03-13-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

HMG_TO9‐A10_Long.docx 5 c. Current, and if available, also historical cross sections for streams near the proposed diversion, including the Rush, Lower Rush, Maple and Sheyenne rivers d. Required diversion profile information along the centerline of the diversion e. Typical cross‐sections for the low‐flow channel and main section of the diversion channel for the four reaches referred to above (i.e., 1) Mouth to Lower Rush, 2) Lower Rush to Drain 14, 3) Drain 14 to Drain 21C, and 4) Drain 21C to Diversion Inlet) f. Current, and if available, also historical general slope and sinuosity information for streams near the proposed diversion, including the Rush, Lower Rush, Maple and Sheyenne rivers g. Current, and if available, also historical digitized information (GIS format) on planform alignments for streams near the proposed diversion, including the Rush, Lower Rush, Maple and Sheyenne rivers h. Stage (water depth)‐discharge, flow velocity‐discharge, discharge‐ duration and discharge‐frequency information for the four reaches referred to above (i.e., 1) Mouth to Lower Rush, 2) Lower Rush to Drain 14, 3) Drain 14 to Drain 21C, and 4) Drain 21C to Diversion Inlet) i. Typical flood hydrographs for the four reaches referred to above (i.e., 1) Mouth to Lower Rush, 2) Lower Rush to Drain 14, 3) Drain 14 to Drain 21C, and 4) Drain 21C to Diversion Inlet) j. Compilation of frequency and duration of operation, typical cross sections, slopes, erosion protection measures, and sedimentation records for the two existing diversions on the Sheyenne River (Horace to West Fargo, and West Fargo) Deliverables: 1. Prepare a first Draft Technical Memorandum to include:  Outline approach for meander belt width analysis  Brief literature review on constructed meandering channels  Preliminary summary of data available  Initial thoughts on feasibility of meander belt width concept 2. Prepare a second Draft Technical Memorandum to include:  Description of approach for meander belt width analysis  Processing of data for input in meander belt width analysis  Meander belt width analysis  Stabilization alternatives, including grade‐control measures, non‐structural measures (e.g., vegetation), widening of main diversion channel in certain reaches, among other considerations, to ensure low‐flow channel migration occurs within prescribed meander belt width  Determination of need for rock toe protection along the entire length of the inner diversion toe to prevent erosion  Suggestions for future field investigations  Recommended design criteria for Final Design 3. Consult with Professor Gary Parker (University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign) during development of the meander belt width analysis and recommendations. DR A F T