personnel). LMI didconclude removing the fence and placing it on the ground in proximity to the fencesfoundation 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 removedwhenever they declared a flood emergency. To date, they have refused to provide theparameters that they use to declare a flood emergency. As such, we requested and theyagreed to provide us historic data relative to their past declarations of flood emergencies sowe could conduct a statistical/probability analysis to try to estimate the likely frequency inwhich 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 notthe removed fence segments would float in a flood event (one fence panel will weigh over8,000 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.

008667

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


4/4




Background:

A total of 35.7 miles of pedestrian fencing is proposed for Cameron County, Texas in the RioGrande (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 haveincluded staff from the Border Patrol, SBI, and Commissioners Office.

Despite the recent issuance of a waiver of certain environmental laws, DHS is notcompromising its commitment to responsible environmental stewardship and it is likely thatextensive additional analyses are required of both the levee and security barrier portions ofthe proposed project. Unlike Hidalgo County, the International Boundary and WaterCommission (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 perceivedimpacts on landowners in Cameron County. Most complaints have centered on land usessouth of the fence and the perception that physical barriers are not a viable solution and/orare 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 apriority for installation of fence in 2008. Apprehensions in RGV are up almost 6% vs. thesame 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 approximatelythe same as standard pedestrian fencing. Funding is not available to build 35.7 contingencyfence miles in 2008 and a Cameron County levee-barrier project in 2009.

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

Comment [AU1]: Im not sureaccurate IBWC is currently in theprocess of raising the Cameron Colevees using in-house forces Id shocked if they are not compliant NEPA Recommend the sentence deleted

Comment [AU2]: I dont undethe purpose/message of this bulletwe saying we need to assume if wforward with Cameron County thatheir miles should be assumed higand not likely to meet the Dec 08deadline and therefore we should a

build 35 7 additional miles elsewh(which we dont have identified) tensure we meet the goal

008668

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

Documents

Aug 14 2008 CBP IBWC Issues