(b) please see below email for further clarification from (b) (6)
(6)
(b)
(6)
The background info in the attachment is not correct. USBP has never wanted fence on levee relative to
the K-2 through K-5 segments. Their preferred location has always been toe of levee. In El Paso, where
we are now proposing fence on the south side of the District's most northern road, installing the fence
at the toe of levee was estimated to cost (b) (4) and was cost-prohibitive. Multiple alignment
options were evaluated for operational effectiveness and cost, and the current proposed alignment was
determined to be the preferred alignment. With regards to Huspeth, only one alignment (toe of levee)
has ever seriously been in play.
________________________________
________________________________
Loren, I haven't had time to digest BP's AAR, but it seems very thorough at a glance.
Though the info in the AAR is not yet fully merged into my 1-pager, the DRAFT is attached in case that
helps at all.
v/r
(b)
(6)
________________________________
Comments
------Original Message------
From: ADAMS, ROWDY D
To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Mar 19, 2008 10:07 AM
Subject: FW: AAR for EPCWID
________________________________
Rowdy,
Here is the AAR you requested from El Paso Sector regarding all the outreach and meetings done with
El Paso County Water Improvement District regarding PF225.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
(b) (6)