District-Wide Approach to Water Resource Modeling

District-Wide Approach to Water Resource Modeling Water Resources Conference October 16, 2012 Phil Belfiori, RCWD Chris Otterness, HEI Mike Lawrence, HEI

Overview Rice 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

Geo-referenced photos Slowly building a database of photos throughout the District Valuable in many areas of District activity Survey Geodatabase

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 crosssections 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.

Detailed floodplain mapping for public drainage system and Rice Creek Floodplain Mapping 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 Previous Mapping (Zone A) New Mapping

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

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

HydroViewer very similar to existing Permit Mapper Allows easy access to model inputs and outputs All data shown can be queried Products: HydroViewer

Products: HydroViewer, cont. Each Model Node is displayed Each subwatershed can also be shown

Maintenance Challenges 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 Model Library Survey Geodatabase HydroViewer 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. Input data, parameters derived from the input data, modeling reports, the hydrology, hydraulic and water quality models and the model results. Survey information collected through the DWMP, project completion, and public drainage system inspection and repair Modeling input and output data, including estimated peak runoff rates, growing season runoff volumes. Updated continuously as part of the project workflow and permitting processes. Updated continuously as part of the project workflow process and a review of permits with substantive changes in subwatershed boundaries and structures. Updated continuously as part of the project workflow process on a project specific basis. 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

Example Shown: ACD 31 Floodplain Mapping

Watershed (Water Quality) Modeling P8 models exist for Hardwood and Clearwater Creek

Maintenance Costs Going Forward Product Estimated Annual Maintenance Cost GIS Library None Model Library Survey Geodatabase 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. 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

Contributing Hydrographs at a given location HydroViewer

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 3 rd highest historical) Other Great Floods > 35 feet ( )

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 Table 2.1 USGS Gage Data at Olso, MN 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 2010 Flood

Project Discovery 2010 Flood

Project Discovery 2010 Flood

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

Hydraulic Analysis Road Profile I-29 Overflow Areas I-29 Northbound Breakout Location usptream of Hwy 54 Elevation (ft-msl) 845 840 835 830 825 820 815 810 805 800 81000 85000 89000 93000 97000 101000 105000 109000 Distance (feet) 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

Hydraulic Analysis Road Profile I-29 Overflow Areas Combined flow leaving system is about 3,450 cfs

Preliminary Findings Road Raise ND Hwy 54 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 1 818 816 814.055. 0 5 5. 0 2.055. 0 4 5. 0 5 5.16.055.1.055 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 Legend WS 1997 Ground Ineff Bank Sta 812 Elevation (ft) 810 808 806 804 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 Station (ft)

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 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 Increase hydraulic capacity 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 Elevation (ft) 830 820 810 800 790 780 770.055. 0 52 5.055.. 0 45 5.16.055. 1 760 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000.055 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 636491.4 Soo Line Rail Road 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 Legend WS 1997 Ground Ineff Bank Sta Station (ft)

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 636491.4 Soo Line Rail Road 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 636491.4 Soo Line Rail Road 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

www.ulteig.com Questions? All content in this presentation 2012 Ulteig Engineers, Inc.