03-13-2014
Laserfiche
>
Public
>
Flood Diversion Board of Authority
>
Agenda
>
2014
>
03-13-2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2014 3:14:18 PM
Creation date
11/28/2018 2:35:24 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
82
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
<br />HMG_TO9‐A10_Long.docx 3 <br />6. The 100 and 500‐year events for the Red River peak flood event will be <br />analyzed. <br />7. Peak discharge values from the current Phase 6 unsteady model will be used, <br />which is also being applied to the bridge analysis (MFR‐001) currently being <br />updated by the USACE. <br />II. Conduct an Impact Analysis using the HEC‐RAS unsteady state software for the most <br />favorable alternatives identified in Task 1. <br />1. The 100 and 500‐year events for the Red River peak flood event will be <br />analyzed using the latest Phase 6 unsteady flow model. <br />2. River impacts will focus only on the Red River upstream, downstream, and <br />throughout Fargo‐Moorhead. Impacts will be compared to those determined <br />in Phase 4 and Phase 5, which may require that the gate operations may be <br />modified to obtain similar impacts. <br />3. Additional impacts can be further evaluated at a later time if it is determined <br />that optimizing the Diversion Channel is justified with this initial evaluation. <br />III. Develop a preliminary cost estimate for the most favorable alternative identified for <br />optimizing the Diversion Channel. <br />2. Quantify the cost savings based on unit‐cost savings using the Feasibility Study <br />unit prices, focusing primarily on costs associated with earth work and at the <br />Maple River Hydraulic Structure. <br />3. Additional cost detail can be further evaluated at a later time if it is determined <br />that optimizing the Diversion Channel is justified with this initial evaluation. <br />IV. Prepare a Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizing whether the size of the Diversion <br />Channel warrants additional and more detailed study. <br />Deliverables: <br />I. Draft report. <br />II. Final report. <br />D. EXTEND RAS GEOMETRY OF THE RUSH/LOWER RUSH <br />The objective of this subtask is to account for break‐out flows between the Rush and Lower Rush <br />Rivers by extending the RAS model geometry of the Rush and Lower Rush Rivers upstream to the <br />beach ridge of Glacial Lake Agassiz. <br />Scope: <br />I. Extend existing conditions Rush River HEC‐RAS model approximately 10 miles upstream <br />from Amenia and add model detail between the Rush and Lower Rush Rivers to <br />incorporate breakout discharges. <br />Deliverables: <br />I. Updated existing conditions and with‐project HEC‐RAS unsteady models. <br />E. PHYSICAL MODELING ASSISTANCE: <br />Provide ongoing assistance to the Diversion Authority during the transition for Feasibility Study <br />to Preliminary Engineering and Design (PED) in support of the Maple and Sheyenne River <br />aqueduct structures. <br />DR <br />A <br />F <br />T
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.