SBI-TIPF 225 and VF 300Border Fence ProjectsTechnical IPT
Final Report
California, Arizona,New Mexico and Texas
Submitted to:
SBIAndDEPARTMENT OF ARMYFort Worth District Corps of Engineers
Fort Worth, Texas
May 2009Project: IPT
Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
Phoenix, Arizona
Not for Construction
Prepared by
001027
i
Executive Summary
On the afternoon of July 12, 2008, a severe monsoon resulted in significant flooding inthe area around Lukeville, Arizona. Shortly after the storm, the Associated Presspublished an article titled “Border Fence Design Gets a Second Look.” That articledescribed the flooding in Lukeville and attributed it to the pedestrian fence (PF) recentlybuilt in the area (specifically the PF 225 segment D-2). On August 8, the National Park Service (NPS) issued a memorandum that also attributed the flooding of July 12 to thepedestrian fence, and, in particular, to poor drainage designs.The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), with the collaboration of Michael BakerCorp (Baker), produced an After Action Review (AAR) report that described the floodevent, why it happened, and recommended solutions (see Appendix A for a copy of theAAR). On October 22, 2008, a “drainage summit” was held at the Border Patrol station inDouglas, Arizona, to discuss the AAR and develop a plan for addressing the drainageissues as well as the resulting erosion and damage to the fencing. The summit alsodeveloped a preliminary approach to locating and correcting all other areas in which thePF 225 or VF (vehicle fence) 300 fence has the potential of creating similar incidents orhaving a high risk of flooding.As a result of the drainage summit, an Integrated Project Team (IPT) was created toprepare a plan to identify all the areas subject to flooding because of PF 225 fencing andrecommend solutions for mitigating. (Appendix A also includes a copy of the IPT’scharter.). This plan does not, and was never intended to, cover the legacy fences.The IPT found that one of the factors contributing to the flooding was the collection of debris at fence sections built within wash areas. The debris builds-up on the fenceobstructed storm water from flowing freely across the fence, causing the water to rise anddivert from its natural flow pattern. In addition to the flooding, the debris build-up, whichsometimes reached a height of 6 feet, caused a water-fall effect on the other side of thefence resulting in major scour and erosion problems, and increasing the likelihood thatthe fence could be damaged or collapse.The IPT further found that VF 300 fences resulted in no major drainage concerns becauseof obstructions. However, it expressed concern about the scour, erosion, stability, andlongevity of the vehicle fence, and whether it could withstand high-water pressurewithout being washed out. As a result, the IPT concluded that VF 300 also requiredmitigation (Legacy vehicle fences are not included in the analysis and mitigation)The IPT collected data on all the washes where the PF 225 or VF 300 fence had beenconstructed (Legacy fences not included), and grouped them into three risk categories(high, medium, and low) using hydrologic and hydraulic criteria, such as flow rates,velocities, channel slopes, and water depth. (Appendices B and C present the list of the
001028
washes and their relative data; while Appendix D shows the locations of the PF 225 andVF 300 washes) The risk categories are defined as follows:
Category 1, Low Risk: There is little or no risk of debris collecting at the fence, orcausing any flooding, scour or erosion problems, or danger to the fence stability.No action by IPT is anticipated.
Category 2, Medium Risk: There may be a risk of fence failing because of flooding hazards or debris collecting at the fence and causing floods, or scour orerosion problems. Further analysis is required to decide whether a retrofit to thefence is needed or if regular maintenance will suffice.
Category 3, High Risk: There is a high risk of failure because of water pressure,flooding, and scour or erosion problems. Removing or retrofitting the fence andinstalling scour protection are required. This category also includes all of the VF300 crossings located in a FEMA Zone A floodplain.The IPT team validated the data, visited all the Category 2 and 3 washes (Appendix Eshows photos and site visit forms), and identified the VF washes that needed to bepermanently anchored to the ground, the PF washes that required fence retrofits, thewashes that only required scour protection, and the washes in which regular debrisremoval would suffice. These washes are as follows:
PF 225 crossings needing retrofit:
Segment A2K – Washes J1&2 (47+09), J5 (70+50)
Segment A2L – Washes J6 (23+48), J9 (59+24)
Segment D2 – Washes E16, W13, E8, W17
Segment D5A – Wash 2 (Mariposa)
Segment D5B – Washes 10 (Las Cuevitas), 44
Segment E2A – Wash 5 (Montezuma)
Segment E2B – Washes M5 (BC Wash), M8 (Gringo wash), M14 (wash33), M16 (first horseshoe), M21 (second horseshoe)
Segment E3 – Wash M1 (Christiansen)
Wash east of Nogales Port of Entry (POE)
PF 225 crossings needing low water crossings (LWCs) and Rip Rap:
Segment A2A – Wash 2
Segment A2D – Wash 52+13, 60+57
Segment A2F – Wash 5+44
Segment A2J – Wash 51+75
Segment A2N – Wash 3
Segment D2 – Washes E19, E20, E31, E33, W1
Segment D5A – Washes 1, 4
Segment D5B – Washes 1, 28, 8, 9 (Barranca Honda), 26, 27
001029
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Customs and Border Protection report on border walls crossing washes and streams
900 page Baker Engineering report from 2009 for Customs and Border Protection detailing all of the points at which border walls cross washes, streams, or other water courses. The focus is on flooding potential and the possibility that the wall may be undermined. Each point is rated, and recommendations for modifications are given.
995
Reads
1
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
