Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
O1 O2 O3 Drainage Report Final 245

O1 O2 O3 Drainage Report Final 245

Ratings: (0)|Views: 90 |Likes:
Published by Scott Nicol
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.
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.

More info:

Published by: Scott Nicol on Sep 18, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/06/2014

pdf

text

original

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

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
emun68 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->