draft army corps report on border walls 30 november 2012

7/28/2019 draft Army Corps report on border walls 30 November 2012

1/15

1

Border Patrol Facilities and Tactical Infrastructure (BPFTI)Program Management Office (PMO)

Real Estate PlanProposed Pedestrian Fencing

Segments O-1, O-2, O-3Starr & Hidalgo Counties, Texas

As of:30 November 2012

Prepared By:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District


2/15

2

REAL ESTATE PLANNING REPORT O-1, O-2, O-3

REAL ESTATE PLANNING REPORTPF225 Segments O-1-O-3; Rio Grande Valley Sector (Starr & Hidalgo Counties, Texas)

INDEX

SUBJECT PAGE

Summary Sheet .................................................................................................... 3Authority .............................................................................................................. 4Project .................................................................................................................. 4Site Selection Team ............................................................................................. 4

Sites Inspected ..................................................................................................... 4Description of Selected Site ................................................................................. 5Relocations ........................................................................................................... 5Attitude of Owners and Neighborhood ................................................................ 7Outstanding Interests and Reservations ............................................................... 7Sales and Supporting Data ................................................................................... 7Valuation .............................................................................................................. 8Uniform Relocation Assistance Costs ................................................................. 8Recommended Estate ........................................................................................... 9Recapture Rights .................................................................................................. 10Government-owned Property ............................................................................... 11Proposed Construction ......................................................................................... 11Possession Date .................................................................................................... 11Administrative Costs ............................................................................................ 12Schedule of Acquisition ....................................................................................... 12Summary and Recommendation .......................................................................... 12

ExhibitsExhibit A DirectiveExhibit B Regional MapExhibit C Site MapExhibit D Vicinity PhotographsExhibit E Project Acquisition ScheduleExhibit F Tract Map


3/15

3

SUMMARY SHEETPF225 Segments O-1-O-3; Rio Grande Valley Sector (Starr & Hidalgo Counties, Texas

DATE: 30 November 2012

1. Fee Title (235 Acres) $ 822,500

2. Easements (86 Acres) $ 270,605

3. Improvements $ 3,200,000

4. Hazard Removals $0

5. Mineral Rights $0

6. Damages $434,235

7. Contingencies $1,596,802

8. Relocations $391,000

9. Uniform Relocation Assistance $1,218,000

10. Acquisition Administrative Costs $ 4,700,000

TOTAL $12,633,142

ROUNDED $12,635,000

Estimated for Customs and Border Protection Planning Purposes:

DOJ Administrative Cost for Condemnation: $8,730,000

Estimate based on 95% of cases resulting in condemnation.


4/15

4

REAL ESTATE PLANNING REPORTPF225 Segments O-1-O-3; Rio Grande Valley Sector (Starr & Hidalgo Counties, Texas)

1. AUTHORITY.

The request for this report, along with an analysis of the real estate status in project areas knownas O-1, O-2, and O-3 was via phone conversation on September 5, 2012 with FacilitiesManagement and Engineering (FM&E) and U.S. Custom and Border Protections (CBP) Officeof Chief Counsel (OCC).

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) authority for real estate acquisition is as follows:

Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2311 and codified at 6 U.S.C. Sections 202, 251, 551, and 557,which transferred certain authorities to the Attorney General to the Secretary of HomelandSecurity; and by DHS Delegation No. 7010.3(II)(B), which delegated land acquisition authorityfrom the Secretary of Homeland Security to the Commissioner of CBP; and by CBP Delegation

05-004, which delegated land acquisition authority to the Acting Executive Director, FacilitiesManagement and Engineering.

2. PROJECT.

The Pedestrian Fence 225 (PF225) project involves constructing pedestrian fencing intended todeter illegal entry of persons and contraband into the United States. There are three proposedsegments of fencing, referred to as Segments O-1 through O-3. Segments O-1 and O-2 arelocated in Roma and Rio Grande City, Starr County, Texas, respectively. Segment O-3 islocated in Los Ebanos, Hidalgo County, Texas.

3. SITE SELECTION TEAM.

Alignment of the proposed PF225 fence segments is based upon a collaborative effort from CBPand the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). IBWC was involved to analyzeany potential impediment the fence might cause to the flow of the Rio Grande during floodevents. Input from CBP was based on law enforcement and operational strategies of theiragency. USACE is involved in the capacity of engineering, contractual services, projectmanagement, and real estate.

4. SITES INSPECTED.

The proposed alignment has been strategically analyzed by CBP from a law enforcementperspective and by IBWC from a flood control perspective. The fence cannot be placed in anarea that would potentially divert flood waters of the Rio Grande away from the United Statesand into Mexico, thus violating international treaty. As a result of the strategic location of theproposed alignment, the District has not performed a site inspection. This report will containsuggestions to consider repositioning the proposed alignment of the fence to affect fewerlandowners, residences, and structures. However, these suggestions should be considered inconjunction with the functionality of the proposed tactical infrastructure.


5/15

5

5. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF SELECTED SITE.

The project area is located near the Rio Grande River which serves as the international boundarybetween the United States and Mexico (seeEXHIBIT A). All three project areas have acombination of native brush, commercial, and residential properties, as well as cropland in O-2

and O-3.

6. RELOCATIONS.

Depending on the final alignment of the fence, up to 25 residences could be impacted in O-1.There is a potential for three storage buildings a transmission tower which may or may not bepart of a planned RVSS tower, and potentially one business, including 64 to 90 tenants, to berelocated in O-2, depending on final alignment. If the USACE-RE recommendation is followedin O-3 to shift the alignment west to follow the Felix Martinez Avenue Right-of-Way in order toavoid potential erosion and maintain functionality of the fence, there is the potential for nineresidential relocations. The tracts potentially affected by relocation can be found inExhibit C,

Site Map. Alignment issues affecting possible relocations for all fence segments are discussed insection 19 of this report Summary and Recommendation. Residential and tenant relocationsare discussed in section 11 of this report Uniform Relocation Assistance Costs.

It is recommended that the new approved swath avoid the transmission tower in order to avoidrelocating it, unless the tower site is leased by CBP for its sole use. In that case, it could bebeneficial to encompass the tower in a fee acquisition to avoid paying rent in the future. Thistower is found in tract RGC-2039.

The storage buildings mentioned above, also in project O-2, are on the Port of Entry property,tract RGC-2014. It is recommended that alignment be shifted as well to not only avoid thebuildings, but also avoid future erosion affecting the integrity and functionality of the proposedtactical infrastructure. To determine an amenable alignment, a discussion with the Port of Entrymanagement team should be had. If the alignment is kept, there is an option to purchase theimprovements within the swath and demolish them for construction of fence or relocate them onthe Port of Entry property, if requested. In order to assist in the business decision to acquire thebuildings in the acquisition and then demolish them for construction or relocate them if thelandowner requests as such, a discussion of each option is below.

Using aerial imagery available on Bing and Google Earth, it appears that these buildings areClass S buildings, with frames, roofs, and walls made of incombustible metal, and a concreteslab foundation. One building is approximately 400 square feet, another is approximately 437square feet, and the largest is approximately 5,400 square feet. The following map depicts thelocation of the improvements on the tract.


6/15

6

Marshall & SwiftsMarshall Valuation Service 2012, Section 66, Pages 10-11 discusses costsfor demolition. Using this source as a guide, it is estimated that $4.55 per square foot is required

to demolish a Class S building. This cost includes loading and hauling, but does not includedump fees. The demolition cost for the concrete slab is $19.75 per square foot. The total cost fordemolition per square foot is $24.30. The local multiplier for this area is .78 and the costmultiplier is 1.01. The total cost for demolition of these buildings is about $120,000.

24.30(400+437+5400) * 1.01 * .78 =$119,398.25. Rounded $120,000.

The cost to relocate the buildings includes pouring of new slab foundations, and labor todisassemble and reassemble the buildings. The foundation cost includes labor, materials,equipment, plus overhead and profit for the installing contractor. Using Section 51, Page 2 of theMarshall Valuation Servicemanual as a guide for calculation, it will likely cost around

$385,000, adding the recommended 40% for preparatory work, a local multiplier of .78 and acost multiplier of 1.02 for trenching, and concrete pouring.

Concrete cost @ $7.25/cubic foot =$337,444Trenching in Medium Earth @ 17.35/linear foot =$7,946.30

337,444 +7,946.30 =345,390.30 * .4 =138,156.12 +345,390.30 =483.546.42 * 1.02 * .78 =$384,709.52. Rounded $385,000


7/15

7

When the slab has set, the buildings will need to be disassembled and then reassembled on thenew slabs. It is estimated that a team of 10 laborers working 40 hours each at a rate of $15 perhour will be required. Total for labor of relocating the buildings is $6,000. The total cost ofrelocating the buildings is around $391,000. This cost is used in the cost estimate found on page

three and is most likely the highest potential cost.

The cost of avoiding the buildings is dependent on the cost of fence construction and anyadditional length added to the proposed alignment. The estimated cost to build fence is about$7.46 million per mile or about $1,413 per linear foot not taking into account slope stabilization.If slope stabilization is necessary, it is estimated to cost $2,300 per linear foot. These costs werea part of a 23 October 2012 Rough Order of Magnitude prepared by Michael Baker Jr. Inc for thepurpose of this report.

7. ATTITUDE OF OWNERS AND NEIGHBORHOOD

Landowner opposition to the Border Fence is expected. It is understood that some landownerswill accept the fence, although not necessarily support it, and work with the government. Otherswill resist and reject any offers made. In those cases, condemnation will be necessary. Stillothers could view the fence as beneficial, and will be supportive. IBWC held a landownermeeting the week of August 27, 2012 to inform landowners of the approved acquisition swath.

8. OUTSTANDING INTERESTS AND RESERVATIONS.

Any outstanding mineral rights will not be known until title evidence is obtained. Therecommended fee estate will except mineral and water rights.

9. SALES AND SUPPORTING DATA.

USACE has identified two relevant sales comparables indicative of vacant land in the floodplainin Starr and Hidalgo Counties.

The first comparable is located in Rio Grande City, TX, south of Water Street. The 27.40 acretract sold on July 2, 2007 for a purchase price of $100,000, or $3,649.64 per acre. The saleexcluded a 0.40 acre homestead, but included mineral and water rights. The tract hasapproximately 700 feet of frontage on the Rio Grande River. At the time of the sale, the tractwas overgrown with native vegetation. This tract is the parent tract of RGV-RGC-2024.

The second comparable is located in Los Ebanos, TX, at the intersection of Felix Martinez Streetand Heriberto Garcia Street on the south side of Los Ebanos. The 33.40 acre tract sold onSeptember 20, 2007, for $108,550, or $3,250 per acre. The tract has about 500 feet of frontageon the Rio Grande River. At the time of the sale, the tract was overgrown with native vegetation.This tract is the parent tract of RGV-MCS-1013.


8/15

8

Without the availability of residential comparables, an estimate of $90,000 will be used as thefair market value estimate of each residential property that could potentially be affected by thereal estate acquisition and thus requiring relocation assistance.

10. VALUATION

Though costly and time consuming, it would be beneficial to contract a gross appraisal of theproject areas. The gross appraisal would allow for better budgeting and planning of the realestate acquisition portion of the project. It would also discuss several unknown factors such asthe value of potential damages to the dry side of the proposed and original take areas, andidentify additional sales comparables, particularly residential sales. However, because of thecost and time involved to obtain a gross appraisal, an internal analysis of comparable propertiesavailable to USACE has been performed in lieu of a gross appraisal. Based on the comparablesdiscussed in the previous paragraph, a cost of $3,500 per acre will be used to estimate the cost ofvacant, native brush land in the floodplain within the project area. Although the sales occurredover 5 years ago, recent activity in this real estate market shows no substantial fluctuations.

According to the April 2012 edition of the Texas Rural Land Value Trends published by theTexas chapter of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, volume andactivity in the South Texas real estate market in 2011 has not rebounded to pre-2008 levels. Thepublication states after the decrease in pricing of late 2008/early 2009, land prices for the mostpart have held steady.

11. UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE COSTS.

As discussed in section six Relocations, there is the potential for a total of 34 relocations,including 30 residential properties, 3 storage buildings, and one business with about 64 tenantsbut with the potential of 90 residents. The potential relocations can be found inExhibit C.

For the purpose of this report, its assumed that decent, safe, and sanitary housing can be foundfor every displaced resident within the allowed 50 miles radius, as established by the UniformRelocation Act (URA), Public Law 91-646 (PL 91-646). It is assumed that decent, safe, andsanitary housing can be found within the $22,500 above fair market value relocation thresholdbefore housing of last resort is considered. For purposes of this report, it assumed no residentwill require housing of last resort. In addition to assisting the owner with replacement housing,the URA requires that each owners full moving costs be reimbursed. As the cost can vary fromowner to owner an estimate of $3,391 will be used per owner. This estimate is based on a cost ofmoving a three bedroom house, average 10,000 pounds of personal property, up to 50 miles(www.movesource.com). The total cost of relocation per owner is then estimated to be $25,891.With the potential of 30 owners being relocated, the total relocation assistance for residentialowners for the project is $776,730.

The business located in segment O-2 is a nursing home establishment. The tract number is RGC-2012. If the decision is made to buy the tract out in its entirety, the business will need to berelocated along with 64 residents, potentially up to 90 residents if at 100% capacity. Each tenantwill be eligible for relocation assistance. The maximum allowable amount of rental assistance is$5,250. Tenants are also eligible for reimbursement of moving cost. Costs may vary from tenant


9/15

9

to tenant, but is estimated to be about $1,174 per tenant. The estimate is based a cost calculationof moving a studio apartment up to 50 miles (www.movesource.com). If the nursing homecapacity stays at 64 tenants, the cost to relocate all tenants would be $411,136. If the nursinghome reaches capacity, the total cost to relocate all tenants would be $578,160.

The nursing home business is also eligible for relocation assistance. The assistance available to abusiness includes reestablishment expenses not to exceed $10,000 and moving costs not toexceed $20,000. Total relocation expense for the business is $30,000.

12. RECOMMENDED ESTATE.

For tracts where fence is to be constructed, the recommended estate is fee simple, moreparticularly described below. Perpetual easements will be acquired over access roads with aneed for permanent use. Temporary four year easements will be acquired for temporary roads,and staging areas. A term of four years is chosen because during fence construction in Cameronand Hidalgo counties, it was learned that two years was not always a long enough term. Several

temporary staging area easements had to be reacquired for the project.

Fee Estate Language Recommendation:

No access cure:

The estate taken is fee simple, subject to existing easements for public roads and highways,public utilities, railroads and pipelines and subject to Easements Appurtenant reserved inDeclarations of Taking or granted by the United States of America across lands acquired by theUnited States for border barrier purposes to provide access to owners of property on the riversideof the border barrier. The estate taken excludes all interests in minerals; and in water distributionand drainage systems, provided that any surface rights arising from the excluded interests inwater distribution and drainage systems are subordinated to the construction, operation, andmaintenance of the IBWC levee and border barrier.

Access cure:

The estate taken is fee simple, subject to existing easements for public roads and highways,public utilities, railroads and pipelines. The estate taken is made subject to a dominant easementappurtenant for access in common with others (including the United States) at the locationdepicted on the map attached as Exhibit A (Easement Appurtenant). The EasementAppurtenant provides Owner with a right of way from __________________, a public road, toand along a road on the riverside of the fence; to Owners property lying southwest of saidborder barrier. The Easement Appurtenant shall run with title to that real estate of the Ownerlying between the Rio Grande River and the border barrier that would benefit from a right ofway.

The estate taken excepts and excludes all interests in minerals and in water distribution anddrainage systems, provided that any surface rights arising from the excluded interests in water


10/15

10

distribution and drainage systems are subordinated to the construction, operation, andmaintenance of the border barrier.

Perpetual Road Easement Estate Recommendation:

A perpetual and assignable easement and right-of-way in, over and across the land described inSchedule C for the location, construction, operation, maintenance, alteration, replacement,repair and patrol of road(s) and appurtenances thereto and overhead and/or underground utilitylines; together with the right to trim or remove any vegetative or structural obstacles thatinterfere with the right-of-way; subject to minerals and rights appurtenant thereto, and to existingeasements for public roads, highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines; reserving,however, to the owners, their successors and assigns, the right to use the surface of such land asaccess to their adjoining land or for any other use consistent with its use for this road and utilityeasement.

Temporary Road Easement Estate Recommendation:

A temporary and assignable easement and right-of-way in, over and across the land described in___________________ for a period not to exceed 48 months, beginning with date possession ofthe land is granted to the United States, for the location, construction, operation, maintenance,alteration and replacement of (a) road(s) and appurtenances thereto; together with the right totrim or remove any vegetative or structural obstacles that interfere with the right-of-way; subjectto minerals and rights appurtenant thereto, and to existing easements for public roads, highways,public utilities, railroads and pipelines; reserving, however, to the owners, their successors andassigns, the right to use the surface of such land as access to their adjoining land or for any otheruse consistent with its use as a road.

Temporary Work Area Estate Recommendation:

A temporary easement and right-of-way in, on, over and across the land described in__________________ for a period not to exceed 48 months, beginning with date of possessionof the land is granted to the United States, for use by the United States, its representatives,agents, and contractors as a work area, including the right to move, store and remove equipmentand supplies; erect and remove temporary structures on the land; and to perform any other worknecessary and incident to the construction of the border security project described in_________________ together with the right to trim or remove any vegetative or structuralobstacles that interfere with the right-of-way; subject to minerals and rights appurtenant thereto,and to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines;reserving, however, to the landowners, their successors and assigns, all such rights and,privileges as may be used without interfering with or abridging the rights and easement herebyacquired.

13. RECAPTURE RIGHTS.

There are four tracts in O-3 that have been re-vested and will require reacquisition. The easternportion of MCS-1006 was re-vested, but the new alignment passes through the portion re-vested.


11/15

11

MCS-1010 was also re-vested. The new proposed alignment passes through this tract soreacquisition of the tract as-surveyed will be needed, in addition to an uneconomic remainder tothe north. MCS-1011 was re-vested as well. The current proposed alignment passes through there-vested tract and will require reacquisition if the current alignment is used. However, USACEis recommending re-configuring the alignment so that the fence will follow the north property

line of this parent tract which will eliminate the need for an additional 725 of fencing. If therecommendation is consummated, the re-vested tract will not need to be reacquired, but instead aswath along the north property line. The status of MCS-2012 mirrors that of MCS-1011.

14. GOVERNMENT-OWNED PROPERTY.

Several tracts were acquired in 2008 based on an alignment other than the current plan. USACErecommendation is to utilize those tracts already acquired where the new fence alignmentcorresponds with the location of these tracts. Where the prior alignment does not correspondwith the new alignment, it is recommended to re-vest the tracts and acquire the land needed forthe new fence alignment, unless it makes sense to acquire from the new alignment to the river.

This decision has been analyzed on a tract-by-tract basis as shown onExhibit F. For thosetracts that have been acquired where there are no plans to build fence, it is recommended to re-vest the fee tracts, and re-acquire as-surveyed as a perpetual road easement, per CBPsrequirement.

There will be tactical infrastructure located on other Federally owned property, namely U.S. Fishand Wildlife property in segments O-1 and O-3. The need to acquire a permit for or performenvironmental testing on these properties was waived in the original fence constructionlegislation. It is assumed the waiver will be extended to this portion of the project.

15. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.

The proposed use of the property is for construction of fencing intended to deter illegal entry ofpersons and contraband into the United States. This report assumes the type of fencing will besimilar to that constructed in Cameron County, TX. Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) costsfrom Michael Baker Jr., Inc. estimate the cost of proposed fencing in Starr and Hidalgo Countiesto be $33.8 million for approximately 3.94 miles of fencing. This cost does not include anyslope stabilization required. If the fence is built on the slope of the riverbank in certain areas, aslope stabilization cost estimate of $4.68 million/mile should be figured in. These cost estimateswere calculated without the benefit of development of design, as such, construction costestimates will vary once design development begins.

16. POSSESSION DATE.

At the time of this report, there have been no funds set aside for construction of this project. Assuch, no possession date is required.


12/15

12

17. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

Historical data available from fence acquisitions in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties shows thatadministrative costs including labor, travel, mapping, surveys, title evidence, valuations, andnegotiating and closing are approximately $25,000 per tract. URA costs are discussed in section

11.

18. SCHEDULE OF ACQUISITION.

Upon satisfactory completion of the necessary environmental documentation, receipt of funds,and a directive to acquire, the District will proceed on the following schedule:

Survey 6 monthsObtain title evidence 12 monthsValuation 6 monthsNegotiate 16 months

Process offer to sell 17 monthsClose and obtain Final Title 16 monthsTotal: 24 months or 2 years

Some due diligence items will be able to occur concurrently. Please refer toExhibit E for agraphic representation of the proposed schedule.

In the event a negotiated agreement cannot be reached with the landowner, a Civil Action can befiled in the U. S. District Court to obtain the necessary interests for the Government. Theestimated administrative cost to condemn is $90,000 per tract. The estimatedschedule to accomplish a condemnation is as follows:

Condemnation preparation 15 monthsCondemnation proceedings 20 monthsPossession Granted 15 monthsFinal Judgment Rendered 15 monthsTotal time to condemn: 23 months

Every effort will be exercised to obtain a negotiated purchase. Condemnation is mentioned inthis planning report as a last resort alternative. However, historical data shows condemnation islikely for 95% of the tracts due to title issues or an inability to reach an amicable agreement withthe landowner.

19. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION.

In this section, decision points required by the customer will be discussed as well as USACErecommendations. Decision points include gate locations, temporary work easements, andpotential fence realignments which could affect construction costs and relocation assistance asdeemed necessary by the URA.


13/15

13

1. Location of gates - Locations need to be determined to plan for access to the remainders orbuyout of the remainder.

Possible gate locations:

RGC-1003 A gate at this location will be necessary if the land isnt acquired at least from theswath, to the river for RGC-1003, 1104, and 1082-1077. However, considering the estimatedcost of a gate being $230,000, and severance damages to the river and dry side remainders of theparent tract, it is likely more cost effective to acquire to the river and forgo installing a gate.Three different cost-scenarios are presented below, using the estimated cost of $3,500 per acrediscussed in Section 10.

1) Install gate on RGC-1003, do not acquire riverside remainder of 1003, 1104, and 1082-1077. The estimated cost of the land, including damages to the river and dry sideremainder, and the cost of the gate itself is $304,739.

2) Do not install gate on RGC-1003, and acquire the riverside remainder of 1003, 1104, and1082-1077. The estimated cost of the land, including damages to the dry side remainder,is $194,650.

3) Do not install gate on RGC-1003, and acquire the entire parent tract of 1003, 1104, and1082-1077. This option precludes the cost of a gate, and any damages. The estimatedcost of the land of the parent tracts is $271,186.

RGC-2010 (RGC ISD) A gate location was plan in the original take for this property avoidpaying severance damages. It is also possible that a nature preserve lies south of the new IBWC-approved swath, which may require a gate for public use.

MCS-1006 - Recommend gate location where the perpetual road easement MCS-1006E-1 meetsthe fence swath. There is an IBWC gauging station on the river.

West of MCS-1009 - Recommend gate location over the existing dirt road in the FWS propertywest of MCS-1009. This will provide access cures to the riverside remainders of MCS-1009-1013.

2. Temporary Work Area EasementsThe list below reflects the temporary work area easements in the original project planning. Adetermination will be required as to if these or any new work area easement are required. Notesbeside the tract list should assist with decision making.

RGC-1003RGC-1079 & 1078RGC-1010block of this proposed area is now a Dollar StoreRGC-1042E-5 now south of the new takeRGC-2027E-4-outside of the start-stopMCS-1002E-4MCS-1019E-4MCS-1016E


14/15

14

3. Fence realignment:

The below list of tracts reflects USACE recommendation of deviation from the proposed IBWC-approved alignment. The information provided is to assist in the decision making process.

O-1 Roma, Texas:

RGC-1104: Recommend shifting alignment south to avoid clipping corner of the CampobelloSubdivision

RGC-1076: Tract is on a slope; recommend considering the feasibility of re-aligning fence toturn northerly within this tract so that it is off of the slope, and the east side of the fee tract abutsthe north line of the parent tract of RGC-1075. A pictoral representation of this recommendationis included inExhibit C. The yellow areas shown are recommended fee acquisition areas.

RGC-1075-1070: Based on Bakers ROM costs for slope stabilization, it would cost

approximately $380,000 to stabilize approximately 430 of the slope in order to construct thefence south of the residences on these tracts. The estimated acquisition and relocation expensesfor the 6 residences that will be affected if the fence is built on the bluff is approximately$695,400.

RGC-1066: Recommend shifting the alignment north, as close to the water treatment plantimprovements as possible, to avoid the fence being built on the slope of the river bank.

RGC-1065: Based on Bakers ROM cost for slope stabilization, it would cost approximately$1,044,450 to stabilize approximately 1178 of the slope in order to construct the fence south ofthe residences on these tracts. It is estimated that the acquisition and relocation expenses for the15 residences is $1,738,365.

O-2 Rio Grande City, Texas

There is a steep drop-off in O-2 of about 30 which could affect the fence placement between thestart/stop points in tracts RGC-2011, RGC-2012, RGC-2014, RGC-2039, and RGC-2041.

RGC-2011: This tract is owned by Martin P. Garza, J r. It appears to an unimproved tract. Thenew alignment is within the slope. It would be beneficial to move it northwards onto the bluff toavoid erosion or develop an engineering solution that allows the fence to be located within theslope.

RGC-2012: This tract is located on the bluff overlooking the river. The tract is owned by SMVRio Grande City, LP, which operates a nursing home on the property. The original take, at itsclosest point, is within 6 of the south side of the building. The new IBWC-approved swath runsover a portion of the building. There are several options to consider which are outlined below.

Develop an engineering solution to build the fence in the slope. Estimated cost: $530,000. Buy out the tract in its entirety, relocate the nursing home and its residents, and place the

fence in the tract on the bluff. Estimated cost: $5,491,430


15/15

15

Do no build fence in this tract. Estimated cost: $0 Realign the fence to go around the north side of the nursing home, leaving an opening for

ingress and egress of traffic. Estimated cost: $565,000 depending on fence alignment.

RGC-2014: This tract is located on the bluff overlooking the river. It is owned by Starr Camargo

Bridge Company, care of Sam Vale. During negations for the original alignment, Mr. Valeinformed USACE of his battles with erosion. He suggested that we consider a new alignmentaway from the river bank. In order to keep the integrity of the fence, it may be beneficial to shiftthe alignment northward, further from the river. A second option is to consider an engineeringsolution which allows for construction of the fence within the slope. For further consideration, ifthe IBWC-approved alignment is kept as is, relocation of three Class S building may benecessary, depending on the outcome of the negotiations. It is also important to note that thistract was not condemned during the original negotiations due to the information Mr. Valeintroduced concerning the erosion.

RGC-2039: This tract is owned by Starr County Water Control & Irrigation District No. 2. The

IBWC-approved alignment runs within the slope of the tract. If kept as is, relocation will berequired to move a transmission tower in order to build fence. If the swath is realignednorthward, that relocation need could be eliminated.

RGC-2041: This tract is owned by Martin P. Garza, J r. It appears to be an unimproved tract. Thenew IBWC-approved alignment runs through the northern portion of this tract. If a realignmentis considered which pushes the alignment northward, the need for this tract could be eliminated.If kept for the approved alignment, an engineering solution may be necessary to combat erosionand allow for construction of the fence on the slope.

O-3 Los Ebanos, Texas

It is recommended to shift the alignment of the east side of the project to follow the FelixMartinez public right-of-way. This recommendation will affect the following tracts: MCS-1010,MCS-1011, MCS-1012, MCS-1013, MCS-1015, MCS-1016, MCS-1025, MCS-1026, MCS-1017, and MCS-1018. It will also introduce two new tracts. It will cause about five additionalrelocations. The benefit of shifting the alignment here is to avoid river erosion potentiallyaffecting the integrity and functionality of the fence. By shifting the alignment westward alongthe right-of-way, there will be more room to safeguard and protect the infrastructure fromerosion.

SUMMARY

The construction of segments O-1, O-2, and O-3 is going to be high profile project for theGovernment in addition to the affected landowners and communities. USACE-RE has presentedseveral outstanding issues and recommendations, as well as cost estimates to assist with CBPdecision. CBP and DHS should review the recommendations provided and determine a finalpath forward.

draft army corps report on border walls 30 november 2012

Documents