district-wide approach to water resource modeling · – usgs regression analyses at identified...

District-Wide Approach to Water Resource Modeling

Water Resources Conference

October 16, 2012 Phil Belfiori, RCWD

Chris Otterness, HEI

Mike Lawrence, HEI

OverviewRice Creek Watershed District

• Approximately 186 square miles

• Portions in 28 cities and townships

• 25 drainage systems, totaling 123 miles

• Approximately 50 lakes

• Variety of landscapes from very urban to very rural

The Need • Updated flood inundation maps and base flood

elevations for Regulatory Program

• Tools to help identify and complete projects in the District

• Better understanding of how water moves through the District

• Consistent documentation on survey and modeling to preserve investment far into the future

DWMP Overview • District Wide Modeling Program (DWMP)

– Initiated in 2008 after the completion of a document titled “District Wide Model Development”

– This document outlined the goals and technical objectives for the DWMP

• Major goal: to update floodplain mapping and elevations for use in the Regulatory Program

• To achieve this goal the plan was to create detailed modeling of the entire District and make both the results and inputs readily available

Information Management

Products Created

• Modeling Specifications

• LiDAR and Survey data

• Hydrologic and Hydraulic Models of entire District

• Floodplain Mapping

• HydroViewer

Modeling Specifications • Specifications were created for

different modeling: hydraulic, hydrologic and water quality

• Standards were created for naming conventions, subwatershed development, requirements on documentation, and provide guidance on model input parameters

• Standards were developed for collecting survey data

Benefits: Specifications • Specifications ensure consistency when models are

developed by different practitioners

• Ensures that all data is well documented and can easily be shared with others

• Maintains investment in the work that was done, by avoiding unnecessary work in the future

Survey Geodatabase • All survey data

stored in consistent format

• Clearly see who, when, and in what datum the survey points were collected

Survey Geodatabase • Geo-referenced

photos

• Slowly building a database of photos throughout the District

• Valuable in many areas of District activity

High Resolution Topographic Data • LiDAR data

collected in 2008

• Integrated into web viewers for easy access

Hydrologically Conditioned DEM

• Delineated 1,413 subwatersheds, average size 84 acres

Benefits: Survey and Topography • Survey Geodatabase

– Quickly find elevations, culvert sizes, etc.

– Data are reusable

– Data are accessible

– Photos where available

– All data stored (projects, as-constructed, DWMP)

• Topography (LiDAR) – Always checking elevations (e.g., permitting)

– Better mapped floodplains

– Conditioned DEM

Hydraulic and Hydrologic Modeling • 12 SWMM models for

public drainage systems into Rice Creek

• 2 SWMM models for the direct drainage into Rice Creek

• HEC-RAS model of Rice Creek

SWMM Modeling • Used multiple

proprietary SWMM models

• SWMM engine is public domain

• Very fine scale in some areas, subwatersheds as small as 2 acres

• Continuous simulation performed

Products: Hydraulic Model • HEC-RAS model of Rice

Creek, using combination of storage areas and cross- sections

• Why HEC-RAS? – Ease of modeling open

channel flow

– Ease of flow inputs

– Viewing of profiles and velocities

– Ability to model sediment transport in future

• HEC-DSS used for inputting SWMM results

HEC-RAS Model Layout

Structure Hydraulics

For all structures on the public drainage system in the District. BENEFITS: Information about culverts on public drainage systems is quickly available to District staff. Information about replacing a culvert is available to cities and other entities.

Floodplain Mapping • Detailed floodplain mapping

for public drainage system and Rice Creek

• Better floodplains because of LiDAR acquisition and new modeling: Example on right is Upper Rice Creek and Crossways Lake

• Aids in Permitting and Identifies Problem Areas within the District

New Mapping

Previous Mapping (Zone A)

Mapped Floodplains

Benefits to Stakeholders: Hydraulics & Floodplains

• Better information for Permitting

• FEMA adopted Anoka County Floodplains

• Base Flood Elevations improve City planning

• Insurance questions easier to address

• Ability to very quickly evaluate new issues

(e.g., culvert changes)

• Assessment of conveyance capacity

Understanding RCWD Hydrology

Lake Frequency Analysis • Updated data

• 1% chance elevations used to map floodplains

• Used to verify hydraulics model

• Daily elevation frequency analysis …. Use it to answer “is my lake higher on average than normal?”

Benefits: Hydrology • Sources of the models are known

• Consistent model development and documentation

• Data for users (RCWD, Cities, others) – Improved operational efficiency of District Engineer

– Use in drainage system repair reports

– Use in project designs (repairs / Capital Improvement Projects)

• Better lake level information

• Maximize project locations

• Intercommunity flows established

Runoff Volumes

Phosphorus Yields

Benefits: Volumes and Loads • Planning level analysis

• Identify areas with “higher runoff volume and yields”

• Use to prioritize locations for implementation projects (e.g., TMDLs)

• Possible use in volume control analysis

Products: HydroViewer • HydroViewer

very similar to existing Permit Mapper

• Allows easy access to model inputs and outputs

• All data shown can be queried

Products: HydroViewer, cont. • Each Model

Node is displayed

• Each subwatershed can also be shown

Challenges • Maintenance

– Need to keep track of changes in the District, otherwise models will be outdated and less useful

– Maintenance plan developed

Product Description Maintenance

GIS Library A data dictionary describing the specific GIS layers, a link to the original data source and the applicable file names, and the actual GIS data.

Updated continuously as part of the project workflow and permitting processes.

Model Library Input data, parameters derived from the input data, modeling reports, the hydrology, hydraulic and water quality models and the model results.

Updated continuously as part of the project workflow process and a review of permits with substantive changes in sub-watershed boundaries and structures.

Survey Geodatabase Survey information collected through the DWMP, project completion, and public drainage system inspection and repair

Updated continuously as part of the project workflow process on a project specific basis.

HydroViewer Modeling input and output data, including estimated peak runoff rates, growing season runoff volumes.

Data will be updated annually.

Challenges • Spatial scale of

analysis: Even though the model is detailed, there are limits to how the results can be used

• Floodplain mapping not in all areas

Project Costs YEAR 1 $352,576

LiDAR Acquisition

Functional Requirements Document

Survey Upper Rice Creek

Modeling Specifications, Monitoring Plan

Hardwood and Clearwater Creek Modeling and Mapping

Subwatershed Delineation

YEAR 2 $250,000

Modeling and Mapping for Rice Creek, ACD 25, RWJD1

Lake Frequency Analysis

Survey of Chain of Lakes, RWJD1, ACD25

Hydrologically correct DEM and Hydro Viewer

YEAR 3 $317,000 Modeling and Mapping for RCD 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8, ARJD1, ACD 53-62, Rice Creek

Survey of Lower Rice Creek, ARJD1, RCD 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8

Runoff Volume and Pollutant Loading Tool

Summary Report

Total: $919,576

Probable Budget Range Identified in Functional Requirements Document $1,256,620 to $1,569,196

Intercommunity Flows

Floodplain Mapping

• Example Shown: ACD 31

Watershed (Water Quality) Modeling • P8 models

exist for Hardwood and Clearwater Creek

Going Forward Maintenance Costs

Product Estimated Annual Maintenance Cost

GIS Library None

Model Library The estimated maintenance cost assumes approximately 200 permits processed annually, with 25 permits requiring some level of activity at 2 hours per permit. Annual cost $4,000 - 5,000 per year.

Survey Geodatabase None

HydroViewer $3,500 for annual maintenance with optional $4,000 to $5,000 GeoMoose open source software upgrade every other year

DrainageViewer $3,500 for annual maintenance with optional $4,000 to $5,000 GeoMoose open source software upgrade every other year

PermitViewer and Database

$4,500 for annual maintenance with optional $4,000 to $5,000 GeoMoose open source software upgrade every other year

HydroViewer • Contributing

Hydrographs at a given location

North Dakota Highway 54, Minnesota Highway 1 Flood Mitigation

Minnesota Water Resources Conference October 16-17, 2012

Rick Archer, PE

Hydraulic Study on I-29, North Dakota Highway 54 and Minnesota Highway 1 near Oslo, Minnesota • Red River of the North • Walsh County, North Dakota • Marshall County, Minnesota • • Prepared for: • North Dakota Department of Transportation • Environmental & Transportation Services • • 608 East Boulevard Avenue • Bismarck, North Dakota 58505-0700 • SS-6-054(007) PCN 18343

Background

• Red River Drainage Basin – Formed by glacial Lake

Agassiz – Headwaters begin at

Wahpeton, ND at confluence with Bois de Sioux and Ottertail Rivers

– Flows North to Canada, ending in Lake Winnipeg

– Gradient varies (1 to 0.2) feet per mile

Background

• Project Location • Oslo, Minnesota

– 23 miles North of

Grand Forks, ND – Soo Line RR 200 feet

upstream of Hwy 54 – North Maris River 1.1

miles west of Red – Breakout of Turtle

River 1.8 miles upstream

– North Marias joins Red River 12.9 miles downstream

Background

• Oslo Ring Levee • Red River of the North

Basin – Halstad(M 03/13), East Grand Forks(M 06/13), Oslo(P 03/14), Alvarado(M 03/13), Argyle(M 03/13), Noyes(P), Duxby (Agricultural Levee Downstream of Roseau)(P)

Scope of Study • Identify current hydraulic conditions of roadway • Identify mitigation alternatives to improve hydraulic capacity • Objective:

– Eliminate overtopping of Hwy 54, Mn 1 and I-29 under extreme flood conditions – “”No-Adverse Impact” on Regulatory Floodplain

• Tasks: Hydrology – Review USGS stream gaging information – USGS regression analyses at identified ungagged river locations – Comparative analysis of flow and stage to historical floods

• Tasks: Hydraulics – Incorporate existing and new field surveys and topography data – Identify existing road drainage culverts – Develop step-backwater analysis of Red River to encompass effective flow limits of

project site. – Evaluate mitigation alternatives against current hydraulic conditions to assess

impacts

Project Discovery – Historical Floods

Project Discovery – Historical Floods • 1997 Flood (highest since

1826, sandbagging and RR restriction)-

• 2010 (topping 1997 by 4 inches, ice) – 38.37 ft.

• 2011 (topping 38 feet and 3rd highest historical)

• Other Great Floods > 35 feet ( )

Table 2.1– USGS Gage

Data at Olso, MN

Rank Date (Peak

Flow) Peak Flow

(cfs) Peak Stage

(ft) Rank Date (Peak

Flow) Peak Flow

(cfs) Peak Stage

(ft)

1 4/23/1997 120000 38 26 4/12/1951 24800 25.46 2 4/1/2009 80600 38.37 27 4/21/1952 24800 3 4/6/2006 77600 37.7 28 3/26/1945 24000

4 3/21/2010 66000 37.87 29 4/24/1956 22500 25.5

5 5/10/1950 63000 31.83 30 4/10/1949 18700 24.08

6 4/22/1996 59200 36.95 31 3/30/1987 18500 31.76 7 4/4/1966 59000 32 6/17/2008 18000 24.52

8 4/19/1969 56500 36.8 33 5/20/1985 17800 24.43

9 4/12/1978 56200 37.91 34 4/12/1960 17100 10 4/2/1999 53000 36.7 35 6/30/2003 16500 22.08

11 4/16/2001 51000 37 36 4/10/1955 16400 19.46

12 4/17/1948 41400 37 4/18/1936 15000 18.18

13 6/23/2007 37200 34.7 38 6/25/1953 14900 17.55

14 6/19/2005 36100 36.05 39 7/2/1957 14900 17.42 15 4/1/2004 36000 35.35 40 4/4/1942 11900 16 4/1/1995 35000 35.35 41 4/6/1988 11500 20.1

17 7/15/2002 34000 33.96 42 4/15/1954 9790 12.39

18 4/22/1947 33800 43 3/15/1992 8200 22.47

19 4/14/1989 33500 36.72 44 7/10/1958 7890 10.29

20 4/13/1943 31500 29.16 45 4/7/1959 7200 10.78

21 6/29/2000 31000 33.82 46 7/10/1991 5200 12.04 22 4/3/1986 30000 34.2 47 4/5/1990 4900 15.64

23 5/22/1998 29000 48 5/4/1937 4070 6.47 24 4/7/1993 28100

25 7/13/1994 26600 30.86

Project Discovery – Historical Floods • 1997 Flood at Oslo, Minnesota

Project Discovery – Historical Floods • 2009 Flood at Oslo, Minnesota (4/14/1009) – Looking East

Project Discovery – Historical Floods • 2009 Flood at Oslo, Minnesota (4/14/1009) – Looking North

Project Discovery – Historical Floods • 2009 Flood at Oslo, Minnesota (4/14/1009) – Looking West

Project Discovery – 2010 Flood

Project Discovery – Litigation

Project Discovery – Quoting the Corrective Plan

• A “Corrective Plan” was formulated under the Interstate Compact

• It limits the elevation and placement of any agricultural levee within the reach below Grand Forks to State Route 317 Bridge.

• Finding 6 states, “…in order to protect the integrity of the plan, no roads can be raised within a defined effective flow area.”

• Effective Flow area at Oslo: – Intersection of Mn Hyw 1 and Highway 220 (Marshall County, Mn) to first “T”

intersection just west of the Grand Marais River on ND Hwy 54. – Defined by 43,000 cfs flood profile USACE

• Solution – Interstate agreement to amend the “Corrective Plan” • (NDSWC, MNDNR, Grand Forks, Walsh County, Middle-Snake-

Tarmarac Rivers Water Resource Districts)

Project Discovery – Existing Study Information

• Final Hydrology Report Hydrologic Analyses The Red River of the North Main Stem Wahpeton/Breckenridge To Emerson, Manitoba. Prepared by: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St. Paul District, September 2001.

• Regional Red River Flood Assessment Report Wahpeton, North Dakota/Breckenridge, Minnesota To Emerson, Manitoba. Prepared by: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St. Paul District and the Federal Emergency Management Agency Region V and Region VIII, January 2003. - (1991 HEC-2)

• Grand Forks, ND & East Grand Forks, MN Flood Insurance Study January 2007. This report documents the products developed for the Grand Forks, ND & East Grand Forks, MN FIS.

Alternatives Investigated

• Do Nothing

• Road Grade Raise ND Hwy 54

• Raise grade of both ND Hwy 54 and I-29

• Increase Hydraulic capacity of existing structures

• Add additional structures for hydraulic capacity

• Remove Soo Line Rail Road Crossing

• Raise the Grade of Mn Hwy 1

• Raise grade of both ND Hwy 54 and Mn Hwy 1

Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis

• Model Boundary Conditions – Starting Condition moved from Emerson to Downstream of Drayton, ND – (ND Hwy 66/ Mn Hwy 11)

• Field Survey conducted by Ulteig • Supplement Red River Basin LIDAR • Geo-referencing Issue (UTM verse Stateplane Coordinates)

– HEC-2 Channel Cross Sections – Vertical Datum Adjustment

• New US COE Unsteady State Model – Extension of Cross Sections

• Bridge Cross-Section Adjustments – Skew of North Marais Bridge – Additional Drainage Culverts Discovered – Adjustments to Pier and Manning's “n”

USGS Stream Gages – Red River

• Gage “05082500” at Grand Forks is located at River Mile 297.6 about 50 feet downstream of the DeMers Avenue bridge in Grand Forks, North DakotaRoad Grade Raise ND Hwy 54

• Gage “05083500” at Oslo, Minnesota is located on the ND Hwy 54/MN Hwy 1 Bridge crossing the Red River at River Mile 271.2.Increase Hydraulic capacity of existing structures

• Gage “05082000” at Drayton, North Dakota is located on the downstream side of the ND Hwy 66/MN Hwy 11 Bridge crossing the Red River at River Mile Location 206.7.

• Gage “05102490” at Pembina, North Dakota is located on the left bank on f the ND Hwy 5/MN Hwy 171 Bridge crossing the Red River at River Mile Location 179.6. Raise the Grade of Mn Hwy 1

• Gage records for the Emerson, Manitoba gage “05OC001” courtesy of Environment Canada

Hydraulic Analysis

• Emerson Reach

• Landmarks

River Mile Description USGS gage

154.3 International gaging station at Emerson, Manitoba O50C001

154.58 Canadian National Railway bridge at Emerson, Manitoba

154.73 Provincial Hwy 75 bridge at Emerson Manitoba

155 International boundary

158 Pembina River, North Dakota

158.1 Minesota Hwy 171 bridge at Pembina, North Dakota

175.1 Two Rivers, Minnesota

USGS gaging station Red River at Pembina, North Dakota 5102490

206.7 USGS gaging station Red River at Drayton, North Dakota 5092000

206.7 Minnesota Hwy 11, North Dakota Hwy 66 bridge at Drayton, North Dakota

219.5 Tamarac River, Minnesota

222.3 Park River, North Dakota

230 Snake River, Minnesota

236 Minnesota Hwy 317, North Dakota Hwy 17 bridge

243.3 Forest River, North Dakota

246.8 North Marais River, North Dakota

271.25 Soo Line Railroad bridge at Oslo, Minnesota

271.2 USGS gaging station Red River at Oslo, Minnesota 5083500

271.2 North Dakota Hwy 54, Minnesota Hwy 1 bridge

Oslo Levee

273.6 Turtle River, North Dakota

285.6 Grand Marais Creek, Minnesota

296.1 Riverside Park Dam, Grand Forks, North Dakota

Old USGS gaging station in Riverside Park, Grand Forks

296.95 US Hwy 2 bridge at Grand Forks, North Dakota

297.75 Burlington Northern Railway bridge at Grand Forks

297.61 Demers Avenue bridge at Grand Forks, North Dakota

297.61 USGS gaging station Red River at Grand Forks, North Dakota 5082500

Hydraulic Analysis

• Emerson Reach

Hydraulic Analysis

• Flow Change Locations

Hydraulic Analysis

• US Geodetic Survey VERTCON

Hydraulic Analysis

• Field Survey • Red River Bridge

Hydraulic Analysis

• Field Survey • North Marais Bridge

Hydraulic Analysis – Road Profile

• Field Survey • Red River Bridge


• I-29 Overflow Areas

800

805

810

815

820

825

830

835

840

845

81000 85000 89000 93000 97000 101000 105000 109000

Ele

vati

on

(ft

-msl

)

Distance (feet)

I-29 Northbound Breakout Location usptream of Hwy 54

I-29 Breakout Flow

I-29 Min Elevation

Min Station

XS 107

Twin, 8x8 RCP

Soo RR and I-29 Overpass

Hwy 54

XS 105

XS 108

Twin, 10x5 RCP

Twin, 10x6 RCP

XS 109

D/


• I-29 Overflow Areas

• Combined flow leaving system is about 3,450 cfs

Preliminary Findings – Road Raise ND Hwy 54

20000 25000 30000 35000 40000

804

806

808

810

812

814

816

818

NewHyw54 Plan: Alternative 2 - Raise Hwy 54 9/2/2011 River = RRN Reach = DraytonToGF RS = 636293.2 MO ND HWY 54/MN HWY 1, OSLO, MN HWY 54 and Mn 1

Station (ft)

Elev

atio

n (ft

)

Legend

WS 1997

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.055 .055

.02

.055 .045

.055

.16 .055 .1 .055

River 1997 Existing Alt. 2

Station/USCOE XS Flows (cfs) WSE (ft) WSE (ft) WSE (ft)

645363.6 108 119,850 812.85 812.87 0.02

640041.8 107 119,850 812.64 812.67 0.03

636639.4 106 119,850 812.48 812.52 0.04

636509.5 105 119,850 812.42 812.45 0.03

636491.4 Soo Line Rail Road

636474.7 103 119,850 811.84 811.88 0.04

636396.7 102 119,850 811.81 811.9 0.09

636318.2 101 119,850 811.73 811.65 -0.08

636293.2 ND Hwy 54/MN Hwy 1

636274.9 99 119,850 811.44 811.25 -0.19

636072.9 98 119,850 811.43 811.43 0

Preliminary Findings – Road Raise ND Hwy 54 and I-29

River 1997 Existing Alt. 3 Station/USCOE XS Flows (cfs) WSE (ft) WSE (ft) WSE (ft)

645363.6 108 119,850 812.85 812.93 0.08

640041.8 107 119,850 812.64 812.7 0.06

636639.4 106 119,850 812.48 812.51 0.03

636509.5 105 119,850 812.42 812.45 0.03


636474.7 103 119,850 811.84 811.88 0.04

636396.7 102 119,850 811.81 811.9 0.09

636318.2 101 119,850 811.73 811.65 -0.08

636293.2 ND Hwy 54/MN Hwy 1

636274.9 99 119,850 811.44 811.25 -0.19

636072.9 98 119,850 811.43 811.43 0

Preliminary Findings – Increase hydraulic capacity

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000760

770

780

790

800

810

820

830

NewHy w54 Plan: Alternativ e 4 - Add Structures Hy d Cap 9/6/2011 River = RRN Reach = DraytonToGF RS = 636293.2 MO ND HWY 54/MN HWY 1, OSLO, MN HWY 54 and Mn 1

Station (ft)

Ele

va

tion

(ft)

Legend

WS 1997

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.055 .055

.02

.055 .045

.055

.16 .055 .1

.055

River 1997 Existing Alt. 4

Station/USCOE XS Flows (cfs) WSE (ft) WSE (ft) WSE (ft)

645363.6 108 119,850 812.85 812.81 -0.04

640041.8 107 119,850 812.64 812.6 -0.04

636639.4 106 119,850 812.48 812.43 -0.05

636509.5 105 119,850 812.42 812.37 -0.05


636474.7 103 119,850 811.84 811.71 -0.13

636396.7 102 119,850 811.81 811.76 -0.05

636318.2 101 119,850 811.73 811.68 -0.05

636293.2 ND Hwy 54/MN Hwy 1

636274.9 99 119,850 811.44 811.44 0

636072.9 98 119,850 811.43 811.43 0

Preliminary Findings – Road Raise Mn Hwy 1

River 1997 Existing Alt. 7 Station/COE XS Flows (cfs) WSE (ft) WSE (ft) WSE (ft)

645363.6 108 119,850 812.85 812.85 0

640041.8 107 119,850 812.64 812.64 0

636639.4 106 119,850 812.48 812.48 0

636509.5 105 119,850 812.42 812.41 -0.01


636474.7 103 119,850 811.84 811.73 -0.11

636396.7 102 119,850 811.81 811.78 -0.03

636318.2 101 119,850 811.73 811.52 -0.21

636293.2 ND Hwy 54/MN Hwy 1

636274.9 99 119,850 811.44 811.44 0

636072.9 98 119,850 811.43 811.43 0

Preliminary Findings – Road Raise Mn Hwy 1 and ND Hwy 54

River 1997 Existing Alt. 8 Station/ COE XS Flows (cfs) WSE (ft) WSE (ft) WSE (ft)

645363.6 108 119,850 812.85 812.84 -0.01

640041.8 107 119,850 812.64 812.63 -0.01

636639.4 106 119,850 812.48 812.47 -0.01

636509.5 105 119,850 812.42 812.41 -0.01


636474.7 103 119,850 811.84 811.83 -0.01

636396.7 102 119,850 811.81 811.8 -0.01

636318.2 101 119,850 811.73 811.27 -0.46

636293.2 ND Hwy 54/MN Hwy 1

636274.9 99 119,850 811.44 811.44 0

636072.9 98 119,850 811.43 811.43 0

Conclusion

• Amendment to court order of development activity within the “Corrective Plan” is needed

• Alternatives seem feasible with minimal increases in flood depths

• Additional investigations needed with alternate modeling approaches to consider

• (2d modeling, USCOE unsteady state model) • Stakeholder review

district-wide approach to water resource modeling · – usgs regression analyses at identified...

Documents