US Army Corps of Engineers

BUILDING STRONG®

Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area

Flood Risk Management Project

52ND ANNUAL IOWA ASCE

ENVIRONMENTAL & WATER

RESOURCES CONFERENCE

03 April 2014

Aaron W. Buesing

Senior Hydraulic Engineer

Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District

BUILDING STRONG®

Presentation Outline

Reason for Project

Summary of Feasibility and Environmental Impact Study (FEIS)

Changes since the FEIS and subsequent Environmental Assessment (EA)

Ongoing studies and design efforts

Project status

2

BUILDING STRONG®

Drainage Area Above

Fargo/Moorhead:6,800 square miles

Red River Basin

North

Dakota

South

Dakota

Minnesota

Total Drainage Area:45,000 square miles

BUILDING STRONG®4

BUILDING STRONG®5

BUILDING STRONG®6

BUILDING STRONG®7

BUILDING STRONG®8

• FEMA (100-year)

Floodplain:

BUILDING STRONG®9

• USACE (100-year)

Floodplain:

BUILDING STRONG®

Existing Flood Risk (FM Metro)100 Year Flood

1% Chance

500 Year Flood

.2% Chance

BUILDING STRONG®11

September 2008: Fargo-Moorhead Metro Feasibility

May 2010: Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement released Designs, alignments, and features of several diversion channel

alternatives refined

Cost estimates for each alternative completed

April 2011: Supplemental Draft Feasibility Report and EIS released Several concepts to minimize downstream impacts of a North Dakota

diversion plan considered and studied

Minimized downstream impacts

Caused upstream impacts

July 2011: Final Feasibility Report and EIS released All comments received considered

Revisions made to incorporate additional analyses and data, and to address comments

Feasibility and Environmental Impact Study (FEIS)

Alternatives

Considered

Non-Structural Measures

Upstream Retention

Levees/floodwalls

Diversions – ND and MN

Upstream Retention

400,000 AF of storage needed for 1.6 ft stage reduction during 100 Year flood (USACE)

270,000 AF of storage needed to provide 2 ftreduction during 1997 flood (<50-year) (RRBC)

Location of runoff could limit effectiveness

Important long-term water management strategy

Levees

Max. level of protection of

approx. a 50-year flood

(USACE).

Flood insurance may still

be required.

Est. cost $900 million.

Potential upstream and

downstream impacts –

mitigation will increase

cost.

Diversions

Used successfully in

Red River basin.

Ability to provide 500-

year or greater level of

flood damage

reduction – existing

and planned levees

help to achieve this.

Increased area of

protection.

BUILDING STRONG®

Hydrology

• Full Period of Record at USGS Gage

►1882, 1897, and 1902 to 2009

• Investigated Stationarity

►Expert Opinion Elicitation (EOE) Panel

16

BUILDING STRONG®

Fargo Flood Data @ USGS Gage

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

Peak

Dis

ch

arg

e (

cfs

)

Year

Flood stage exceeded 50 times in past 112 years

Trend of larger floods

Largest 3 floods since 1997

BUILDING STRONG®0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 ?

Ma

xim

um

Da

ily F

low

Ra

te (

cu

bic

-fe

et

pe

r s

ec

on

d)

Red River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota

500-Year Flood

The 2009 flood is the largest floodon record and equates to a

50-Year Flood Event.

Source: USGS river flow data from USGS Station

Approximate Major Flood Stage

● Lack of stationarity in flood flow frequency and magnitude since

the 1940s is indicative of transitions from dry to wet-cycles.

● 13 flood have exceeded the "Major Flood Stage" since 1990.

● 6 of the 13 "major" floods have occured since 1990.

● Regional wet-cycle has caused recent extreme floods elsewhere

in North Dakota.

100-Year Flood Event

BUILDING STRONG®

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 ?

Ma

xim

um

Da

ily F

low

Ra

te (

cu

bic

-fe

et

pe

r s

ec

on

d)

Red River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota

Source: USGS river flow data from USGS Station

Approximate Major Flood Stage

Full Period of Record

FEMA Period of

Record

Wet Period

BUILDING STRONG®

EOE Experts David Ford, PhD Facilitator, David Ford Consultants

Michael Deering, PE, D.WRE Senior Hydraulic Engineer, Water

Resource System Division, USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center

Scott Dummer, Hydrologist-in-Charge, National Weather Service

North Central River Forecast Center, Chanhassen, MN

Robert Hirsch, PhD Research Hydrologist, US Geological Survey

(USGS) National Research Program

Rolf Olsen, PhD Water Resources Systems Engineer, USACE

Institute for Water Resources

David Raff, PhD, PE Technical Specialist, Flood Hydrology and

Emergency Management Group, Technical Services Center, US

Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)

Aldo (Skip) Vecchia, PhD Research Statistician, USGS North

Dakota

BUILDING STRONG®

EOE Results

“experts rather quickly moved away from a

discussion of climate change, per se, and

focused instead on the apparent lack of

stationarity in the flood flow frequency and

magnitude data over the period of record

(the last 110 years or so). “

BUILDING STRONG®

EOE Results

Defined the dry period as 1901-1941 and the

wet period as 1942-2009

Use statistical tests for homogeneity to

determine where to divide the POR. The expert

panel did not agree on the statistical tests, but

did note work by Villarini, et al

Used PETTITT test

BUILDING STRONG®

Pettitt Test

Statistics of Change

N 108

KT+ 0

KT- 1790

KT 1790

Year Change Point 1941

Standardized K 2.750

poa (significance

Probability

associated with KT-)

2.710E-

7

poa (significance

probability associated

with KT)

5.420E-

7

Pettitt Test at Fargo, ND

0.0000001

0.000001

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

1902 1922 1942 1962 1982 2002

Year

Sig

nif

ica

nc

e P

ro

ba

bilit

y

Change

Point: 1941

BUILDING STRONG®

Pettitt Test: Grand Forks, ND

Statistics of Change

Number of Years

in Series, N128

KT+ 233

KT- 1913

KT 1913

Change Point

Year1964

Poa 3.08E-05

Poa, KT+ 6.15E-05

0.00001

0.00010

0.00100

0.01000

0.10000

1.00000

1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Pett

itt

Test

Sig

nif

ican

ce P

rob

ab

ilit

y

Year

Pettitt Test for Grand Forks, ND

1942 1964

5%

1%

0.1%

BUILDING STRONG®

Devils Lake

BUILDING STRONG®

Hydrology Summary• FEMA Effective FIS

► Red River of the North Regional Flood Analysis, Breckenridge to International Boundary (1971)

► Administrative agreement between NDSWC, MN DNR, NRCS, USACE, and USGS

► Carried forward as part of ongoing map updates.

• USACE Full Period of Record

► Analyzed full period of record (1882, 1897, and 1902 to 2009)

• USACE Wet Cycle

► Analyzed Wet portion of the period of record (1942 to 2009).

► Does not include data from 2010 and 2011 flood events.

► End date for wet cycle is unknown.

26

BUILDING STRONG®

Fargo Flood Data @ USGS Gage

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

Peak

Dis

ch

arg

e (

cfs

)

Year

10-yr

10-yr COE, Period of

10-yr COE, Expert

50-yr

50-yr COE, Period of

50-yr COE, Expert

100-yr 100-yr COE, Period of 100-yr COE, Expert

BUILDING STRONG®

Economic Analysis

Flows at a Given Exceedance

Probability

10-yr 100-yr 500-yr

Year 0:

Wet Period17,000 34,700 61,700

Year 25:

Combine: 0.8 Wet, 0.2 Dry15,394 32,921 57,641

Year 50:

Combine: 0.65 Wet, 0.35 dry13,965 31,304 54,034

• Analysis to size channel and

hydraulic structures.

• Utilized HEC-RAS computer

program.

• Initially used steady state

HEC-RAS for hydraulic

design and unsteady HEC-

RAS for impact analysis.

• FEIS design used unsteady

HEC-RAS for design.

Hydraulic Design

Lake Traverse

Emerson, MB

Hydraulic Design

650 river miles, including

over 4100 cross sections

and 1300 storage areas.

Existing Conditions model

developed and diversion

alternative added to

determine impacts.

BUILDING STRONG®31

HEC-RAS Model

650 river miles, including

over 4100 cross sections

and 1300 storage areas.

Existing Conditions model

developed and diversion

alternative added to

determine impacts.

Downstream Impacts

BUILDING STRONG®

Downstream

Impacts (Phase 3)

Downstream Impacts

-1.5 day shift

+ 1.03 ft

Wild Rice River, MN

Elm River

Impact Variability

BUILDING STRONG®36

FEIS Plan

Separate Storage Area

Replaced Existing Reach of

Sheyenne Diversion

Project Operates for Q >

10,000 cfs

Fixed weir diversion inlet

BUILDING STRONG®37

Environmental Assessment (EA) Items

North Alignment

West Alignment

South Alignment

Addition of In-Town Levees

Increased Flow Through Town

Addition of Gates on the Inlet

Structure

Oxbow/Bakke/Hickson Ring

Levee

Supplemental EA finalized

September 2013

More Flow Through Town /

In Town Levees

BUILDING STRONG®

In-Town Levees

Advantages

► The use of levees in town to 35 feet

(at Fargo gage) will allow project to

operate less frequently (10-year event).

Eliminates need for fish passage at

Red and Wild Rice structures.

► Reduces environmental impacts

(connectivity and geomorphology)

► Significantly reduces the probability

of summer operation

► Minimizes impacts to farmers

39

Diversion Inlet Gates

• Feasibility Study Included 90 foot wide fixed weir

• Advantages of adding adjustable gates

o Reduces upstream staging elevations

o Adds flexibility in operations

o Affects timing of flows in diversion

o Provides more control of flow (within design constraints)

• Variable flows to better match downstream conditions

• Ability to drawdown staging area faster.

Gates will be similar to

gates on the Red River

Control Structure

Oxbow/Hickson/Bakke Ring Levee

Currently holding weekly

coordination

teleconferences

2014 construction start.

BUILDING STRONG®42

20,000 cfs ND diversion channel

34,000 acre staging area

30-mile diversion

12 miles of tie-back embankments

Control structures on the Red & Wild

Rice rivers

Aqueduct & spillway structures on the

Sheyenne & Maple rivers

Rock ramp drop structure on the Lower

Rush & Rush rivers

Meandering low-flow channel

Non-structural mitigation for impacts in

the storage & staging areas

Negligible downstream impacts

Federally Recommended Plan

BUILDING STRONG®43

Design activities commenced:

Outlet/Design Reach1

Design Reach 2

Design Reach 3 (sponsor led)

Design Reach 4

Rush River structure

Design Reach 5

Lower Rush River structure

Design Reach 6 (sponsor led)

Design Reach 7 (Maple River

aqueduct)

Environmental mitigation projects

Drayton Dam, Wild Rice Dam,

Buffalo River

OHB Ring Levee

In-Town Levees (sponsor led)

Bridges and associated channel

designed by the sponsors

Current Design Reaches

BUILDING STRONG®44

Regional and National Resources

used to support design efforts

USACE Cold Regions Research and

Engineering Laboratory (CRREL)

Hydrologic Engineering Center – Davis

MVS: Rush/Lower Rush, VE teams

MVK: Reach 4, VE teams

MVM: Reach 5, VE teams

MVR: Reach 2, Maple River Physical model,

VE teams

NWO: Agency Technical Reviews

Current Design Reaches

44

Conceptual Section of the Diversion

Ditching required for lateral drainage

Meandering low flow channel

Excavated Material Berms (EMB)

Recreation

BUILDING STRONG®

Wild Rice Structure Relocation

Micro-siting of structure

Saves farmsteads

I-29 intersection remain in

place

Alternative structure locations

being considered

Additional small shifts could be

made to save farmsteads

46

Southern Alignment Adjustments

BUILDING STRONG®47

Project begins operating when it is known that a stage

of 35.0 will be reached at the Fargo gage. This will be

determined via upstream gages and measurements.

Initially a stage of about 30.0 will be held until the peak

passes to reduce downstream impacts. Once the peak

has passed, the stage will be increased to 35.0.

Fargo stage of 35.0 maintained until pool reaches

922.2

1% event would result in a pool at 922.2

For events larger than 1% event, pool of 922.2

maintained while Fargo stage is allowed to rise to 40.0

0.2% event would result in Fargo stage of 40.0

Flood fighting would occur when Fargo stage is between

35.0 and 40.0

Project General Operating Plan

BUILDING STRONG®48

Project General Operating Plan (continued)

For events larger than 0.2% event, Fargo stage of 40.0

maintained while flow to diversion is increased and/or

pool is allowed to rise.

Spillway set at 923.0

Once minimum freeboard is achieved due to rising

pool, control gates are opened and Fargo stage rises

above 40.0, flood fighting stops and city is allowed to

flood

Evacuation order given in advance of exceeding Fargo

stage of 40.0

Operating plan will be clearly documented in the O&M

manual

BUILDING STRONG®

Operation will be based on gage

data – not forecasting

Modeling being completed to identify

additional gage sites

Upstream

Downstream (local inflow)

At structures

Use historic events

Anticipate matrix (if/then)

Operation Plan won’t be final until

construction completed

49

Operations Plan Study

BUILDING STRONG®

Maple River Physical Modeling

Description: Allows diversion channel to

pass beneath the Maple River

Spillway allows floods greater

than a bank full event to be

diverted to diversion channel

River remains biologically

connected; maintains fish

passage

Limits flow to the protected

side

50

BUILDING STRONG®

Maple River Aqueduct

BUILDING STRONG®

Rendering Closeup

52

BUILDING STRONG®

Reasons for Detailed Modeling Study

Plunging, pressurized flow under aqueduct.

Evaluate flow split at the spillway

Structure is part of the line of protection

Cost of structures warrants investment

53

BUILDING STRONG®

Building size: 17,000 square feet

Model physical size: Approximately

80’ long, 70’ wide

Construction materials:

Channels: concrete

Aqueduct: plexiglass

BUILDING STRONG®

Maple River Physical Model

BUILDING STRONG®

Maple River Aqueduct, Plan View

Aqueduct

Spillway

Maple

River

Diversion

Channel

BUILDING STRONG®57

Physical Model Schedule

August 2013: Construction restarted

January 2014: Construction complete

March 2014:

► Phase 1 completion

► Calibration, performance verification and testing plan complete

June 2014: Intermediate results workshop

Summer 2014: Model Tour/Presentation

October 2014: Hydraulic optimization report complete

December/January 2014: Final aqueduct modeling report

BUILDING STRONG®58

The approved EA identified a ring levee for

this area.

Approximately 40 structures need to be

removed for the levee

Risk and uncertainty analysis used to

determine freeboard.

Have complete wind and wave

analysis

Was geotechnically evaluated

Freeboard will be 4 feet above the

500 year flood pool level

Cass County Highways 81 and 18 will be

raised

WP-43A is at 65% complete

WP-43B is at 45% complete

Oxbow-Hickson-Bakke Ring Levee

Existing

Conditions

100-year

Floodplain

(USACE)

With-Project

100-year

Floodplain

(USACE)

100-year

Floodplain

Change

(USACE)

BUILDING STRONG®62

Congress advancing Water Resources Development Act

(WRDA) that would authorize the Project

The Corps and Local Sponsors are moving forward with

the design phase

Once authorized and funded by Congress

+3 months - Sign Project Partnership Agreement (PPA)

+ 8.5 years - Project Operable *

Executing a Construction Memo of Understanding with the

Sponsors that would allow them to begin construction

prior to authorization and funding at its own risk

* 8.5 year construction period based on $240 Million/year funding stream

Overall Project Construction Schedule

BUILDING STRONG®

http://www.FMDiversion.com

63

Project Information