From: (b) (6)

To: Adams, Rowdy (b) (6) Flossman, Loren(b) Giddens, Grego ( ; (b) (6) Pagan,
David (b) (6)

Subject: Re: 24-25 Jan 08 mtng notes-Hidalgo County

Date: Sunday, January 27, 2008 5:18:07 PM

Nothing to add either. Very thorough recap. Thanks (b)

(b) (6)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: ADAMS, ROWDY D (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) Flossman, Loren (b) (6)
Giddens, Gregory (b) (6) ; Adams, Rowdy D (b) (6)
Pagan, David G (b) (6)

Sent: Sun Jan 27 17:16:51 2008

Subject: Re: 24-25 Jan 08 mtng notes-Hidalgo County

(b)
(6)
Good work. Looks like you captured all the info.

Rowdy

----- Original Message -----

From: (b) (6)
To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY
(b) (6) ; ADAMS, ROWDY D (b) (6)
PAGAN, DAVID G. (b) (6)

Sent: Sun Jan 27 16:55:04 2008

Subject: 24-25 Jan 08 mtng notes-Hidalgo County

All

Provided below is a summary of the noteworthy items discussed at our 24-25 January 08 meetings in
McAllen, TX with Hidalgo County, FWS, IBWC and USBP/OBP representatives.

* IBWC indicated that CBP will need to accept maintenance responsibility for the retaining wall. (b
gave the example "if an illegal alien drives a vehicle into the retaining wall and the wall is )
damaged, CBP would need to repair the wall". (6
* The retaining wall can be no higher than the proposed levee height, otherwise, the effective levee
height will be greater than that agreed to with Mexico. For example, if the desired finished levee height
is 12 ft, than the wall itself can be no higher than 12ft. To get the USBP desired height of 18 ft, an
additional 6 ft of fence will need to be installed on the retaining wall.
* (b) (5)

* FWS briefed us on the National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) areas that will be impacted by the retaining
wall. Their primary concern is that the retaining wall will cut-off north-south animal movement between
the river and "suitable wildlife habitat". They are most concerned about segment O-4 and to a slightly
less extent O-7 through O-10. They have no objection to installing the wall in segments O-5 and O-6
as both of the segments are located in proximity to urban areas and FWS believes an impermeable
barrier will be beneficial to wildlife as it will help keep domesticated species (e.g. dogs and house cats)
from entering into the NWR.
* A number of mitigation measures were discussed to address the reduced animal north-south
migration routes associated with O-4 and O-7 to O-10:

* Not installing gates at the existing river floodway ramps.

* Installing "animal ramps" at locations conducive to north-south animal movement (FWS to
provide "details" of animal routes by NLT 30-Jan 08).
* Constructing a combination of fence and retaining wall in some of the segments.
* Purchase of land (or providing of $ compensation) to off-set NWR areas that will be "cut-off"
from wildlife movement

* Confirmed that construction must start by NLT than 15 Apr to complete work by 01 Dec.
This means we must have NEPA completed by early Apr. We told the group that our current plan was to
include Hidalgo proposal as a preferred action in our Final EIS in addition to our fence (i.e. we will have
two preferred actions for segments O-4 through O-10). FWS will also need to prepare two biological
assessments and biological opinions for these segments (i.e. one for fence only and one for the Hidalgo
proposal). A small working group was established consisting of representatives of USBP (b) (6)
Hidalgo County (b) (6) e2m(b) (6) ), SBI (b) (6) and USFWS (b) (6) will lead
the environmental efforts. SBI to lead the working group.
* As part of the overall NWR strategy, FWS desires to re-forest land with the floodplain. Re-
forestation within the floodplain could raise flood levels, which is not acceptable to IBWC (or the
County). The FWS and IBWC agreed to jointly study re-forestation within the floodplain to determine
the type and quantity that can be accomplished without impacting the flood level. CBP/SBI will have no
direct involvement in the analysis although its results may impact the final mitigations to be agreed to
in the Biological Opinion.
* Hidalgo County, IBWC and CBP/SBI will meet on Monday, Jan. 28th in Washington, DC to
discuss financing/procurement approaches to executing the project.
* Hidalgo County, FWS and CBP/SBI will meet on Wednesday, Jan. 30th to discuss/agree too
mitigation measures relative to the Hidalgo proposal.
* CBP/SBI tentatively scheduled to make "go/no go" decision by NLT Friday, Feb 1st.

Attendees at the meeting on the 24th included: (b) (6) (FWS) (b) (6) (FWS), (b) (6)
(FWS), (b) (6) (FWS), (b) (6) (e2m), (b) (6) (IBWC), (b) (6) (IBWC),
(b) (6) (IBWC), (b) (6) (IBWC), (b) (6) (USBP), (b) (6) (USBP), Ron Vitiello (USBP),
(b) (6) (USBP), (b) (6) (USBP), (b) (6) (USBP), (b) (6) (USBP), (b) (6)
(Dannenbaum Engineering), (b) (6) (DoI), (b) (6) (FWS), (b) (6) (SBI), Rowdy Adams
(SBI), (b) (6) (Hidalgo),(b) (6) (USBP), (b) (6) (OBP), (b) (6) (USBP), J(b)
USBP),(b) (6) (Hidalgo), (b) (6) (Hidalgo), (b) (6) (FWS), (b) (6) (6)
(FWS)
and (b) (6) (FWS)

Attendees at the meeting on the 25th were the same as the 24th except ADD (b) (6) (Hidalgo) and
DELETE Ron Vitiello (USBP)

(b) /Rowdy let me know if I missed anything.

(6)
Thanks

(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative - Tactical Infrastructure
Program Management Office
(b) (6)