Scribd
Upload
382 views245 pages

O1 O2 O3 Drainage Report Final 245

Prepared by Baker for border wall segments 0-1 thru 0-3 December 2009 intended to show that walls in the Rio Grande floodplain adjacent to Roma, Rio Grande City, and Los Ebanos, Texas would not cause any problems. p. 4 “Fence segments 0-1 and 0-2 are located in southern Starr County, Texas and lie within the Rio Grande floodplain.” “Fence segment 0-3 is located in southwestern Hidalgo County, Texas and lies within the Rio Grande floodplain.” p. 5 Map showing fence alignments as of Dec. 2009 – Roma appears to be unchanged. Rio Grande City has moved north so as to be flush up against neighborhoods. Los Ebanos is unchanged. p.7 “No hydrologic analysis was performed as part of this report.” “An existing conditions hydraulic model was prepared by the USIBWC prior to the PF 225 Phase II project. The Rio Grande Falcon Penitas HEC-RAS model for the lower reach of the Rio Grande was developed and provided to Baker by the USIBWC. The model is bound by an upstream cross-section at the Falcon Dam upstream of Penitas, TX and a downstream cross-section near Los Ebanos, TX and includes the fence segment reaches of 0-1, 0-2, and 0-3.” “The hydraulic impacts and floodplain extents obtains from the HEC-RAS analysis for various trial alignments of the 0-1, 0-2, and 0-3 fence segments were analyzed. Baker presented the results to the USBP and USIBWC on August 6, 2009 at a meeting in Edinburg, Texas. This was followed by another meeting with USIBWC on September 2, 2009 at El Paso, Texas to discuss modeling assumptions and results.” p. 8 “The hydraulic models of the three fence alignments were updated with these preferred fence alignments and reanalyzed. IBWC criteria and limitations of no more than a flow increase of 5% and a water surface elevation increase of not more than 3” in urban areas and 6” in rural areas were not exceeded on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande, while revisions to water surface elevations and floodplain limits on the US side followed FEMA criteria.” p. 9 Rio Grande City modeled with a 275’ opening in the middle of the wall allowing flood waters to split, flowing on both sides of it and rejoining downriver. p. 10 Los Ebanos modeled with the idea that it would also split the flow of the river, with water on both sides. “At the downstream end where the fence was perpendicular to the direction of the flow, a blocked obstruction was used to model the fence.” p. 11 Roma – splits after a 100’ wide space – “The change in water surface elevation on the US side generally experienced increases of less than 6” except in a portion where the increases were less than 12”. The increases were seen in agricultural areas only. The increase in floodplain width was less than 35’.” “Maximum water surface elevations increases on the Mexico side were maintained to be less than the 6-inch criteria. Detailed maps for each section begin on page 240 In each instance the new floodplain line is drawn on top of the old floodplain line. Even Los Ebanos, where the wall does a 90 degree turn to the north and blocks the easterly flow of the split river, does not have a corresponding widening of the floodplain at that point.

Uploaded by

Scott Nicol
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
382 views245 pages

O1 O2 O3 Drainage Report Final 245

Prepared by Baker for border wall segments 0-1 thru 0-3 December 2009 intended to show that walls in the Rio Grande floodplain adjacent to Roma, Rio Grande City, and Los Ebanos, Texas would not cause any problems. p. 4 “Fence segments 0-1 and 0-2 are located in southern Starr County, Texas and lie within the Rio Grande floodplain.” “Fence segment 0-3 is located in southwestern Hidalgo County, Texas and lies within the Rio Grande floodplain.” p. 5 Map showing fence alignments as of Dec. 2009 – Roma appears to be unchanged. Rio Grande City has moved north so as to be flush up against neighborhoods. Los Ebanos is unchanged. p.7 “No hydrologic analysis was performed as part of this report.” “An existing conditions hydraulic model was prepared by the USIBWC prior to the PF 225 Phase II project. The Rio Grande Falcon Penitas HEC-RAS model for the lower reach of the Rio Grande was developed and provided to Baker by the USIBWC. The model is bound by an upstream cross-section at the Falcon Dam upstream of Penitas, TX and a downstream cross-section near Los Ebanos, TX and includes the fence segment reaches of 0-1, 0-2, and 0-3.” “The hydraulic impacts and floodplain extents obtains from the HEC-RAS analysis for various trial alignments of the 0-1, 0-2, and 0-3 fence segments were analyzed. Baker presented the results to the USBP and USIBWC on August 6, 2009 at a meeting in Edinburg, Texas. This was followed by another meeting with USIBWC on September 2, 2009 at El Paso, Texas to discuss modeling assumptions and results.” p. 8 “The hydraulic models of the three fence alignments were updated with these preferred fence alignments and reanalyzed. IBWC criteria and limitations of no more than a flow increase of 5% and a water surface elevation increase of not more than 3” in urban areas and 6” in rural areas were not exceeded on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande, while revisions to water surface elevations and floodplain limits on the US side followed FEMA criteria.” p. 9 Rio Grande City modeled with a 275’ opening in the middle of the wall allowing flood waters to split, flowing on both sides of it and rejoining downriver. p. 10 Los Ebanos modeled with the idea that it would also split the flow of the river, with water on both sides. “At the downstream end where the fence was perpendicular to the direction of the flow, a blocked obstruction was used to model the fence.” p. 11 Roma – splits after a 100’ wide space – “The change in water surface elevation on the US side generally experienced increases of less than 6” except in a portion where the increases were less than 12”. The increases were seen in agricultural areas only. The increase in floodplain width was less than 35’.” “Maximum water surface elevations increases on the Mexico side were maintained to be less than the 6-inch criteria. Detailed maps for each section begin on page 240 In each instance the new floodplain line is drawn on top of the old floodplain line. Even Los Ebanos, where the wall does a 90 degree turn to the north and blocks the easterly flow of the split river, does not have a corresponding widening of the floodplain at that point.

Uploaded by

Scott Nicol
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 245

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

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

(b) (6)
(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

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

(b) (6)

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

(b) (6)

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

(b) (6)
PF-225 Fence Segments O-1, O-2, O-3

CD Readme

HEC-RAS Models:

Segment O‐1

Existing Condition Model


Folder Name: Segment O1 Existing 
Model: SegmentO1.prj 
 
 
Proposed Condition Model
Folder Name: Segment O1 Proposed 
Model: SegmentO1_Proposed.prj 
 
 
 
Segment O‐2

Existing Condition Model


Folder Name: Folder Name: Segment O2 Existing 
Model: SegmentO2_Existing.prj 
 

Proposed Condition Model


Folder Name: Segment O2 Proposed 
Model: SegmentO2_Proposed.prj 

 
 
Segment O‐3

Existing Condition Model


Folder Name: Folder Name: Segment O3 Existing 
Model: SegmentO3.prj 
 

Proposed Condition Model


Folder Name: Segment O3 Proposed 
Model: SegmentO3.prj 
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
µ
Figure 2A - O1 Selected Alternative

17766.25

.29
.39

6
2

51.0
1589
16114
19 3

156
195

24.

17029.57

16731.71
17313.72

26
4
71.
199

07

16421.6
202

94.
58
0
205

151
3
0

6
4.3

4.2
208

6
6.5

97
9

1 .9
211

14
7.4

76
214

09.

5.3
14
8.0
3
217

4
1

52

5.0
2.8

14
154

6
14.

31

.6
1

3
14
0

CF

93
07
4

1 827 0

6.
14
0

44
,00

86

6.
72

13
0

67
188
24 9.

.74

13
48 77
8.

75.6
13 7 2
2 .0
13 044 .6 9

5
5 38
13 6 12
7.9 Proposed 100' Wide
2 72
1
5 6.7
1 Opening
22

6
.9 7 11
16

58
22

3 7
2 .4
22

12
51

7 .1
.4 1 53
75

8
7.6

05
8 11
4.5

12
.19
7

98 85
11
2 3.
.58 91
5 87 1 0
11

.7 4 . 76
7 57 8 83
11 2 10
84

2402.632
4.6

7 8 7 7 8428
0
3.

926
13 3
11 1 05

5
884

2879
6623
14

96
22

3890
,2 2

5315
79

5595

4468

3578
0C

5, 7

4729
5889

2400
5022

3283
4173
FS

7233
80

6470
CF S

712 5
39
4.
12
10

38

6623.346
7233.2
240

.73
,0

89
00 C

78
FS

0 .1
96

9 26

2
5.1
884

46

1932.06
8 .4

1381.803
1648.739

807.0885
1116.516

501.0483

201.4124
842

67

6470.641
7125.1
7
7877.44

5889.512

5315.828

4729.708
5022.474

4468.282
5595.747

4173.778

3890.354

3578.736

3283.38

2879.171
Legend
Fence Alignment
Proposed condiiton Floodplain
Existing Condiiton Floodplain
1 Inch = 1,000 Feet HEC-RAS Cross Sections

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 Feet


V:\PROJECTS\DHS\112319_PF225 Phase 2\Drainage Reports and dwg\PF225 Phase 2 & COE drainage reports\O-1, O-2, O-3 floodplain analysis\IBWC Lidar Data\Report\O1 Selected Alternative_Aerial.mxd
Figure 2B - O1 Selected Alternative

17766.25

2.29
.39

6
5 1 .0
1589
16114
193

156
195

24.

17029.57

16731.71
17313.72

26
4
71.
199

16421.6
202

94.
58
03
205

151
04.

6
4 .2
208

06.

39

6
97

1 .9
211

07.

56

14

76
214

09.

08
43

5.3
14
217

28.

4
12.

79

52

5.0
14
154
81

6
14.
FS

31

6
3.
0C

14
04

93
07
,00

18270

6.
14

44
86
0

6.
2

13
24 .7

67
188
89

.74

13
4 7
.7

75.6
13 78 2
2 .0 9
13 044 8.6

5
13 253
6 1
7 .9
2 72
1 1
6.7
65
22

8.9
7 11 Proposed 100' Wide
16
22

35 7
2.4

2 Opening
22

7.1
51

1
1 53
75

8
7.6

8.4 11
05
4.5

12 9
8.1
7

5
29 3.8
.5 8 11 1
5 87 1 09
11
4 6
7.7 3 .7
175 88
1 10
.62 84

2402.632
7877 8428
0
34 3.

926
11
1
0 53
1
14

5
884

2879
,22

6623
0C

96
FS

3890
5315
79

5595

4468

3578
4729
22

5889

2400
5022

3283
4173
7233
5

6470
, 78
0C

7125
FS
39
4.
12
10

38

6623.346
7233.2
.73

89
78

0.1
240

96
,000

926

2
C FS

5.1
884

46

1932.06
8.4

1381.803
1648.739

807.0885
1116.516

501.0483

201.4124
842

67

6470.641
7125.1
7
7877.44

5889.512

5315.828

4729.708
5022.474

4468.282
5595.747

4173.778

3890.354

3578.736

3283.38

2879.171
Legend
Fence Alignment
Proposed Condition Floodplain
Existing Condition Floodplain
HEC-RAS Cross Sections
25' Contour
1 Inch = 1,000 Feet 5' Contour

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 Feet


V:\PROJECTS\DHS\112319_PF225 Phase 2\Drainage Reports and dwg\PF225 Phase 2 & COE drainage reports\O-1, O-2, O-3 floodplain analysis\IBWC Lidar Data\Report\O1 Selected Alternative_Topo.mxd
0
2,000
Legend

4,000
1 Inch = 2,000 Feet

6,000
Fence Alignment

8,000 Feet
Existing Cross Sections
Proposed Cross Sections

Existing Condition Floodplain


Proposed Condition Floodplain
240,000 CFS

47
61
3.8 46938.19
5 46938.19
48
03
8.7
1 46209.78
456 46209.78 45617.8
48 7.8 1 9
03 9
.71 8 47
61
3 .8
5 .04
44 460 43875
.59
451 4446 0
20.
37 .04
4 2812
.93
43875.59
451 4 32 93
0.3 2 .85 43
2 93 .93
428 12
7 .85
4097
4140 4.01
42294.8 419 05 .87 7
.43

42294.8 4097
4 1905
.43 4.01 4 05 33
4140 .24
7.87 40533
.24 39981.1
8
39981.1
8
39498.53
39498.53

38925.41

V:\PROJECTS\DHS\112319_PF225 Phase 2\Drainage Reports and dwg\PF225 Phase 2 & COE drainage reports\O-1, O-2, O-3 floodplain analysis\IBWC Lidar Data\Report\O2 Selected Alternative.mxd
38925.41

38321.6 38321.6

37726.81
37726.81 35925.87
36807.0
3 35925.87
36807.0
3
35488.92
35488.92

34908.75 34908.75
34374.73 34374.73
32982.47 33898.28
32982.47

31748.1 338
4 98.2
3057 4
.02 31748.1 8
4
3007 3 0574
293
20.6 8 .61 .02
9
3007 323
8.61 59.
2794 7 2
8 .75 293
20.6
258
87.8 9 323
59.
2 2847 72
8 311
57
2729 . 42
3.11 311
232 253 57
1 5 6.1 2794 .42
4 .1
1 5 8 .75 2847
240 2729 8
9 6. 3.11
66
253 265
89.4
56.
15 5
223 265
32. 89.4
03 232 258
87. 5
14.
11 82
212 223 24 0
48 32. 96.
19 03 66
2 92
.25
18 202
81.
43
4 2
17 .15
75
16 1 .2
15
74 1
7.
90 69
0.
87
20
15
8,6
25
2.
78
21

61 C
25
1.

1
24

32

FS
22
20
73

85
28
0 .9

.5
19

8
4

1.2

29
1

11
2
2 .2

70
6
21

.7
1
25
1

1471

20
10
3.59

28
2

1.2
133

98
24

1
7

.2

19
8
18.
30

29
2.
52
.9 4

26
1

93 18
7

85 43
75

.62
2 4 .1
1.

6
31
22

,3
85
7
15

4.5 17
2

4 7
32
75
52

1.
.6
2

22
CF
S
13
Figure 3A: O2 Selected Alternative

782 31
9.7
9 7
8.5
3
18

7318
16
4

.77
Opening

74
34

15
.

.7

90
16
Proposed 275'

0.8
112 12 8
600 6715.11
1 70 28
5.50 .72 5
4 .59 14
71
1

782 3.6
9 15
67

938
.79 5 .6 90
8
47

23 112 0.8
7
.7

0.7 8
5354.961 2 12 14
102 28 71
98. 5.5 3.6
671
5 .1 29 9
4434.29 12 782
1 9.7 857
98 4.5
671 48 13
600
5.5 5 . 112 31 15
05 8.5 25
3 2.6
535
4.96
938
5 .6 2
3742.76
2 600 23 102
443 5.5 731
4.29 05 8 98.
2 9
2 .77
1 857
4.5
2595.338 443 731 4 8
4.29 8.7
3742 2 7 1
.761 535
4.96
2595 2
1954.572 .339
1237 1954.571 3742
1954
.572 2595 .7 61
.339
1232
489.3809 489.3809 .374
1232
.374
240,000 CFS
µ
0
2,000
Legend

4,000
1 Inch = 2,000 Feet
5' Contour
25' Contour

6,000
Fence Alignment

8,000 Feet
Existing Cross Sections
Proposed Cross Sections

Existing Condition Floodplain


Proposed Condition Floodplain
240,000 CFS
17
5

17
5
200 175 150
15 17 5
225 200 0
200
150 150
15
0 150 20
0
200
150 61
47
150
3.8 46938.19
5 46938.19
48
150
03
8.7
1 46209.78
15 150
150

150 15 150 0
46209.78
17 0 456 45617.8
5 175 150 150 48 7.8 1 9

15
150 03 9 15
8

0
15

47 0
15

.71
0

61
0

150 3 .8
5 15 44 460 43875
150 451 0 .04 .59
4446 0
20.
37 .04
4 2812
.93
43875.59
451 4 32 93
0.3 2 .85 43
2 93 .93
428 12
7 .85
150

4097
4140 4.01
150 150

42294.8 419 05 7.87


150 150 150

.43

15
15

0
0

175
150

42294.8 4097
4 1905
.43 4.01 4 05 33
.24
4140 15
7.87 0 40533
.24 39981.1
8
39981.1
8
39498.53

17
17 39498.53
150

5
5

1 75
25

150 38925.41
150
0

V:\PROJECTS\DHS\112319_PF225 Phase 2\Drainage Reports and dwg\PF225 Phase 2 & COE drainage reports\O-1, O-2, O-3 floodplain analysis\IBWC Lidar Data\Report\O2 Selected Alternative.mxd
38925.41
150
200

25
38321.6 38321.6 0
15
17

0
5

150 150
250

200

37726.81
150
12

37726.81
5

36807.0 35925.87
250

3 35925.87
15

36807.0
3

150
01

25
0
5
17

35488.92
5
20

35488.92 250
0

150 150 150


250

34908.75 34908.75

150
225
150

150

34374.73 34374.73
200
225
22

150

33898.28
5

32982.47 32982.47 20 20
150 17 0
0

150
5
338

150
31748.1 98.2
3057 4
.02 4 8
31748.1 17
4 5 175
3007 3 0574
293
20.6 8 .61 .02
9
3007 323
15

8.61 59.
0

2794 7 2
8
15
0 .75 293
20.6

150
9
258 175
87.8 323
59.
2 150 2847 72
8
150 311
57

15
150 15 . 42

0
2729
15

0
3.11
0

15
0 311
232 253 57
1 5 .42

150 15
6.1 2794 150
4 .1
1 5 8

0
.75
150

15
2847 150
8
150

0
240 2729 150
9 6. 3.11
66

15
15
17

0
265
0
5

253 89.4
56.
15 5
150

17
223 5
32. 265
89.4
03 258 5
17

15 232 87.
5

0 14. 82
11 17
212 223 24 0 5

150
32. 96.
15

48 66
175

03
0

19
2 92 175
.25
150

18 202
81.
43
4 2 150 150
17 .15 200
75 15 150
16 1 .2 0
1 15 15
15
74
7. 0 0 17

150
90 69 15
0 5
0.
87 150 150
225
20
17

12
5

150
15

15
0

15
8,6
0
25 250
2.
78
150
21

150 61 C
25

150
1.

15
24

32

FS

0
15 0
22
20
73

125
85
28

150
0 .9

.5
19

150
8
4

1.2

29

15
150
1

11 0 175
2 1 50
2 .2

150
70
6
21

1 50
15 0 .7
1 225
25

150
1

1471

150
25

150
0

15 150 20
10

0
3.59

28
2

15
0
250
250

1.2
133

98
24

150
250

12
150

1
7

.2

15
5
25

0 19
225

8
0

18.
30

150 29
22

2.
52
5

.9 4

26
150

150
150 150
15
1

93 18
0
7

85
15

43 175 20 250
75

4
0

0
0

.62
2 .1
150
1.

6
150

31
15

15
15
22
15 15

0
0

0
0

,3
15 85
125

7
150

0
15

4.5 175 25
5

17 0
2

4 7
200
32
150 75 25
52

15

0
150

0
.6

150 150 1.2


15
2

2
0

225 22
CF
175

5
150

225
15 0
S
15 13
0
Figure 3B: O2 Selected Alternative

782 31
9.7
9
25

8.5
22Proposed

15

7 3
0

18

7318
16
4

.77
Opening

15
74

0
7

15 250
4.
225

200

.7

90
16

150
275'

0.8
112 12 8 25
0
600 6715.11 70 28
17

1
22

5
5
5

5.50 .72
150

4 .59 25
25

14
0
0

150 71
1

782 3.6
15

9 15
67

150

938
0

.79 5 .6 90
8
15
47

150

0 23 112 0.8
22
7
.7

5
8
125

0.7
5354.961 2 12 14 27
102 28 71 5
98. 5.5 3.6 25
671 29 9 0
15

15
0 5 .1
0

25
4434.29 12 782 0
1 150 9.7 857 150 250
98 4.5
671 48 13 275
600 5
15

. 31 15
0

5.5
250

112 8.5
250
05 3 25
15

150 150

150

2.6
0

535
4.96
938
5 .6 2
3742.76
2 600 23 102
15

443 5.5 731


8 98.
0

4.29
2
05 .77 2 9
275
1 857
4.5
4
15

2595.338 731 8
0

443
150

4.29 8.7
7
150

3742 2 1
22

535
5

.761 4.96
20

2
0

12

125 2595
5

1954.572 .339
12 125
5 1237 1954.571 3742
1954
.572 2595 .7 61
.339 22
5
1232 225 25
.374 200
12 489.3809 200 0
5 489.3809 225
1232
125 150 .374
15
0 200
250
15
200

12
0

225
25
125 0
12
5
22

150 22
5
5

150

125
175
25

150
0

250
150
175

250
12
5
240,000
20
0

22
5
CFS
µ
Figure 4A: Segment O3 Fence Project

38

28

16
9,57
7

10
C FS

240,000 CFS

240,000 CFS

14
FS
230,423 C

18
42

26
48

44
46

40
50

24
52
54
56

30
32

12
34
36

20
22

O3_ProposedFence
1 Inch = 1,000 Feet Proposed Floodplain Boundary
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 Feet Existing Floodplain Boundary
HEC-RAS Cross Sections
V:\PROJECTS\DHS\112319_PF225 Phase 2\Drainage Reports and dwg\PF225 Phase 2 & COE drainage reports\O-1, O-2, O-3 floodplain analysis\IBWC Lidar Data\Report\O3 Final Submittal_Aerial.mxd
Figure 4B: Segment O3 Fence Project

38

28

16
9,57

10
7 C FS

240,000 CFS

240,000 CFS

14
FS
230,423 C 18
42

26
48

44
46

40
50

24
52
54
56

30
32

12
34
36

20
22

Fence Alignment
Proposed Floodplain Boundary
Existing Floodplain Boundary
1 Inch = 1,000 Feet HEC-RAS Cross Sections
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 Feet 25' Contour
5' Contour
V:\PROJECTS\DHS\112319_PF225 Phase 2\Drainage Reports and dwg\PF225 Phase 2 & COE drainage reports\O-1, O-2, O-3 floodplain analysis\IBWC Lidar Data\Report\O3 Final Submittal_Topo.mxd

You might also like