Page 1 of 5

FME006160

(b) (6)

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

(b) (6)

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 5:02 PM (b) (6)

(b) (6)

Re: FW: FW: O-1 thru O-3 Modeling White Paper??

Attachments: Modeling Approach white paper 5-12-08.pdf (b) (6)

I agree. It is troubling how far apart we (USIBWC and Baker) are with regards to HEC-RAS modeling capabilities. I would hope they agree that HEC-RAS is a one-dimensional model, and therefore is unable to evaluate transverse flows. (Reference "white paper", page 3, paragraph starting with "While HEC-RAS offers ......" See attachment). Regards.
(b) (6)

>>> "(b) (6)

(b) (6)

10/17/2010 10:18 AM >>>

Please see Baker's response to you e-mail. Thanks

(b) (6)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 2:11 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: Re: FW: O-1 thru O-3 Modeling White Paper??
(b) (6) There appears to be some confusion relative to our analysis and recommendations as we have never recommended that a two dimensional model be developed for the O-1, O-2 and O-3 segments for the reasons stated below.

It appears that IBWC may have misunderstood the main point of the May 2008 white paper. Although we touched on various applications/hydraulic models that could be used for this effort and the limitations of using HEC-RAS, we recommended that HEC-RAS be used for our analysis because we believe it provided an accurate estimate of the impacts of the fence on the floodplain. As you know, the HEC-RAS model submitted with the May 2008 report uses the blocked obstruction/modified geometry approach as we recommended in the white paper. This approach takes into consideration all the headlosses due to friction with the fence and also indirectly accounts for transverse flows by allowing the water to flow back and forth across the fence in order to keep the water surface elevation balanced on both side of the fence. This approach does not consider the headlosses

3/3/2011

Page 2 of 5
FME006161

due to the flow across the fence; however our analysis in the white paper (section 4) demonstrates that these headlosses are negligible. In addition, a real life event similar to what is being modeled took place in EaglePass during the flooding that happened in July 6, 2010, validates the assumptions for the use of such approach. Attached are the pictures of this flooding showing the water surface elevation being the same on both sides of the fence while flooding. For the reasons stated above, we respectfully disagree with the opinion that HEC-RAS does not have the capability for evaluating transverse flows through the fence. It is also important to note that the May 2008 analysis determined that all impacts due to the proposed fencing met IBWCs threshold for water surface elevation impacts (we were not advised of the water deflection criteria until after the May 2008 study was completed). Despite our analysis and professional opinion that our May 2008 analysis accurately predicted the impacts of the fence, IBWC subsequently directed us to simulate the fence as a solid wall for all flow directions, which we did in the November 2009 analysis using the split flow analysis. With regards to IBWCs letter dated September 17th to the CBP Commissioner there also seems to be confusion with respect to our August 2010 Summary Report conclusion. Our conclusion that the current solid-wall November 2009 model is conservative was based on the fact that although very minor, we are now predicting some minor impacts to the floodplain that exceed IBWCs thresholds whereas our April 2008 model that assumed transverse flow through the fence met all of the threshold limits. In Summary, a two dimensional model was never recommended for this project because of our belief that the HEC RAS model is/was capable of accurately predicting the impacts of the proposed fencing on the floodplain and IBWCs direction that the fence had to treated as a solid wall due to debris build-up. Since it now appears IBWC is willing to consider transverse flows through the fence, our recommendation is to update the November 2009 HEC RAS model by adding one of the features that could account for transversal flow through the fence. If that is still unacceptable to IBWC, there may be some benefit in developing a 2D model however before embarking on this endeavor, which could be costly and time consuming, we strongly recommend that a meeting be held with IBWC to agree on the specific model to use, the modeling approach and the different factors to include percent blockage that will be included as input into the model. Please send me any question or comments you may have concerning this email. Thanks (b) (6) From: (b) (6) To:( b ) Sent: Tue Oct 05 12:48:26 2010 ( Subject: Fw: FW: O-1 thru O-3 Modeling White Paper?? 6 Sam ) FYI I think IBWC may have missed the main point of the "white paper". I also don't remember us ever discussing the possible use of 2D modeling with you all or IBWC. Am I losing my mind?? It's also very troubling how far apart we (Baker & IBWC) are with regards to HEC RAS modeling capabilities and the fencing???. How can this be?? I'd appreciate you honest take. Thanks
(b) (6) Customs and Border Protection Facilities Management & Engineering Tactical Infrastructure PMO (b) (6)

Sent from my Blackberry w/o the benefit of spell check

3/3/2011

Page 3 of 5
FME006162

From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Sent: Tue Oct 05 12:44:24 2010 Subject: Re: FW: O-1 thru O-3 Modeling White Paper??
(b) (6)

ThisisinresponsetoyouremailofSeptember30,2010to(b) (6) Thewhitepaperthatyouhavementionedbelowisthesamewhitepaperthatwetalkedaboutatour meetingofSeptember29,2010.Thepointthatwemadeatthatmeeting,andthatwehadmadeto MBakeratapreviousmeetingheldwellbeforetheissuanceofthewhitepaper,wasthatHECRASisa onedimensionalmodel,capableofevaluatingflowsonlyinthelongitudinaldirectionoftheflow,that is,itdoesnothavethecapabilityforevaluatingtransverseflows.Thesecondparagraphinpage3of thewhitepaperfullyagreeswithourassessment.Moreover,wenotethat,furtherdowninpage3, thewhitepaperstatesthatmultidimensionalmodelsaretime,labor,andcostintensive,butunder certaincircumstancestheyarejudgedtobeagoodvalue.Thisappearstobeawayinwhichthewhite paperconditionallyrecommendstheiruse. Asclarificationtostatementsinthesecondparagraphofyouremail,weofferthefollowing:The requirementtomodelthefenceasasolidwallisdueonlytotheuseofHECRASformodelingyourO1 throughO3projects.Giventhelayoutofthefenceintheseprojects,itcanbeexpectedthatthere wouldbeflowsacrossthefencewithatransversecomponent.Asstatedabove,HECRASdoesnot havethecapabilitytoevaluatethesetransverseflows.UseofHECRASthenrequireseliminationof flowsacrossthefence,whichisachievedonlyifthefenceisconsideredasasolidwall. Asforyourconcernonthevaluethatatwodimensionalmodelwouldprovide,b/ctherewouldbeno flowperpendiculartothefence,wenotethatthistypeofmodelwouldhavethecapabilitytoevaluate transverseflowacrossthefence,andthuswouldnotrequireconsideringthefenceasasolidwall. Ifyouhaveanyquestion,pleasecontactme.Regards.
(b) (6)

U.S. Section, IBWC

(b) (6)

>>> (b) (6)

Gentlemen

9/30/2010 3:52 PM >>>

The only white paper we can find relative to O-1 thru O-3 fence segments was prepared in 2008 and is attached. As (b) describes in his e-mail below, it focused on the pros/cons of several HEC-RAS (6) methodologies/assumptions and included a recommendation that you all did not concur with. While it references the existence of 2 and 3 dimension hydraulic models in one paragraph, it does not recommend their use.

3/3/2011

Page 4 of 5
FME006163

Given IBWCs subsequent direction to model the fence as a solid wall due in part to the uncertainty of the flow transfer rate between the bollards, Im not sure using a 2D model would provide much value b/c there would be no flow perpendicular to the fence (i.e. the results would be the same as the HEC RAS model). Regardless, we cant locate a white paper prepared on our behalf that recommended the 2D model. If you have a white paper that does, please provide. As you know, we have done a lot of analyses over the last 3+ yrs relative to these segments so its possible we have missed it. Thanks
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:54 PM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: RE: O-1 thru O-3 Modeling White Paper??
(b) notsurewhatwhitepaperIBWCisreferringtobuttheattached(thedocumentinquestion,Ithink) (6) recommendsusingtheonedimensionalHECRASBlockedObstructionstickinthefloodplainmethod,not

Flow2Dasstatedinyouremailbelow.ThewhitepaperwascreatedtojustifytheBlockedObstructionstickin thefloodplainmythologyusedinourfirstO1O3H&HreportdatedMarch2008andrejectedbyIBWC.The basisfortheMarch2008H&Hreportrejectionwasduetoitslackofdebrisconsideration.After disagreements/discussions/debates/meetingsonhowtobestaccountfordebrisandwhatpercentblockageto use,ourwhitepaperrecommendationsweredismissedandwewerepersuadedtoreanalyzeandresubmita newH&HreportusingonedimensionalHECRASSplitFlowmethod(H&HreportdatedNov2009)which simulatingworstcase,100%blockage.Atthetime,weallagreedthatfromIBWCsprospectivethepercent blockagewillalwaysbesubjective,ifnot100%,andcanbeeasilychallenged.ToconsiderFlow2Dnoworthen meansthatweallacknowledgesthatthefenceispermeablewhichcontradictsthepreviousdirection.Flow 2D,ifthatistheapproachbeingsuggestedbyIBWCnow,willtakeusbacktothefundamentalissueofwhat% blockagetousethatwecouldnotresolvepreviously.Whatchanged?
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:10 AM To: (b) (6) Cc: (b) (6) Subject: O-1 thru O-3 Modeling White Paper?? Gents Yesterday we had a conference call with IBWC regarding the O-1 thru O-3 modeling results. During the call, IBWC made the statement that you all had prepared a white paper that evaluated several different hydraulic models that could be used for this project and that the white paper recommended that a 2-dimensional model be used instead of HEC-RAS. They essentially told us yesterday that we hadnt followed your recommendations. The only white paper I can find in my electronic files was prepared in 2008 and evaluated the different approaches that could be used w/ HEC-RAS. It contains no analysis of other models. Any idea what white paper IBWC was referring too? If yes, please forward. Thanks

3/3/2011

Page 5 of 5
FME006164

(b) (6) (b) (6) Chief Engineer CBP, OA, FM&E Border Patrol Facilities and Tactical Infrastructure Program Management Office (b) (6)

3/3/2011

FME006165

FME006166

(b) (6)

FME006167

FME006168

FME006169

FME006170

FME006171

FME006172

FME006173

FME006174

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X
Y X

Y X

Y X
Y X

Y X

Y X

256

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X
Y X Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X Y X
Y X

6.5

Reach-1

Y X
Y X Y X

Y X
Y X Y X
Y X

25

Removable Fence
Y X

(b) (7)(E)

IneffectiveArea Obstructed Area

Y X Y X

03

4.5

Y X

Split A
Y X
Y X

. 258

25

4.4

Y X

Y X

Y X

25

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Mid Reach

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Figure 1 Segment O-1 Cross sections location and fence modeling detail

254

253

252.9

Y X

Y X

Y X

.
2,000

Y X

Y X

4,000 Feet

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

East Reach

Legend
x x

Fence with openings Removable Fencffe

Added Cross Section Surveyed Cross Section Existing Cross Section Proposed Fence Ineffective Area Existing Floodplain

FME006175

236

(b) (7)(E)
Y X
Y X

57 237.

8.6

Y X

Y X

23

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

.1 238 238 9 . 2 37

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X
Y X
Y X
Y X

230.65

230.55

229
Y X
Y X
Y X

.9
22 9.2 7

Split 2
Y X
Y X
Y X

Y X
Y X

Y X

Y X
Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

.
3,000

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

6,000 Feet

Y X

Y X

Y X

Figure 2 Segment O-2 Cross sections location and fence modeling detail

Y X

Y X

Y X
Y X

23

1.7

Y X

230

Y X

Y X

Reach 1

Y X

Y X

Split 1
Y X

Y X

Y X

3 5 .8 5

Fence with openings (such as gates) allowing flood flow Removeable Fence to cross without obstruction.

Y X

234 9 233..8 233

Y X

Y X

Y X
Y X
Y X

36 33. 2
Y X
Y X
Y X

Y X
Y X

2 23
Y X

Reach 3

Legend
x x

Fence with openings Added Cross Section Surveyed Cross Section Existing Cross Section Proposed Fence Existing Floodplane

FME006176

Figure 3 Segment O-3 Cross sections location and fence modeling detail

205.025

205.03

204.3

203.3

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X
Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X
Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Legend
Existing Cross Section Surveyed Cross Section Proposed Fence Ineffective Area Existing Floodplane

199.39
Y X
Y X Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X

Y X
Y X Y X

Ineffective Area

Y X

Obstructed Area

203.1

Y X