Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
Design Documentation Report
Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management Project
Diversion Inlet Structure
Engineering and Design Phase
Doc Version: BCOE SIGNOFF P2# 370365 16 May 2016
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
This page is intentionally left blank
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx Page ii Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
Design Documentation Report Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Project Location ...... 1 1.2 Project Description ...... 1 1.3 Project Purpose ...... 1 1.4 Project Authorization ...... 1 1.5 Reference Documents ...... 2 2 PROJECT FEATURES ...... 2 2.1 Overview of the Overall Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan (FMM) Project ...... 2 2.2 Description of Diversion Inlet Structure ...... 6 2.2.1 Diversion Inlet Structure ...... 8 2.2.2 Connecting Channel and Diversion Channel ...... 8 2.2.3 Excavated Material Berm (EMB), Levee and Dam ...... 8 2.2.4 Preload ...... 8 2.2.5 Pile Load Test ...... 9 2.2.6 Transportation System Modifications ...... 9 2.2.7 Environmental Considerations ...... 11 3 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ...... 11 3.1 Value Engineering Study ...... 11
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx Page iii Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
3.1.1 Proposal P88 – Incorporate bridge over inlet ...... 11 3.1.2 Proposal P89 – Optimize gate bay widths ...... 11 3.1.3 Comment C1 – Construct portions of the spoil piles as levees ...... 12 3.1.4 Comment C31 – Re-grade channel to steepen ...... 12 3.1.5 Comment C44 – Involve contractors in project considerations ...... 12 3.1.6 Comment C47 – Minimize access to the diversion ...... 12 3.1.7 Comment C50 – Start construction on the upstream end ...... 12 3.1.8 Comment C51 – Ground improvement / alternatives to pilings ...... 12 3.1.9 Comment C67 – Consider direct seeding ...... 13 3.1.10 Comment C75 – Move roads, avoid splitting land ...... 13 3.1.11 Comment C87 – Update PMF and SPF analysis ...... 13 3.2 Large Structures Report ...... 13 3.3 Value Based Design Charrette ...... 13
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx Page iv Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
3.3.1 Abutments...... 14 3.3.2 Bulkheads ...... 15 3.3.3 Bridge/Structure Combinations ...... 15 3.3.4 Ice/Debris Removal ...... 15 3.3.5 Service Bridge ...... 15 3.3.6 Stilling Basin ...... 15 3.3.7 Tainter Gate Seals ...... 16 3.3.8 Uplift ...... 16 3.3.9 Control Building ...... 16 3.3.10 Backup Power ...... 17 3.3.11 Capability to Melt Ice ...... 17 3.3.12 Site Access ...... 17 3.3.13 Preload ...... 17 3.3.14 Temporary Site Configuration ...... 17 3.3.15 Safety, Lighting, and Security ...... 17 3.3.16 Aesthetics ...... 18 3.3.17 Historic Properties ...... 18 3.3.18 Interim Flood Fight Plan ...... 18 3.3.19 Post Charrette Site Layout ...... 19 4 PERTINENT TECHNICAL AND DESIGN DATA ...... 19 4.1 Design Flood ...... 19 4.2 Design Flows ...... 19 4.3 Controlling Elevations ...... 19 4.4 Previously Obtained Data ...... 20 4.4.1 Existing Condition Data ...... 20 4.4.2 Cadastral Data ...... 20 4.4.3 Utility Information ...... 20 5 POTENTIAL FUTURE RELATED WORK AND CONTRACTS ...... 21 5.1 Remote Operation (SCADA System) ...... 21
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx Page v Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
5.1.1 Remote Control ...... 21 5.2 Future Public Restroom ...... 21 6 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS ...... 21 6.1 Introduction ...... 21 6.1.1 Gated Structure ...... 22 6.1.2 Spillway Design...... 22 6.1.3 Stilling Basin Design ...... 22 6.1.4 Approach Apron ...... 23 6.1.5 Connecting Channel (Upstream of Diversion Inlet Structure) ...... 24 6.1.6 Diversion Channel (Downstream of Stilling Basin) ...... 24 6.1.7 Local Drainage Features ...... 24 7 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING...... 25 7.1 General ...... 25 7.2 Technical Guidelines and References ...... 25 7.3 Geotechnical Design Features/Analysis ...... 25 7.3.1 Diversion Inlet Structure ...... 25 7.3.2 Preload Embankment and Wick Drain Design ...... 25 7.3.3 Dam walls (T-Walls) ...... 26 7.3.4 Dam ...... 26 7.3.5 Levee ...... 26 7.3.6 Excavated Material Berm (EMB) ...... 27 7.3.7 Diversion and Connecting Channel ...... 27 7.4 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment ...... 27 8 CIVIL-SITE ENGINEERING ...... 28 8.1 General ...... 28 8.2 Technical Guidelines and References ...... 28 8.3 Programs and Standards for Design and Drawings ...... 28
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx Page vi Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
8.3.1 Geometric Design – Channel and Excavated Material Berms...... 28 8.3.2 Vegetation Free Zone & Vegetation Management Zone ...... 28 8.3.3 Utility Relocations ...... 28 8.4 Engineering Drawings for Civil Features and Site Work ...... 29 9 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ...... 29 9.1 General ...... 29 10 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING ...... 30 10.1 General ...... 30 10.1.1 Tainter Gate Operating Machinery ...... 30 10.1.2 Control Building Mechanical ...... 30 11 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING ...... 31 11.1 General ...... 31 12 ARCHITECTURAL ...... 32 12.1 General ...... 32 12.1.1 Aesthetics Plan ...... 32 12.1.2 Control Building Layout and Features ...... 32 13 LANDSCAPE AND RECREATION ...... 33 13.1 General ...... 33 13.2 Proposed Recreation Features ...... 33 13.3 Landscape ...... 34 14 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS...... 34 14.1 Introduction ...... 34 14.2 Planting Guidelines ...... 34 14.3 Cultural Resources ...... 35 14.4 NEPA Compliance ...... 36 14.5 References ...... 36 15 CONSTRUCTABILITY...... 36 15.1 Project Location ...... 36 15.2 Connecting Channel and Diversion Channel Excavation...... 37 15.3 Structural Excavation ...... 37
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx Page vii Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
15.4 H-Pile Foundation – Inlet Structure and Dam Walls ...... 37 15.5 Sheet Pile ...... 37 15.6 Deep Soil Mixing ...... 37 15.7 Pile Load Test ...... 38 15.8 Diversion Inlet Structure ...... 38 15.9 Dam Walls ...... 38 15.10 Control Building ...... 38 16 FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS ...... 39 16.1 Responsibilities Associated With A Dam ...... 39 16.2 Flood Diversion Authority Responsibilities ...... 39 16.3 USACE Responsibilities ...... 39 16.4 Interpretation of Dam/Levee Safety Criteria ...... 40 17 PROJECT DELIVERY TEAM...... 40 17.1 Project Delivery Team ...... 40 17.2 Technical Leads and Functional POCs ...... 42 17.3 District Quality Control (DQC) Team ...... 43 17.4 Agency Technical Review (ATR) Team ...... 44 17.5 Sponsor Representatives ...... 45 17.6 State Agency Representatives ...... 45 18 REVIEW DOCUMENTATION ...... 45 LIST OF COMMON ACRONYMS ...... 46
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx Page viii Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Figure Title Page 1 Diversion Alignment and Features...... 5 2 Location Map – Diversion Inlet Structure ...... 7 3 Non-Federal Sponsor Transportation Plan ...... 10
LIST OF TABLES Table No. Table Title Page 1 Controlling Elevations ...... 20 2 Project Delivery Team ...... 40 3 Technical Leads and Functional POC’s ...... 42 4 District Quality Control Team ...... 43 5 Agency Technical Review Team………………………………………… ...... ………………………………….44 6 Sponsor Representatives…………………………………………………… ...... …………………………………44 7 State Agency Representatives……………………………………………...... ……………………………………45 8 List of Common Acronyms……………………………………………………………………………………………46
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Geospatial Information (Not Used) Appendix B CAD Requirements (Not Used) Appendix C Hydrology and Hydraulics Appendix D Geotechnical Engineering and Geology Appendix E Civil-Site Appendix F Structural Appendix G Mechanical Appendix H Electrical Appendix I Architectural Appendix J Landscape and Recreation (Not Used) Appendix K Environmental Appendix L Quality Control Documentation
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx Page ix Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
Appendix M MFRs and Guidance Memos Appendix N Engineering Considerations (Not Included In This Submittal) Appendix 0 Quantities (Not Included In This Submittal)
ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Drawings
Attachment 2 Specifications
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx Page x Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
Design Documentation Report
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Location The cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are located near the confluence of the Red River of the North and the Sheyenne River. The Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area is located within an area from approximately 12 miles west to 5 miles east of the Red River of the North and from 20 miles north to 20 miles south of Interstate Highway 94. The metropolitan area is approximately 600 square miles, encompassing several smaller communities and has a population of approximately 200,000 people.
1.2 Project Description Because of the relatively flat terrain, the majority of the Fargo-Moorhead Metro area is located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the National Weather Service flood stage of 18 feet in 51 of the past 113 years (1902 through 2014), and recently every year from 1993 through 2014, excluding 2012. During flood events, the Fargo-Moorhead Metro area relies on a number of emergency measures, including a series of emergency levees, to provide flood protection. Some permanent levees also exist within the metro area.
1.3 Project Purpose The purpose of the project is to reduce flood risk for the Fargo-Moorhead Metro Area. Flooding in Fargo-Moorhead typically occurs in late March and early April. The flood of record at Fargo- Moorhead was the 2009 spring flood with a stage of 40.8 feet on the Fargo gage. With an estimated peak flow of 29,200 cubic feet per second (CFS), the 2009 flood was approximately a 2-percent annual chance (50-year) event. Although emergency measures have been very successful, they may also contribute to an unwarranted sense of security that does not reflect the true flood risk in the area.
1.4 Project Authorization The Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area is part of the Red River of the North Basin. The Red River Reconnaissance Study was authorized by a September 30, 1974, Resolution of the Senate Committee on Public Works: RESOLVED BY THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, That the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors be, and is hereby, requested to review reports on the Red River of the North Drainage Basin, Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota, submitted in House Document Numbered 185, 81st Congress, 1st Session, and prior reports, with a view to determining if the recommendations contained therein should be modified at this time, with particular reference to flood control, water supply, waste water management and allied purposes.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 1 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
The Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area was included in the Red River Basin Reconnaissance Study approved on September 19, 2002, but the level of detail in that report was insufficient to recommend a feasibility study specifically for measures in Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota. A supplemental Reconnaissance Study for Fargo-Moorhead was approved by the Mississippi Valley Division on April 08, 2008. Based on the recommendations contained in the Reconnaissance Report, the city of Fargo, the city of Moorhead and the federal government entered into a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement on September 22, 2008. The study was cost shared 50/50 between the two non-federal sponsors and the Federal Government. The Corps of Engineers issued a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement in the Federal Register on May 5, 2009. The Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in the Federal Register for a 45 day public review period on June 11, 2010. The review period closed on August 9, 2010 after being extended by 14 days. In response to comments and to more fully study upstream and downstream impacts, USACE made the decision to prepare a Supplemental DEIS. The notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental DEIS was published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2010. The Final Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement were published in July 2011. The Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-72), as amended, requires an agency to fully consider recreational features that may be associated with Federal flood risk management projects.
1.5 Reference Documents
Final Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement, Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management, January 5, 2012 Value Based Design Charrette, Fargo-Moorhead Metro Inlet Structure, November 2014, Rev 6 Feb 15 Value Engineering Study, Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management Project, Outlet & Diversion Reach 1, Cass County, ND, October 2011 Control Structures on the Southern Embankment, Fargo-Moorhead Project, December 2014 Project Component Summaries, Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area, January 2012 Project Design Guidelines for the overall FMM Project and Reach-Specific Design Guidelines, February 2012
2 PROJECT FEATURES
2.1 Overview of the Overall Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan (FMM) Project The Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Flood Risk Management project consists of an approximately 30 mile-long diversion channel, a 6 mile-long connecting channel that diverts water from the Red and Wild Rice Rivers to the diversion channel, an upstream staging area, three control structures on the Wild Rice River, the Red River, and at the diversion channel inlet, an embankment connecting the three structures, and a limited service spillway. The project also includes a number of associated structures, non-
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 2 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
structural features, recreation features and environmental mitigation. Approximately 20,000 cfs and 25,000 cfs is diverted into the diversion channel from the upstream staging area during the 1% and 0.2% chance flood events, respectively. Additional inflows from the Sheyenne River, Drain 21C, Drain 14, Maple River, Rush River, Lower Rush River and other smaller drains may result in higher discharges at the downstream end of the diversion channel. Figure 1 shows the major features of the project. The connecting channel starts at the Red River approximately three miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers and extends west, crossing the Wild Rice River, to the Diversion Inlet Structure, which is located just south of Horace. From the inlet, the diversion channel extends around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood before re-entering the Red River north of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers near the city of Georgetown, MN. The 36 mile path of the connecting channel and diversion channel will cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush and Rush rivers. Two control structures, one on the Red River and the other on the Wild Rice River, will regulate the amount of flow passing out of the staging area into the flood risk management area during larger flood events. Flow into the diversion channel from the staging area will be controlled by the Diversion Inlet Structure located just northeast of the current intersection of Cass County Highway 17 and 16 south of Horace, ND. The diversion channel outlet structure, located where the diversion returns to the Red River of the North, will be a rock spillway with a low flow channel to accommodate fish passage. The main line of flood risk reduction includes the three control structures, the tieback embankment that extends approximately 12 miles from high ground in Minnesota to connect the three control structures, and the limited service spillway. The control structures, tieback embankment, and limited service spillway will impound water and will therefore be designed to meet USACE dam safety criteria. Collectively, the control structures, tieback embankment, and limited service spillway will be referred to as the dam. In order to eliminate downstream impacts, an additional 150,000 acre-feet of water beyond what is naturally stored in the floodplain for events on the order of a 100-year flood will be staged immediately upstream of the dam. The limited service spillway will extend approximately 4 miles from the diversion inlet structure south along the east side of Cass County Road 17 to high ground. This spillway will provide an outlet for the staging area in the remote event that failure of one or more of the control structures results in the pool rising above the minimum allowable freeboard of the dam and threatening the integrity of the tieback embankments. The limited service spillway crest elevation is 925.0 feet. At the Sheyenne and Maple Rivers, aqueduct structures will allow base flows to follow the natural river channels to maintain habitat in the natural channels. Flows in excess of the channel forming discharge will be diverted into the diversion channel via a spillway. The Lower Rush River and Rush River inlet structures into the diversion will be drop structures that will direct the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. A wide variety of mitigation features are required to offset the impacts associated with construction and operation of the project. Measures required for aquatic habitat and connectivity mitigation include stream restoration, riparian corridor restoration, and fish passage provision. Fish passage will be provided at the diversion outlet, Rush River inlet, Maple River aqueduct, Sheyenne River aqueduct, and several existing dams. Floodplain forest mitigation will be provided by re-establishing floodplain forest
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 3 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
on 262 acres of floodplain agricultural land or pastured land. Wetland mitigation will be provided in the diversion channel by planting the bottom and fringe of the side slopes with native wetland species. The meandering low-flow channel will also facilitate the development of wetland habitat in the diversion channel. In accordance with the cultural resources programmatic agreement, construction in select reaches of the project will need to be monitored by a qualified professional archeologist. Areas requiring construction excavation monitoring include river floodplains, terraces, and oxbows, which are locations with high potential to contain buried archaeological sites.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 4 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
Figure 1: Diversion Alignment and Features
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 5 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
2.2 Description of Diversion Inlet Structure The main function of the Diversion Inlet Structure is to control the timing of flow releases from the staging area into the diversion channel. This control is necessary to prevent flow from the staging area from combining with tributary flows (mainly from the Sheyenne and Maple Rivers) and causing water surface elevation increases on the Red River of the North downstream of the diversion channel outlet. The Diversion Inlet Structure is a gated control structure that will regulate the amount of water entering the diversion channel from the staging area. The structure includes three 50-foot wide tainter gates with 10-foot wide concrete piers between them. The tie-ins will be of a T-Wall type design that is pile founded with pier caps supporting the deck of the service bridge. There will be a stilling basin downstream of the structure to contain the hydraulic jump and dissipate energy. The side walls of the stilling basin will retain soil. The maximum height of soil retained will be 12 feet at the bottom of the spillway. There will be a 38 foot long (measured from the nose of the piers) concrete approach apron on the upstream side of the structure. The project includes approximately 1,050 feet of diversion and connecting channel. The diversion channel portion will be flanked on the right (northeast) bank by the large volume of material that will be excavated to create the diversion channel, which is referred to as an excavated material berm (EMB). An embedded levee is located within the right bank EMB. As shown in Figure 2, the Diversion Inlet Structure will be located at the west end of the dam (southern embankment Sta 1587+00) just northeast of the intersection of County Road 17 and County Road 16. These two county roads will be re-routed according to the transportation plan developed by the local sponsor. The realigned highways and associated County Road 16/17 bridge over the diversion channel are outside the footprint of this project. However, the diversion channel cross section at the downstream end of this project will be required to match the diversion channel cross section at the upstream end of the CR 16/17 Bridge Channel plan set.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 6 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
Figure 2: Location Map – Diversion Inlet Structure
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 7 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
2.2.1 Diversion Inlet Structure The Diversion Inlet Structure is a gated structure. The structure will include three 50-foot wide tainter gates, a parabolic spillway, stilling basin, abutment walls, dam walls to tie the structure to the dam embankments, a vehicle service bridge across the top of the dam walls and across the structure, and a mechanical platform. The Diversion Inlet Structure foundation will be the bottom of the channel through the Diversion Inlet Structure and will support the other structural elements. The foundation will be separated into numerous independent footings which are shown and described in the Structural Appendix, Figure F-6.
2.2.2 Connecting Channel and Diversion Channel The connecting channel upstream of the Diversion Inlet Structure has a 300 foot bottom width and 1V:7H side slopes up to existing ground. The connecting channel narrows from the 300 foot bottom width to a 170 foot bottom width over a distance of 130 feet as the channel transitions into the Diversion Inlet Structure. The diversion channel downstream of the stilling basin and structure also has a 300 foot bottom width and 1V:7H side slopes up to existing ground. The diversion channel transitions from the width of the stilling basin (170 feet) to the full width of the channel (300 feet) at a 3.5:1 expansion ratio.
2.2.3 Excavated Material Berm (EMB), Levee and Dam The large volume of material that will be excavated to create the diversion channel downstream of the Diversion Inlet Structure will be placed in EMBs along the right and left banks of the diversion channel. The right bank EMB will be set back from the top of the diversion channel by 95 feet and will have an embedded levee. The left bank EMB will not be constructed as part of the Diversion Inlet Structure Contract, except that a portion of the back (southern) side of the left bank EMB will be constructed as the needed to accommodate the material excavated from the diversion channel. Material excavated to create the connecting channel will be used to construct the dam, which will be located along the right side of the connecting channel. The dam will be set back from the top of the connecting channel by 50 feet. In order to meet levee and dam safety requirements, respectively, the embedded levee and the dam will be required to meet more stringent construction requirements than the EMBs.
2.2.4 Preload A soil improvement program consisting of preloading and vertical wick drains will be the first stage of the Diversion Inlet Structure project. It will be included in the Diversion Inlet Structure contract, rather than using a separate contract for the preload, to allow other work to take place on site while the preloading is taking place. The preload is needed to minimize settlement at the transitions from the dam walls to the dam embankments. At the transition from T-wall to embankment, the weight of the embankment fill will induce settlement of the soils adjacent to and under the base of the T-wall. Settlement is unwanted at this transition zone as it would induce an additional down-drag force on the piles, termed drag load. The drag load was considered undesirable and difficult to accommodate in the design. Therefore preload with wick drains was selected to mitigate the settlement impacts at the T- wall/embankment transitions. In addition, the northern preload embankment will be enlarged to encompass the control building footprint. This will minimize the effects of settlement on the controls
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 8 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
and utilities, including conductors running between the control structure and the building and minimize differential settlement in the area of the control building. Vertical piles are being used for the foundation for the dam wall monoliths that tie into the dam embankments (referred to on the plans as section #4 and section #5 of the right and left dam walls). This was done so that any settlement resulting from the embankment loading will not induce bending moments on the piles, as it would if the piles were battered. The borrow material for the preload will be obtained from the area where the diversion inlet structure will eventually be constructed. In addition to serving as a source of borrow, removal of this material will begin the rebound process in the area of the structure. The amount of excavation that can take place in the area of the structure is somewhat limited due to stability concerns resulting from the proximity of the preload embankments.
2.2.5 Pile Load Test Pile load tests will be conducted in the bottom of the diversion channel downstream of the stilling basin. The pile load tests will consist of static and dynamic testing on HP 14x73 test piles, with two compression tests (one with a 24 hour hold load) and two tension tests (one with a 24 hour hold).
2.2.6 Transportation System Modifications The alignment of the channel will result in modifications to the local transportation system. County Roads 17 and 16 will be realigned, and a single bridge will be constructed to carry traffic across the diversion channel approximately 900 feet downstream of the Diversion Inlet Structure. The bridge and road realignment will be designed and constructed by the non-federal sponsor. The EMBs adjacent to the diversion channel will be tied into the bridge approaches. The transportation system modifications will result in changes to the local drainage system. The roadway ditch flows are expected to be routed to the drainage ditches designed by the non-federal sponsor as part of the local transportation plan, see Figure 3. The current schedule for the CR 16/17 bridge contract shows construction beginning in the summer of 2017. The schedule for the Diversion Inlet Structure project currently shows advertisement in June 2016, and Contract Award in September 2016. The traffic detour for the closure of CR17 is in the contract for the CR 16/17 bridge. Due to the timing of the two construction schedules and the likelihood that the Diversion Inlet Structure Contractor will not be able to complete a significant amount of work prior to winter freeze-up, the contract for the Diversion Inlet structure includes language that restricts the Diversion Inlet Structure contractor from doing any work that requires closing CR 17 until spring of 2017. This will allow the CR 16/17 Bridge Contractor time to get the CR 17 detour in place prior to CR 17 being closed for excavation of the diversion channel. CR 17 is a major thoroughfare between Horace and Kindred and many children from Horace attend school in Kindred so there is support for leaving the road open during the winter if possible.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 9 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
Figure 3: Non-Federal Sponsor Transportation Plan
Key for Figure 3 above
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 10 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
Key Description Key Description A Cass County Road 10 Diversion Crossing G Cass County Road 81 Diversion Crossing B 38th Street West Diversion Crossing H US Highway 75 Grade Raise C Cass County Road 8 Diversion Crossing I Clay County State Aid Highway 7 Grade D Cass County Road 6 Diversion Crossing J ClayRaise County Highway 61 Grade Raise E Cass County Road 14 Diversion Crossing K, L, M Accessibility Improvements F Combined Cass County Road 16/17 N, O, P, Q Roadway Driving Surface Improvements Diversion Crossing 2.2.7 Environmental Considerations Environmental considerations that will be incorporated into the design of the Diversion Inlet Structure include a planting plan with native wetland species in the channel bottom and fringe of the side slopes. A phase 1 cultural investigation was completed and it was determined that monitoring for cultural resources during construction was not necessary for the Diversion Inlet Structure. Separable mitigation will be required to mitigate for 5 acres of wetlands that will be impacted when the structure is constructed.
3 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
3.1 Value Engineering Study A value engineering study was conducted the week of 3-7 October 2011 for the overall Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan (FMM) Area Flood Risk Management Project. Only a few of the proposals pertain to the Diversion Inlet, and some of those no longer apply due to refinement of the project and other studies. The accepted proposals from the VE Study that pertain to the Diversion Inlet Project have been reviewed and incorporated into the project scope and design where they are still pertinent. The following paragraphs describe the status of each of the accepted proposals and comments from the VE Study that pertain to the Diversion Inlet Structure:
3.1.1 Proposal P88 – Incorporate bridge over inlet Status: This proposal was ruled out during the Diversion Inlet Structure Value Based Design Charrette. Concerns regarding site security and effects of deicing chemicals and sand from snow plowing on the control structure were the determining factors.
3.1.2 Proposal P89 – Optimize gate bay widths Status: A minimum gate bay width necessary to pass the required flows for the 1% and 0.2% events was determined to be 45 feet as stated in the large structures report. The width of the gates has since increased to 50 feet to meet the goal of not exceeding the target maximum staging elevation for an event with a peak inflow of between 90,000 cfs and 100,000 cfs with a 15-day volume of approximately 2,000,000 acre-feet.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 11 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
3.1.3 Comment C1 – Construct portions of the spoil piles as levees Status: This is the current practice for the EMBs along the diversion channel. An embedded levee will be constructed within the right bank EMB downstream of the Diversion Inlet Structure.
3.1.4 Comment C31 – Re-grade channel to steepen Status: The channel bottom elevation is set at the diversion inlet location to allow the required flows to pass into the diversion channel while maintaining a staging area WSEL of 922.5’ and keeping the water surface within the diversion below the natural ground level. Any adjustments to the channel grade would occur downstream of the diversion inlet.
3.1.5 Comment C44 – Involve contractors in project considerations Status: This was done through the Industry Days event held on 27 June 2012 in Fargo, ND. Until we have construction funding and an acquisition plan, we cannot involve contractors in individual reaches.
3.1.6 Comment C47 – Minimize access to the diversion Status: Site security has been evaluated and discussed several times during design. This has been a joint effort by the USACE PDT and the non-Federal sponsors. In December 2015 the St. Paul District’s Physical Security Officer was engaged to help determine an appropriate level of security for the structure and grounds. It was determined that the access controls for the control structure shown on the drawings, consisting of fencing and gates to restrict access to the service bridge, was appropriate. Fencing and gates at each end of the flood walls/bridges will restrict vehicle access to the structure. Due to the nature of the site and operating requirements for the control structure and diversion channel, access to the diversion and connecting channel cannot be restricted beyond the fencing and gates included in the design.
3.1.7 Comment C50 – Start construction on the upstream end Status: Timing of construction starts for individual reaches is dependent upon construction funding. The FMM management team is managing the timing of construction starts to the extent that funding will allow. Also, during the NEPA process we described project construction as beginning at the downstream end. Starting construction at the upstream end, would require further NEPA coordination.
3.1.8 Comment C51 – Ground improvement / alternatives to pilings Status: The inlet structure is founded on the very plastic Brenna clay foundation. These clays have very high liquid limits and low drained residual shear strengths providing uncertain foundation support. In addition, the foundation clays are expected to rebound under the structure from removal of the overburden to form the channel. Rebound of the channel is expected to be a foot or more over the life of the project. Ground improvement could be used to stabilize the soils but extensive reworking of soils to depth of 35 to 45 feet would be required, and the structure would require the mass of a gravity structure to resist lateral loads and uplift. The final plan is a combination of piles and soil improvement. Steel H-piles driven into the glacial till layer under the plastic clays are used under the entire structure to ensure that different movements are limited over the life of the project and to withstand lateral loads and uplift on the structure during flood events. The piles will support the weight of the structure after
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 12 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
initial construction and act as anchors to resist rebound to limit the amount of deflection that occurs. Because the piles were required to provide tension capacity to resist lateral loads, uplift, and rebound, steel piles were chosen. H-piles were used because they can be driven farther into the glacial till layer before reaching refusal than pipe piles, and therefore provide greater tension capacity. Even with piles, the stilling basin was predicted to move upward approximately six inches from rebound of the foundation soils. Therefore, deep soil mix panel are used in the stilling basin to reduce the amount of expected uplift to less than 2 inches. Piles alone are sufficient for the control structure and approach slab that are higher and have less overburden removed. The tension capacity of the H-piles and the weight of the control structure monoliths are expected to completely overcome any rebound forces that may occur in that portion of the structure, while the approach slab is expected to rebound less than two inches with the piles in place.
3.1.9 Comment C67 – Consider direct seeding Status: Due to the abundance of topsoil being removed during excavation of the diversion channel and connecting channel, the savings are overstated in the VE study if existent at all, and direct seeding would result in poor seed germination and increased maintenance costs for the project. The planting in the channel is part of the mitigation for wetland impacts caused by the FMM project and several of the species proposed cannot be direct seeded. This comment from the VE study will not be incorporated.
3.1.10 Comment C75 – Move roads, avoid splitting land Status: The roads in the area of the Diversion Inlet Structure are County Road 16 and County Road 17. They are being realigned in accordance with the non-Federal sponsor’s transportation plan. Road realignments and bridge construction are being designed and constructed by the non-Federal sponsors and their consultants.
3.1.11 Comment C87 – Update PMF and SPF analysis Status: The PMF and SPF have been updated (May 2015).
3.2 Large Structures Report The report Control Structures on the Southern Embankment, Fargo Moorhead Project, 12/4/2014, commonly referred to as the Large Structures Report, was developed to document decisions made with regard to the basic design and configuration of the three large structures along the dam (southern embankment). The intent of this report was to document the considerations that went into deciding which types of gates to use, the equipment that is expected to be included in these control structures, and the applicable design manuals and reference documents to be considered during the design process. The design of the Diversion Inlet Structure is based on the findings in this report.
3.3 Value Based Design Charrette A value based design charrette took place shortly after completion of a draft design and site layout. Following the design charrette, a report titled Value Based Design Charrette, Fargo-Moorhead Metro Inlet, November 2014, Rev 6 Feb 15, was produced to document the discussion topics and decisions made during the design charrette. A copy of the report is attached to Appendix M.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 13 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
The goals of the design charrette were to: (1) help the designers and local sponsor representatives gain a better understanding of the project features and design considerations; (2) develop a function analysis system technique (FAST) diagram to help the study team define what was required to make the project successful; (3) identify potential modifications to the project that would add value and incorporate these changes into the project; and (4) identify tasks that needed to be accomplished, and any assumptions, risks, or constraints associated with the design. The topics that were discussed and decisions that were made during the design charrette have been documented in the report and incorporated into the current design. Following the design charrette, a revised draft layout of the site was developed and included in the report to document some of the layout changes discussed during the charrette. The following paragraphs describe design development for the major discussion topics from the design charrette:
3.3.1 Abutments Three potential alternatives were discussed. T-walls similar to the gated structures in the Feasibility Study Conventional Structure with embankment between the dam embankments and the structure. Hybrid T-walls and wing walls. Natural ground would tie into the structure and T-walls would be used to transition from the structure to the dam embankments above natural ground. The discussions during the design charrette resulted in a list of future design tasks, including investigating requirements for earth retaining abutments, compiling design load cases, designing the abutments, and designing the access bridges. During the initial development of the design, as documented in the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER), both dam walls (hybrid T-walls and wing walls alternative as described in the design charrette report) and earthen embankments were considered for the transition from the inlet structure to the dam embankments. While it was initially thought that the embankment alternative would cost less from both an initial cost and a life cycle cost standpoint, it has since been determined that the retaining walls associated with the embankment alternative would be quite extensive. The embankment alternative would result in twin retaining walls that are approximately 40 feet tall and approximately 550 feet long. In addition, the wall and structure foundation requirements (piles and footings) for the embankment alternative would be much more substantial than the foundation requirements for the dam wall alternative. There are also the preliminary unknowns of the retaining wall global stability forces creating uplift on the control structure foundation. The two alternatives end up being similar with respect to the square footage of walls for each option; however the additional foundation requirements together with the additional wall thickness for the retaining walls for the embankment alternative would be substantial, offsetting the cost of the bridge for the hybrid T-walls and wing walls alternative. The result of the investigations was to pursue the Hybrid T-walls and wing walls alternative with the footing for the T-walls at approximately the existing ground elevation. This results in the structure abutments retaining the existing ground to a depth of approximately 12 feet in the area of the stilling basin.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 14 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
The decision to pursue the hybrid T-walls/wing walls alternative was made for the following reasons: (1) The two alternatives are expected to be similar in cost from a rough order of magnitude standpoint; (2) The modeling required to determine what the loads on the retaining walls and structure would be for the embankment alternative would take additional time and would extend the design schedule; (3) There are more unknowns with the embankment alternative resulting in higher cost and schedule risk.
3.3.2 Bulkheads A decision was made to not include bulkheads and bulkhead slots because gate and structure maintenance can be done during times when there is relatively little risk of flooding. Additional reasons for excluding bulkheads from the design are described in the design charrette report. The control structure is designed with no bulkhead slots, and the service bridge is designed using loading cases that do not include placing a crane on the bridge to set and remove bulkheads.
3.3.3 Bridge/Structure Combinations During the design charrette, the team discussed whether to route the county highway over the diversion inlet structure or to design the county highway bridge as a stand-alone bridge. A decision was made during the out-briefing following the design charrette not to combine the two structures. The bridge to carry County Road 16 and County Road 17 over the diversion is being designed as a separate structure by the Sponsor’s design team.
3.3.4 Ice/Debris Removal Due to the location of the structure (three miles west of the Wild Rice River and six miles west of the Red River), the prevailing Jetstream in this area being from the Northwest, and short duration of the staging area flooding, it is unlikely that significant ice or debris will accumulate at the inlet structure during a flood. Also, the gates will be wider than the minimum width of 40 feet recommended for ice/debris passage by the USACE Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory during the Feasibility Study, making blockage when passing flows unlikely. Also, the structure and staging area are normally dry allowing access for debris removal after the relatively short flood events. Based on the gate widths and the location of the structure, no additional debris or ice removal strategy is considered necessary.
3.3.5 Service Bridge Discussions regarding the loading and width requirements for the service bridge resulted in a decision to design the bridge for a HL-93 loading. The bridge will not be designed for any type of crane loading. It was later determined that the service bridge would have a clear width of 20’-0” to allow two pickup trucks to pass each other on the bridge.
3.3.6 Stilling Basin During the design charrette the basic design assumptions to be used for the stilling basin were discussed. The discussions were related to allowing the stilling basin to drain after rain storms so that ponding water does not inhibit inspection and maintenance or lead to deterioration of joints. The discussion resulted in the decision to design the stilling basin to slope toward the diversion channel and
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 15 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
to include a drain pipe through the end sill to allow the stilling basin to drain completely between flood and precipitation events.
3.3.7 Tainter Gate Seals The team discussed the pros and cons of including side seals and bottom seals on the tainter gates. It was determined that J-type side seals are required to reduce leakage around the sides of the gates and that the bottom seal is optional and may prevent the metal to metal bonding that could result from the gate being closed for long periods of time if a bottom seal is not used. The gates are designed with J-type side seals. The bottom of each tainter gate also includes a rubber seal.
3.3.8 Uplift During the design charrette the purpose of sheet pile under the tainter gate sill plate was discussed along with the risks of the soil beneath the structure not being permeable enough to prevent the piling under the structure from having to carry the weight of the water on top of the foundation. The list of design tasks developed during those discussions has since been evaluated and resolved as part of the foundation design for the structure.
3.3.9 Control Building The function and basic features of the control building were discussed. It was decided at that time that, at a minimum, the building would house the gate motor control centers, the electrical service panel, a step-down transformer for lighting and receptacles, the Programmable Logic Control (PLC) for gate control, and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) equipment. The building would include the minimum heat necessary for the electrical equipment and ventilation. For security reasons, the building would be fenced in and constructed of reinforced concrete. Following the design charrette, the PDT consulted with the sponsors on a number of items related to the design and function of the control building. Through these consultations it was determined that the building would include a work area with a desk and shelving for manuals and reports, a meeting and break area for operating staff responsible for operating the three control structures, a rest room, air conditioning necessary to cool the electrical equipment, and a hose bib near the door to clean off muddy boots. Another decision made after the design charrette was that it would be better to have a separate contractor for the SCADA equipment after all 3 control structures (Diversion Inlet, Wild Ricer River, and Red River) are constructed so that the SCADA equipment will all be from one manufacturer. The Sponsors expressed a desire to make the building a designed building (as opposed to a prefabricated building) with architectural features similar to and/or consistent with the Inlet Control Structure (see section 12 ARCHITECTRUAL). They also decided to investigate whether there were additional project functions that the control building should serve. The Sponsor’s Project Management Consultant was tasked with evaluating this. The results of their study concluded that the control building would include a meeting space that would double as a break/eating area, a counter top with a sink, refrigerator, and a restroom. There will be a desk for the operator and shelving to accommodate manuals and other reference material.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 16 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
3.3.10 Backup Power During the design charrette the team discussed options for providing backup power, including housing a small generator in the control building, setting a generator on a slab outside the building, or providing a connection for a portable generator. Following the design charrette, the Sponsors decided they would prefer a connection on the building for a portable generator that will be rented if the need arises. This will eliminate the need for testing and maintaining the fuel supply for a permanent generator.
3.3.11 Capability to Melt Ice Electric heaters are included for deicing the side seals and allow operation during cold weather. Because of the short duration of flood events, varying pool elevation during flood events, and freezing temperatures not being persistent during floods, skin plate heaters were not considered necessary.
3.3.12 Site Access The team discussed access at the site for both normal operations and emergency operations. It was determined that a bridge that is integral to the structure would be located upstream of the tainter gates and that bridge would be accessed from both dam embankments. Access to the southeast and southwest abutments would be provided by County Road 16 and portions of the remaining road core from County Road 17. If crane access is needed to remove debris or perform other tasks, the crane(s) will access the site in the dry following the abutment access routes provided. The possibility of providing additional fill to provide a flat and stable working surface for the crane was also discussed during the charrette. This fill would be placed at the time the crane was mobilized and would be removed after the work is complete. Boat access was discussed and a determination was made that boat ramps would not be necessary at this site beyond that afforded by the abutment access routes.
3.3.13 Preload During the design charrette the team discussed construction of a preload embankment over the abutment and embankment transition. The preload design is complete and will be part of the control structure contract. Preloading is required in the areas where the left and right dam walls tie into the dam embankment, and in the area of the control building.
3.3.14 Temporary Site Configuration The possibility of the inlet structure being constructed prior to completion of the diversion channel was discussed. It was noted during the discussion that the excavation is likely to fill with water if it is not pumped out, and that the water would result in staining of the structure up to the ground water level. A decision was made to accept the effect of standing water on the permanent structure, and not to keep the excavation pumped out until the diversion channel was completed.
3.3.15 Safety, Lighting, and Security During the design charrette the team discussed safety, lighting, and security topics related to the Diversion Inlet Structure and the Control Building. It was recognized that a safety review would be
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 17 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
required and that both USACE and the local sponsor should participate in the review. This review was to take place after the site layout and inlet structure configuration are known. During design, a lighting analysis was completed and the lighting around the entire site was adjusted accordingly. In December 2015 the St. Paul District’s Physical Security Officer was engaged to help determine an appropriate level of security for the control structure, control building, and grounds. It was determined that the access controls for the control structure shown on the drawings, consisting of fencing and gates to restrict access to the service bridge, was appropriate. A decision was made to incorporate the following increases in security: Fencing around the control building were changed from FE-05 fencing to FE-06 fencing. This change adds a top-guard with 3 strands of barbed wire. 1st Floor windows will have stops to prevent the window from opening more than 6”.
3.3.16 Aesthetics The Fargo-Moorhead Diversion Authority (DA) desires to have a unified aesthetic identity for structural elements along the diversion channel. An aesthetics evaluation will be conducted for the three control structures and two aqueducts that are part of the FMM Flood Risk Management Project. There have been ongoing discussions with landscape architects working for the Diversion Authority regarding the aesthetic concepts. The latest aesthetic concept developed for the diversion inlet structure is incorporated into this design.
3.3.17 Historic Properties The agreements reached with the North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) were discussed during the design charrette along with the processes being followed during the design of all reaches and features associated with the FMM Flood Risk Management Project. The following items are currently being evaluated with regard to the agreements with the SHPO. The lifting mechanism for each gate and the equipment platform will be permanently located at approximately 37 feet above the ground surface. Likewise, the control building will be situated on top of the adjacent southern embankment and will extend up to 40 feet above the existing ground surface (20 feet above the top of the southern embankment). The mechanical platforms for the gates and the control building will have major visual impacts to historic properties within one-half mile, moderate visual impacts to historic properties within one-half to one mile, and minor to no visual impacts to historic properties over one mile distance from these features. Visual impacts which cannot be avoided can be minimized by such things as trees, prairie grasses, and other plants breaking up the view of the structure or blending the structure in with the adjacent landscape.
3.3.18 Interim Flood Fight Plan The need for an interim flood fight plan was discussed. While it is recognized that an interim flood fight plan would be valuable and necessary for fighting floods during the various parts of the diversion project are completed, this plan is really beyond the scope of the Diversion Inlet Structure design and will have to be developed under a separate effort.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 18 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
3.3.19 Post Charrette Site Layout After completion of the design charrette, many layout changes were incorporated into a new draft site plan. This updated site plan was documented in the Value based Design Charrette Report. The site plan has continued to evolve as the design has progressed. Access roads have been added, the control building location has been determined, and a parking lot has been added behind the control building.
4 PERTINENT TECHNICAL AND DESIGN DATA
4.1 Design Flood The diversion is designed for the 1% annual chance exceedance flood (1% flood), but the amount of excavation required to achieve the goals for the 1% flood design allows the diversion to function for much larger flood events. Flood events larger than the 1% flood were investigated during the design effort to evaluate structure and levee resiliency. Design flows in the diversion were determined from the unsteady HEC-RAS modeling effort, which routes the Red River of the North balanced hydrographs and coincident tributary hydrographs described in Appendix A of the Final Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management Project, dated July 2011.
4.2 Design Flows During times of normal river flow (i.e. no flooding) when the Project is not in operation, the gates at the Diversion Inlet Structure will remain fully closed and no flow will pass through the structure. During the 1% and 0.2% annual chance exceedance flood events, approximately 20,000 cfs and 25,000 cfs, respectively, will be released from the staging area through the Diversion Inlet Structure. Since the Diversion Inlet Structure is part of the dam, the structure will be designed for conditions up to the inflow design flood (IDF). The estimated maximum flow through the Diversion Inlet Structure is 50,000 cfs. Additional information on the design flows is included in the hydraulics appendix (Appendix C).
4.3 Controlling Elevations The following table lists the finish elevations of key features of the project. All elevations shown refer to NAVD88.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 19 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
Table 1: Controlling Elevations DESCRIPTION ELEVATION (NAVD88) Top of dam/top of structure 931.0 Top of Tainter Gate (when closed) 925.7 Gate sill elevation 899.7 Connecting channel invert (u/s of structure) 899.2 Stilling basin floor elevation (at spillway toe) 888.5 Diversion channel invert (d/s of structure) 887.79 Maximum staging area water surface 926.0
Maximum tailwater 917.0
4.4 Previously Obtained Data 4.4.1 Existing Condition Data Existing topographic data utilized for the design and drawings is from aerial Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) and ground survey campaigns performed in May 2011 by Merrick and Company through contract with the local sponsors. Detailed ground and hydrographic survey campaigns were performed between October 2011 and March 2012 by the St. Paul District USACE survey crew and Anderson Engineering of MN to enhance the accuracy of the surface models. The coordinate system and projection of the existing condition data is NAD83 (2007), North Dakota State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone (U.S. Survey Feet). The elevation datum of the existing condition data is NAVD88 (U.S. Survey Feet). The existing condition topographic data can be accessed through ProjectWise.
4.4.2 Cadastral Data During the acquisition of rights-of-entry (ROE) for the project, the St. Paul District USACE, non-federal sponsors, and Moore Engineering created a cadastral dataset for the project. The cadastral dataset is a geodatabase with parcel geometries and attributes, which will be used as the reference source for all property information. This dataset is incorporated into the base map for informational purposes only. The parcel geometries of the dataset have not been surveyed and should not be relied upon as such. Detailed property surveys were conducted by the non-federal sponsors. They are responsible for comparing the ROW that we are requesting for construction of the project against their property surveys and acquiring the required property. The Sponsors are in the process of completing the acquisition effort and have indicated to us that they will have the necessary ROW in time for opening of proposals.
4.4.3 Utility Information Utility information, including surveyed locations, was obtained from Moore Engineering between December 2011 and January 2012 under contract with the non-federal sponsors. The utilities that are known to exist within the Diversion Inlet Structure project are summarized in Appendix E: Civil-Site.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 20 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
5 POTENTIAL FUTURE RELATED WORK AND CONTRACTS The following future work associated with or in the vicinity of the Diversion Inlet Structure and Control Building may be pursued under separate contract.
5.1 Remote Operation (SCADA System) The Non-Federal Sponsor has expressed an interest in installing a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to allow remote monitoring and offsite operation of the gates on the Diversion Inlet Structure, the Wild Rice River Control Structure, and the Red River Control Structure. The acquisition of the SCADA system would be under one contract for all three sites to ensure that there is one manufacturer and the systems all work together. To accommodate this, empty conduits are being installed through the wall in the control building equipment room to allow installation of the necessary wires without having to drill through the building wall. The design of the control equipment for the gates will accommodate the addition of a SCADA system. Prior to pursuing the acquisition and installation of SCADA equipment, a comprehensive operation, maintenance, and safety plan needs to be developed to ensure that the system is in compliance with all of the requirements of ER 1110-2-1156, Chapter 20. Such a system would need additional provisions to ensure it is reliable, the controls are secure, and redundancies/verifications are in place to avoid operation when people are in the vicinity.
5.1.1 Remote Control The current system includes remote control of the gates from the on-site project control building. The remote control of the Diversion Inlet Structure has been designed to meet applicable provisions in ER 1110-2-1156 SAFETY OF DAMS, Chapter 20 Remote Control and Operation of Water Control Systems. The future remote operation system would be configured with the current remote control system.
5.2 Future Public Restroom Due to the location of the Diversion Inlet Structure, there is a good possibility that the recreation plan (still under development) will include a parking area and public restroom in the vicinity of the control building. To accommodate this scenario, the Non-Federal Sponsor has requested that an electrical circuit be installed for a separate restroom and an empty conduit be installed through the wall in the equipment room to accommodate the supply of electrical power for the public restroom.
6 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS
6.1 Introduction The following paragraphs provide a summary of the hydraulic design considerations for the Diversion Inlet Structure. Detailed information related to the hydrologic and hydraulic design of the project can be found in the Hydrology and Hydraulics Appendix C. The hydraulic design effort involves collaboration with hydraulic structures experts from the USACE Risk Management Center (RMC) and consultant engineers with dam design experience developed while working with the U.S. Bureau of
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 21 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
Reclamation. The needs of other disciplines, (e.g. environmental, structural and geotechnical) have also been considered during the design process.
6.1.1 Gated Structure Reasonable geometric and hydraulic assumptions are required to develop a design for the Diversion Inlet Structure. HEC-RAS was used to develop the water surface profiles used for design and to determine a structure geometry that meets all of the hydraulic design requirements. The following Diversion Inlet Structure design values result in a maximum staging area elevation of 926.0 feet (all elevations are NAVD88 datum). A. Three tainter gates, each 50 feet wide and 26 feet high B. 10-foot-wide concrete piers between gates, ogival pier noses C. Gate sill elevation of 899.7 feet D. Concrete approach apron (elevation 899.7’) extending 38’ upstream from the pier noses E. In their completely raised state the highest elevation required for the bottom of the gates is 926.0 feet (i.e. tainter gates will need to clear the maximum pool elevation) 6.1.2 Spillway Design Design of the structure spillway is based on USACE EM 1110-2-1605, “Hydraulic Design of Navigation Dams”. This design guidance is appropriate for low head dams (between 10 and 40 feet) that operate under highly submerged flow conditions. For the 1% and 0.2% annual exceedance events the Diversion Inlet Structure will pass 20,000 cfs and 25,000 cfs, respectively, at a headwater elevation of 922.5’ and a tailwater elevation of approximately 908.0’. The total head and the submerged nature of this flow condition fit within the parameters of the EM 1110-2-1605 guidelines. The spillway crest is designed as a broad-crested weir with a crest elevation of 899.7 feet, which is 0.5 feet above the connecting channel invert elevation. The top portion of the downstream face of the spillway has a parabolic shape based on the trajectory of a free jet of water leaving the horizontal weir crest. The parabolic spillway transitions to a stepped spillway with five steps ranging from one to three feet in height. The stepped spillway is intended to increase the amount of energy dissipation occurring on the spillway. This design also improves constructability of the spillway.
6.1.3 Stilling Basin Design Energy dissipation downstream of the spillway is complicated by the unique operating conditions of the project. The Diversion Inlet Structure could possibly have a significant amount of water upstream of the gates when they are first opened (up to 922.0 feet in some of the current hydraulic model runs), with no tailwater downstream of the gates. Under this condition, tailwater elevations are less than the conjugate flow depth. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Engineering Monograph No. 25 (USBR EM25), “Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and Energy Dissipators” is the standard for the design of stilling basins. This document recommends tailwater elevations equal to or higher than the conjugate flow depth. When adequate tailwater is not available downstream of a stilling basin, the toe of the hydraulic jump is pushed downstream. If the stilling basin can no longer contain the hydraulic jump, turbulence DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 22 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
and high velocities can occur downstream of the basin, which can cause scour and potential undermining of the entire structure. The stilling basin design includes an at-grade (non-excavated) USBR Type III stilling basin with a six-foot- high end sill at the downstream end. When the spillway gates are first opened, flow into the stilling basin will be captured and will create tailwater that will help to keep the hydraulic jump within the stilling basin for all design flows. A USBR Type III stilling basin design was chosen to reduce the total length of the stilling basin and therefore reduce construction costs. The basin is 68 feet long and contains a single row of 10-foot-tall baffle blocks 21 feet downstream of the spillway toe. The sidewalls of the stilling basin are sized to contain the maximum design flow tailwater elevation plus freeboard. The total height of the stilling basin sidewalls is 31.1 feet. Recent USBR and USACE research indicates that the hydraulic performance of USBR Type III stilling basins may be improved over a broader range of flow conditions with the installation of super-cavitating baffle blocks and a ramp in-between the baffle blocks rather than the typical Type III baffle block design. Cavitation is not anticipated to be an issue at the Diversion Inlet Structure due to relatively low flow velocities. However, a 2008 physical hydraulic model study funded by USACE showed that the performance of a Type III stilling basin with the alternate baffle blocks and a 3H:1V sloped ramp between the baffle blocks was more stable for lower tailwater elevations than the typical Type III basin design. The super-cavitating baffle blocks and sloped ramp have been included in the current stilling basin design. Numerical analysis indicates that the 6-foot-tall end sill of the stilling basin could cause a second hydraulic jump to occur at flows approaching the maximum expected flow through the diversion inlet structure. Hydraulic structures design experts assisting with the design of the spillway and stilling basin have stated that predicting how (or even if) this second hydraulic jump will perform is not well understood. The Saint Paul District worked with the USACE Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC) to develop a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model of the stilling basin design to investigate how the basin configuration will perform for the range of expected flows. This model indicated that the second stilling basin is necessary. Therefore, a second, 75-foot-long horizontal concrete apron and sidewalls are included downstream of the first stilling basin. Two two-foot wide slots in the ramps between the baffle blocks, two four-foot-wide slots in the end sill (directly downstream of the spillway piers), and a 0.5 percent floor slope to allow the stilling basin to fully drain after the spillway gates are closed.
6.1.4 Approach Apron A 38-foot long approach apron will be constructed on the upstream side of the structure. The concrete apron is intended to prevent scour upstream of the structure. The concrete extends upstream to a point where calculations indicate that the maximum velocity will be 9.5 feet per second. Riprap will extend 122 feet upstream from the concrete apron, where the maximum calculated velocity drops to 6 feet per second. Riprap sizing details are included in Appendix C.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 23 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
6.1.5 Connecting Channel (Upstream of Diversion Inlet Structure) A 540-foot- long segment of the connecting channel will extend upstream of the concrete approach apron. The connecting channel will have a 300-foot-wide channel bottom with 7H:1V side slopes and an invert elevation of 899.2 at the Diversion Inlet Structure (one-half foot lower than the gate sill elevation). The connecting channel will gradually slope away from the Diversion Inlet Structure to encourage drainage back toward the Wild Rice River at the conclusion of flood events and during precipitation events. The connecting channel will narrow from a bottom width of 300 feet to a bottom width of 170 feet at the spillway crest at a contraction ratio of 2:1. To improve drainage the bottom of the connecting channel will be constructed with a 2% cross-slope toward the centerline of the channel.
6.1.6 Diversion Channel (Downstream of Stilling Basin) A 252-foot-long segment of the diversion channel is included in the plan set downstream of the gated structure and stilling basin. At the connection with the stilling basin the diversion channel will have a 170’ flat bottom width. The channel bottom width will increase to 300 feet at an expansion ratio of 3.5:1. The diversion channel has a longitudinal slope of 0.00017 ft/ft (0.9 ft/mile) and 1V:7H diversion side slopes. The diversion channel cross section at the downstream end of the diversion inlet control structure plan set will match the diversion channel cross section shown at the upstream end of the County Road 16/17 bridge plans. Riprap sizing details are included in Appendix C. The top of the diversion channel will be set at a point that is close to the average existing ground elevation. EMBs created using the large volume of material that will be excavated to create the diversion channel will be placed along the right bank of the diversion channel.
6.1.7 Local Drainage Features Most local drainage around the Diversion Inlet Structure location currently drains north and east. Drainage coming into the site from the south along County Road 17 will be routed into the diversion channel upstream of the new Country Road 16/17 bridge downstream of the diversion inlet structure. This local drainage inlet will be part of the bridge plan set rather than the diversion inlet structure plan set. During the initial phase of construction of the Diversion Inlet Structure, the drainage coming into the site from the south along County Road 17 will be routed through a temporary ditch around the west end of the diversion channel excavation. The ditch will tie into the west highway ditch on the north side of the site and continue north from there. The change from this temporary drainage plan to the permanent plan (with drainage going into the diversion channel) will be implemented in the CR 16/17 bridge and road realignment contract.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 24 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
7 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
7.1 General The main geotechnical design considerations for the Diversion Inlet Structure Project include determination of the geological/geotechnical conditions, evaluation of the control structure, slope stability of the dam, seepage analyses, settlement calculations, pile capacities, and analysis of the dam wall. The following paragraphs provide a summary of the main Geotechnical Design considerations for the Diversion Inlet Structure. Detailed information related to the geotechnical design criteria, design cases, and other information related to geotechnical design can be found in the Geotechnical Appendix (Appendix D).
7.2 Technical Guidelines and References A list of technical guidelines associated with the geotechnical design can be found in the “Project Design Guidelines.”
7.3 Geotechnical Design Features/Analysis A brief summary of the features and analyses completed is provided below.
7.3.1 Diversion Inlet Structure To ensure serviceability of the Diversion Inlet Structure, the structure will be founded on a combination of deep soil mixing and H-piles to prevent differential settlement and rebound affecting sensitive features (i.e. tainter gates, operating machinery, bridge, utility conduits, etc.). Floating the control structure on a mat foundation and stiffening the slab to resist the time dependent effects of differential settlement and rebound were not considered to be feasible or desirable. A deep foundation with piles is considered to provide a high degree of confidence in preventing movement and lowers the risk for intolerable differential settlement and rebound. Deep soil mixing will be located in the lower portion of the stilling basin and placed in-between the rows of piles. Further discussion on Pile Capacities, Corrosion, Deep Soil Mixing, and Drivability is included in the geotechnical Appendix D.
7.3.2 Preload Embankment and Wick Drain Design A preload and wick drain design was required at the transition from the Dam Wall to earthen embankment dam to prevent undesirable settlement affecting the wall and approach. The results of the settlement analyses indicate an ultimate (long-term) settlement of 1.16 ft and 1.30 ft for the Left Dam Embankment and the Right Dam Embankment, respectively. This amount of settlement was considered to be undesirable for both transitions from T-wall to earthen embankment dam. Settlement greater than 6 inches in the presence of piles is considered to induce a significant amount of drag load on the piles and would require some type of additional reinforcement or settlement mitigation. In addition, the footprint of the control building will also be preloaded to prevent settlement from affecting the function of the building.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 25 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
7.3.2.1 Preload Stability Stability analysis was completed on the Preload embankment to evaluate the stability of the embankment itself and determining the adjacent borrow area depth. With the higher preload embankment elevation and flatter slopes, the toe of the preload embankment approaches the edge of the borrow area. In order to meet stability criteria, the maximum depth of the borrow area shall be 11 feet below existing ground surface. 7.3.2.2 Post Preload Construction The majority of the foundation settlement is recompression which makes the foundation soils susceptible to rebounding when the preload is removed. Therefore, to minimize the amount of rebound, the contractor will be limited on how long the area can be left open after the preload has been removed. The specifications will require the contractor to drive the piles, construct the wall, and place the final grading within 2 months of removing the preload embankment.
7.3.3 Dam walls (T-Walls) Due to weak foundation soils, the dam wall was analyzed to determine if any additional loads were induced onto the piles from global stability during a flood event. This additional loading is termed as an unbalanced load and will need to be accounted for in designing the piles. To analyze the unbalanced loading, a limit equilibrium analysis was completed on the T-wall. In order to meet the required Factor of Safety for global stability, an unbalanced load of 13 kips was required to be supported by the piles. Due to limitations of the limit equilibrium modeling a soil structure interaction analysis, a two dimensional finite difference analysis was developed to model the dam wall and assess the unbalanced load that potentially could develop during a flood event. Both of these analyses are discussed in more detail in the geotechnical Appendix D.
7.3.4 Dam An earthen embankment dam will be required to impound water in the staging area during large flood events. A portion of this embankment dam will be constructed as part of Diversion Inlet Structure project. The embankment dam will be constructed with 1V:4H slopes and 15ft top width that will include a gravel access road on top. The embankment may be increased in size to provide a location to place extra fill material; however the prism of the dam will be constructed to meet USACE dam safety criteria. In addition, the dam will be off-set from the connecting channel to prevent any slope instability from occurring. A setback distance of 50 feet is required between the top of the connecting channel and the toe of the dam embankment. The top elevation of the dam shall be 932.5 (926ft hydraulics designed pool water surface, 5ft for freeboard, and 1.5ft overbuild for long-term settlement). The top surface of the dam will contain an access road for maintenance activities, inspections, and repairs. The access road consists of 8 inches of aggregate on top of geotextile located within the 5-ft freeboard zone which is not considered to affect the integrity or function of the dam embankment.
7.3.5 Levee Downstream of the control structure, a levee will need to be constructed to provide the line of protection along the right side of the diversion channel. The levee was designed using dam criteria for the Diversion Inlet Structure due to the structure being a critical component and consistency in the
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 26 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
design. However, it will ultimately function as a levee. The levee embankment will be constructed within the Excavated Material Berm. The levee will be constructed with a 1V:4H slopes and 10ft top width. The top elevation of the levee shall be 923.5 (917 ft hydraulic designed tail water surface, 5ft for freeboard, and 1.5ft overbuild for long-term settlement).
7.3.6 Excavated Material Berm (EMB) Material excavated from the diversion channel will be placed in an excavated material berm (EMB) on the right bank of diversion channel downstream of the Diversion Inlet Structure as well as on the benefitted side of the right dam embankment. The EMB will be constructed with 1V:4H side slopes immediately downstream of the dam wall to match the side slopes of the right dam embankment. The EMB side slopes then transition to 1V:7H slopes at the downstream limits of the Diversion Inlet Structure to match the EMB side slopes in the CR16/17 Bridge project. A 95 ft offset distance is required between the diversion channel and the toe of the 1V:4H EMB slope due to the depth of the channel. A 50ft offset distance is required between the diversion channel and the toe of the 1V:7H EMB slope. The EMB will not specifically be designed to meet USACE Dam Safety criteria however; the EMB will be required to meet Factors of Safety for global slope stability. This was done, in part, due to the consequences if a slope failure were to occur which would affect components of the EMB containing the embedded levee.
7.3.7 Diversion and Connecting Channel Part of the diversion and connecting channel will be constructed as part of this project. Both channels will have 300 ft bottom widths and 1V:7H side slopes. The connecting channel will have an invert elevation of 899.2 at the connection with the spillway crest and the downstream diversion channel will have an invert elevation of 887.79 at the connection with the stilling basin.
7.4 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted along the project area to identify the presence and/or potential presence of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes (HTRW). The ESA identifies past or present HTRW issues term Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) which is defined as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. The initial Phase I ESA was completed during the feasibility study in 2010 by Stanley Consultants. A supplemental investigation was completed in 2012 by the St. Louis District USACE to cover the areas of the shifted alignment at the north end of the project. The ESAs were completed in conformance with the scope and limitations of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice E 1527-05 and Engineering Regulation ER-1165-2-132 Water Resource Policies and Authorities Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Guidance for Civil Works Projects. See Section D.1.2 for references. There are no noted major or minor recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in the area.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 27 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
8 CIVIL-SITE ENGINEERING
8.1 General Civil design for this project will include demolition, diversion and connecting channel layout, dam layout, excavated material berm (EMB) layout, access road layout, utility relocations, general grading adjacent to the Diversion Inlet Structure, and storm water pollution prevention. This section summarizes the proposed layout, method of analyses, and support for preparation of the plans, specifications, and cost estimate.
8.2 Technical Guidelines and References A list of technical guidelines associated with the civil-site design can be found in the “Project Design Guidelines.”
8.3 Programs and Standards for Design and Drawings The computer-aided drafting and design (CADD) program used for the drawings utilized MicroStation V8i (Version 8.11, October 2008) and topographic data with InRoads generated Digital Terrain Model (DTM) files, profiles, and cross sections. All drawings adhere to national, Mississippi Valley Division, and St. Paul District CAD standards as referenced in the current Design Guidelines.
8.3.1 Geometric Design – Channel and Excavated Material Berms The alignment and configuration of the channel, diversion channel and EMBs are based on Hydraulic and Geotechnical considerations. Final layout of the EMB’s will take into account balance of cut and fill, local drainage, real estate acquisition, and other considerations. 8.3.2 Vegetation Free Zone & Vegetation Management Zone The Vegetation Free Zone (VFZ) will comply with the requirements in ETL 1110-2-583, as well as the criteria set forth in project specific guidance documents such as the Memo for Record (MFR) FMM Vegetation Free Zone, and Dam vs Levee Criteria. The VFZ will be a minimum of 50’ from the toes of the right and left dam embankments. For the right bank EMB with an embedded levee there will be a vegetation management zone (VMZ) that extends 15’ from the landside crown of the levee embedded within the EMB. This VMZ shall also extend along the left edge of the connecting channel and main diversion channel. A VFZ shall be maintained adjacent to the diversion structure. The VFZ shall extend from the structure edge to the outside toe of the EMB or 50 feet beyond the dry side toe of the dam.
8.3.3 Utility Relocations Utility relocations will comply with the MVP MFR for Utility Relocation Requirements and local/state requirements. There are no known utilities in the areas where the dam embankments will be constructed. The utilities that are known to exist within work limits for the Diversion Inlet Structure run parallel to County Road 16 and County Road 17 and are described in Appendix E: Civil-Site. If utilities are discovered in the area of one or both of the dam embankments, either during design or during construction, the relocation of those utilities will be handled in a manner appropriate for such work in the area of a dam embankment.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 28 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
8.4 Engineering Drawings for Civil Features and Site Work Drawings produced for this document utilized the following information: • LIDAR Topographic Survey Data • USACE Field Survey Data (topographic and hydrographic) • MicroStation V8i model and sheet seed files • Design files including cross‐sections, alignment, and DTM files Civil engineering drawings and plans prepared concurrent with this report are included as attachments.
9 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
9.1 General The Diversion Inlet Structure is divided into the following structural elements: foundation slab, piers, tainter gates, abutment walls, dam walls, vehicle service bridge, and mechanical platform. The Diversion Inlet Structure slab will be the bottom of the channel through the Diversion Inlet Structure and also support the other structural elements. There will be a stepped spillway that will connect the upstream foundation to the downstream foundation. The upstream foundation will be referred to as the Control Structure foundation and the downstream foundation will be referred to as the stilling basin. The Diversion Inlet Structure will have (3) 50 foot wide bays with (2) 10 foot wide concrete piers and (2) abutment walls. The piers and abutment walls will support the mechanical platform, the vehicle service bridge and the tainter gates. The (2) twin abutment walls will run parallel to the diversion channel on the outside of the structure to support the soil on the backside of the abutment walls as well as confine the flow through the structure. There will be (3) 50 foot wide by 26 foot tall tainter gates that will control the amount of water that enters the diversion channel. The Diversion Inlet Structure will be accessed via a vehicle service bridge, which will be located on top of the (2) 286 foot long dam walls that will connect the Diversion Inlet Structure to the dam on each side. The dam walls will maintain the dam surface between the dam and the Diversion Inlet Structure as well as provide access to the Diversion Inlet Structure from the dam access roads. There will also be a mechanical platform that will support the mechanical equipment needed to operate the tainter gates as well as serve as an access platform for authorized personnel. The mechanical platform will be supported by the piers and abutments and run parallel to the vehicle service bridge. A control building will house the equipment necessary to operate and monitor the gates on the diversion inlet structure. This building will be located to the northeast of the diversion inlet structure.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 29 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
10 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
10.1 General Mechanical design for the control structure is comprised of the design and specification of the tainter gate operating machinery and mechanical equipment for the control building. Detailed design information including loads and calculations is located in the Mechanical Appendix. Many of the early design considerations pertaining to the tainter gates and operating machinery are documented in the Control Structures on the Southern Embankment document, which is included as part of Appendix M of this report.
10.1.1 Tainter Gate Operating Machinery Each tainter gate is operated by mechanical operating machinery. The design is largely based on recent tainter gate operating machinery from Portland District. The tainter gate operating machinery consists of a center drive unit and two end drive units. The center drive unit contains a 7.5 HP electric motor with a C-face brake and a 90° 35:1 nominal reduction worm gearbox. The electric motor is custom- designed and fabricated to have a stall torque of 200%. The motor will be shop tested at +/- 10% voltage to verify stall torque. This is an important test because the motor will serve as the primary overtorque limiting device in the operating system. Line shafts connect the center drive unit to the two end drive units. The end drive units consist of an 80:1 nominal reduction parallel gearbox, open gearing and the hoist drums. One end drive unit will be equipped with a rotary-type limit switch. The total gear reduction will produce a gate travel speed of approximately one foot per minute. The gates may be operated locally (at each gate) or from the control building.
10.1.2 Control Building Mechanical The Control Building mechanical consists of limited plumbing and HVAC. Plumbing will include water and sewer lines for the toilet, and water lines for the restroom sink, break room sink and an outdoor hose connection. Hot water for the two sinks will be provided by an electric on-demand water heater located in the chase. Water will come from the local utility. Wastewater and sewage will be stored onsite in a buried 2,500 gallon concrete wastewater holding tank. The holding tank will be equipped with a high level alarm and will need to be pumped out occasionally. HVAC will include electric unit heaters and ventilation for the restroom. The control equipment room will also have an exhaust fan controlled by thermostat to remove excess heat in the summer months. Also in the control building will be an electrical connection point for an emergency mobile generator.
Two additional aspects that were considered during the mechanical design of the control building were the degree of fire protection required and the applicability of energy and sustainability requirements. These are discussed below. 10.1.2.1 Fire Protection
In order to determine the need for a fire protection system in the Control Building, applicable sections of the International Building Code 2015 (IBC), International Fire Code 2015 (IFC) and relevant National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) publications were reviewed. A commentary on the fire protection
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 30 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
systems code review is included in Appendix G of this report. Per IFC and IBC requirements, 2A:10B:C fire extinguishers will be provided in the Equipment Room and the Control/Break Room. No other fire protection is required; however, smoke detectors will be provided for increased safety. 10.1.2.2 Energy and Sustainability
UFC 1-200-02, “High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements,” requires new buildings to beat ASHRAE 90.1 baselines for energy usage by 30% and to meet or exceed UPC/IPC 2006 baselines for water usage. UFC 1-200-02 applies to buildings owned by the Department of Defense. Since the control building will not be owned by the DoD, it seems that the UFC does not apply. However, ECB 2014-7, "Appropriate Application of Energy & Sustainability Policies and Criteria to non-Army Partners and non- Army Funded Projects,” requires all “Non-Army funded projects not located on an Army Installation” to meet the requirements of UFC 1-200-02.
Because the control building will only be occupied on a few days per year, it would be nearly impossible to beat the ASHRAE 90.1 baseline. The point of contact at headquarters listed on ECB 2014-7, was contacted for additional guidance. His response stated:
“The intent of the UFC is to meet the mandates: It references the Guiding Principles and EO 13514 which has been replaced by EO 13693. EO 13693 still maintains the >5,000 SF applicability limit. Your building appears to be less than 5,000 SF. If that is the case, then the facility requirements don't apply to this facility.” Based on his response, the control building does not need to meet the energy and sustainability requirements because it is smaller than 5,000 square feet. However, as a matter of good practice, the energy and sustainability guidance has been followed to the extent possible. Energy Star/FEMP- designated appliances and low water use fixtures have been specified.
11 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
11.1 General The electrical design includes coordination of the main electrical service with CCEC (Cass County Electric Coop). The main service will be a 200 Amp 480V system. Included in the main incoming power system is a 200 Amp generator receptacle mounted on the main control building and a built in transfer switch in the main control panel. Three 150 Amp feeders route electrical power to the diversion structure. Each gate system has dual interlock breakers to select one of two, 150 amp feeders. This provides some redundancy and flexibility. The main control panel at the Control Building will have a 120/240 lighting transformer and panel. It will also have PLC controls, and a fiber optic loop industrial LAN system for cameras and gate control. Virtually identical gate control panels will be installed for each gate system, and will include gate hoist and heater control, and cameras associated with each gate. These panels will have PLC remote I/O and connect to the fiber optic loop LAN system.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 31 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
Site roadway and parking lot lighting will be 120 VAC LED type and controlled from either switches on control panels, or by automatic basis in the PLC system. The system will have a robust buried “counterpoise” ground system and lightning protection.
12 ARCHITECTURAL
12.1 General The following architectural design for the control structure includes an aesthetics plan provided by the non-federal sponsor and the control building layout.
12.1.1 Aesthetics Plan The non-federal sponsor has provided a draft set of aesthetic requirements for the exposed concrete surfaces of the Diversion Inlet Structure and access bridge. The basic aesthetic requirements for the control building provided by the non-federal sponsor, and design features incorporated by the PDT, are as follows. The roof system will be standing seam metal roof panels on underlayment and rigid insulation. The substructure will be 3/4” ply wood decking on wood rafters (with batt insulation infill). The wall system will be a built up system as described from the ground up. On the exterior a spilt face CMU wainscot with brick veneer and metal wall panels above will be provided. The interior wall will be constructed of a reinforced CMU block (painted) The main control/break area and restroom will have a 2x4 suspended acoustical ceiling grid. The equipment room will have a sloped gypsum board ceiling. Rubber floor tile will be provided throughout the building.
12.1.2 Control Building Layout and Features The original draft concept for the control building (as mentioned in 3.3.9) was developed and forwarded to the non-federal sponsors for comment. Following receipt of the draft concept, the non-federal sponsor requested that their Project Management Consultant (PMC) solicit input from several sources to determine if there are additional features and/or functions that should be incorporated into the design of the control building. Those features and functions are listed below. The control building will include the following features as requested by the non-federal sponsor: Inlet Control building will have four rooms: Control Equipment Room, Control Office, Break Room, and Toilet. The Control Equipment room will contain all electrical panels, MCC's, PLC's for the gates, SCADA system components. The room will be sized for the equipment. The Control Room will contain a desk or computer work station and a counter with under counter file cabinets and above counter shelving for placing manuals, documents and office supplies. Break area will accommodate 4 to 6 people. It will contain a table/chairs and a countertop for misc. equipment (microwave, coffee pot, etc). Convenience receptacles will be provided.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 32 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
There will be one unisex toilet room with a toilet and sink. Toilet room will be wheelchair accessible. An exterior power receptacle and transfer switch will be provided to service a rented generator. Tankless, point source electric water heater. Waste water will go to a sewage holding tank that will need to be pumped out occasionally. Parking lot for 8 vehicles to include a handicap accessible parking space with paved parking surface and paved accessible route to the building. There will be an exterior hose bib. The AC unit provided will only be what is required for cooling the control equipment. The building will have at least two windows. One facing the Diversion Inlet Structure and one near the door. For more detail on building requirements and the draft concept that was developed, refer to Appendix I.
13 LANDSCAPE AND RECREATION
13.1 General The Local Sponsor is responsible for the design and construction of any proposed recreational features of the Fargo-Moorhead Flood Risk Management Project. A draft report, Fargo-Moorhead (FM) Area Diversion, Recreation and Use Master Plan has been developed for the local sponsor that details the current plan for recreation features. Included in the Master Plan for the north section of the Diversion (which extends from the Diversion Outlet Structure on the Red River south to Interstate 94) is the concept of an undulating landscape on the right bank EMB that will provide varying landscape and separation between equestrian and pedestrian trails. The USACE and the Sponsor have agreed that the most cost effective way to construct these undulations would be to include them in the Diversion Reach Plans and Specifications. The undulations would be designed by the Sponsor and incorporated into the plans by the USACE design team (see further discussion in Paragraph 11.2). In addition, the reaches would include a turf establishment plan that was developed in compliance with mitigation and NPDES requirements (see further discussion in Paragraph 11.3). All additional recreation features, such as trails and permanent landscape plantings, will be designed by the Sponsor and constructed at a later date under a separate contract.
13.2 Proposed Recreation Features The concept proposed in the draft Master Plan for the Diversion Inlet Structure area was to incorporate recreation features, including trails, plantings and an Off-Highway Vehicle node. However, detailed recreation planning has not yet been developed for the Diversion Inlet Structure and associated EMBs and ultimately it is the Sponsors responsibility to determine the end use of each EMB. It was noted that the length of EMB available for recreation features in the Diversion Inlet project area is minimal and not conducive for recreation; the EMB would only be on the right bank of the diversion channel, downstream of the inlet structure between the stilling basin wall and the new county road bridge. Therefore, as requested by the Sponsors, no recreational features including undulations of the berm will be included in the Diversion Inlet Structure project package.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 33 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
13.3 Landscape Any planting plan will be coordinated with the environmental mitigation planned for the project. Planting plans proposed in the FM-M Area Diversion Recreation and Use Master Plan will follow USACE design guidance. Seeding for the initial construction contract will consist of temporary seed mixes. There will be two basic zones for the temporary seed mixes, one wet zone for riparian species and one dry zone for upland grasses and forbs. These temporary mixes will include a few native species and a cover crop of oats for seeding in the spring and early summer or winter wheat if seeding in the fall. The construction contractor will be responsible for establishment and maintenance of the cover crop for a period of up to one year. The construction contractor will also be responsible for erosion control and corrections during the period of cover crop establishment and growth as well as the NPDES construction Storm Water permit during that time. The permanent planting plan as well as the establishment and maintenance of native plant species will be accomplished by a joint effort between the Local Sponsors and the USACE, utilizing either a Local Sponsors’ let contract(s) and/or the Local Sponsors’ own work force. After the initial construction contract is complete, (potentially up to one year after the cover crop has been planted) the site will be seeded with the permanent native plant species. Once planted, the native grasses will take approximately three years to become established under good growing conditions. Guidance for seed mixes and planting zones will be in accordance with MFR-003, Vegetation within the Fargo-Moorhead Metro Diversion; MFR-003 attachment, Guidelines for Reach 1 Planting Plan of the Fargo Moorhead Diversion Channel; and MFR-017, Turf Establishment with Native Species via Construction Contract and the Sponsors Involvement within the Fargo-Moorhead Metro Diversion.
14 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
14.1 Introduction The environmental consideration for the Diversion Inlet Structure is the planting guidance. The planting guidance will facilitate wetlands in the bottom of the diversion channel downstream of the Diversion Inlet Structure and in the bottom of the connecting channel upstream of the Diversion Inlet Structure. This effort is discussed in the Feasibility Report, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and supplemental EA. Separable mitigation will be required to mitigate for 5 acres of wetland impacts caused by the construction of the structure.
14.2 Planting Guidelines Vegetation establishment guidelines for the diversion channel and the connecting channel have been developed with the goal of a planting plan that will limit the potential for the establishment of undesirable species (such as cattails, willow, etc.), compatible with conveyance criteria (resulting in a Manning’s roughness n value of .03 or less), and resilient to maintenance activities. In consultation with a variety of experts, planting guidelines and initial seed mixes for various zones of the channel cross section have been identified that will ensure we meet overall objectives.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 34 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
Because the Diversion Inlet Structure will be constructed before wetlands can be planted in the diversion channel, separable mitigation will have to be sought for the 5 acres of wetlands that will be impacted. This will either be done using credits available through Ducks Unlimited or by creating a larger wetland mitigation project near Oxbow North Dakota. An additional 2 acres of Shallow Marsh wetlands that will be impacted will be mitigated for by the creation of new ditches during the Hwy 16 and 17 road realignment.
14.3 Cultural Resources Based on coordination of the viewshed analysis with the North Dakota State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO), the SHPO has agreed that EMBs and other above ground structures that are 20 feet tall (above ground) or less would not have a visual impact at over 1/8th mile. The EMBs have been designed to be 20 feet or less (21 feet allowing for subsidence) to avoid all but minor visual impacts. Where the EMBs have to be over 20 feet, a determination will be made regarding what, if any, National Register of Historic Places eligible or listed properties (historic properties) are within one-half mile of that taller feature and just what the extent of the visual impact would be (none, minor, moderate, or major) on a case by case basis. Visual impacts that cannot be avoided can be minimized by trees, prairie grasses, and other plants breaking up the view of the EMB or structure, or by blending the EMB in with the adjacent landscape. The Diversion Inlet Structure will have three tainter gates. The operating plan for the tainter gates is that they will remain in the closed position until required to release flow into the diversion channel. The tainter gates when closed will be less than 20 feet above the natural ground elevation. The tainter gates will only be in the up position (max elevation approximately 30 feet above natural ground) when in operation. This will be a temporary visual impact similar to noise and dust during construction. The lifting mechanism for each gate and its platform, however, will be permanently located at approximately 37 feet above the ground surface. Likewise, the control building for the inlet structure, which will be situated on top the adjacent EMB, will extend up to 40 feet above the existing ground surface (20 feet above the top of the EMB) depending on the size of the building and the pitch of the roof. The mechanical platforms for the gates and the control building will have major visual impacts to historic properties within one-half mile, moderate visual impacts to historic properties from one-half to one mile, and minor to no visual impacts to historic properties over one mile distance from these features. Increasing the size or height of the control building to include space for maintenance equipment and other storage would potentially increase the degree of visual impacts possible at each half-mile distance. There are no National Register eligible or listed historic properties within one mile of the diversion inlet structure with its gate lifting mechanisms and its associated control building. The two unrecorded farmsteads at three-quarters mile and at one and one-quarter miles to the southwest are outside of the diversion inlet and channel construction work limits, but may have moderate to minor visual impacts from the above inlet features. Their eligibility to the National Register needs to be evaluated to determine if there will be any inlet structure related visual impacts to them. National Register-eligible farmstead 32CS5153 at just over one mile distance to the northwest would have minor visual impacts, except that it will be removed during diversion channel construction.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 35 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
Likewise, National Register-eligible farmstead 32CS5168 at one and three-eighths miles to the east- southeast would have minor to no visual impacts, except that it will be removed during construction of the connecting channel upstream of the inlet structure. Neither of these two farmsteads will be extant by the time the diversion inlet structure is operating. Perhaps the visual impact could be broken up/minimized by plantings near the historic building/farmstead versus at/nearer the inlet structure, or the inlet structure and control building could be painted/tinted to blend in more with the background when looked at from a distance.
14.4 NEPA Compliance The proposed plan for the project was discussed in the 2011 Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management Final Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement. A Supplemental Environmental Assessment, Design Modifications to the Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Flood Risk Management Project, dated September 2013 was prepared to address changes in impacts caused by alignment changes, construction of levees in-town to provide the opportunity to allow more flow through town, and the construction of a levee around the communities of Hickson, Bakke, and Oxbow. Included in this EA is a description of the inlet structure indicating that gates be added to this structure. The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed on 19 September 2013. An Environmental Compliance Review memo explaining how the wetlands will be mitigated for and describing the change to 50-foot wide gates has been completed.
14.5 References Meier, M., G.C. Tucker Jr., B. Shaw, M. Dolin, K. Bedingfield, J. McNutt, S. Buskey, C. Kirvan, L. Dissette, and J. Rigley. 2013. The Fargo-Moorhead Flood Risk Management Project, Cass County, North Dakota and Clay County, Minnesota: Results of Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations, 2012. URS, Denver, Colorado. Meier, M. December 2013. Fargo-Moorhead Metro Flood Risk Management Project: Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations, Progress Report for 2013 Archaeological Fieldwork. URS, Denver, Colorado. Tucker, G.C., Jr., M. Meier, B. Shaw, M. Dolin, J.M. Gallagher, J. Fariello, K. Bedingfield, J. McNutt, K. Zielinski, and J. Rigley. 2012. The Fargo-Moorhead Flood Risk Management Project, Cass County, North Dakota and Clay County, Minnesota: Results of Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations, 2010-2011. URS, Denver, Colorado.
15 CONSTRUCTABILITY
15.1 Project Location The project site is located just southwest of the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area, which encompasses several smaller communities and has a population of approximately 200,000 people. The
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 36 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
metropolitan area is home to several ready mix concrete suppliers, steel suppliers and fabricators, and other suppliers and support facilities, as well as a relatively large labor pool to draw from.
15.2 Connecting Channel and Diversion Channel Excavation Based on the results of borings near the project site, topsoil thickness is estimated to be approximately 1 foot thick. Different techniques may be required to excavate the diversion and connecting channels. It is likely that scrapers can be used to excavate the upper soils (Sherack Formations). As the excavation increases with depth, the soils will become wetter and weaker. These weaker soils (Brenna Formation) will have a reduced capacity to support construction equipment and therefore it is likely an excavator will be used and material hauled away using off-road trucks. Due to the impervious nature of the soils, dewatering of the site prior to excavation is not required as flow into the excavation will be minimal. A slope will need to be maintained in the excavation to allow precipitation and any seepage to drain to a low area. Depending on amount of precipitation and seepage, this low area may need to be pumped out.
15.3 Structural Excavation Excavation for the structure foundation will be to similar depths as the excavation for the connecting channel and diversion channel. Excavation and dewatering operations will be similar. The Brenna material at the bottom of the excavation will be sticky and wet, so a working platform consisting of gravel or low strength concrete (mud slab) will likely be needed to keep working conditions tolerable and safe.
15.4 H-Pile Foundation – Inlet Structure and Dam Walls Driving H-piles through the Sherack and Brenna formations is relatively simple and straight forward. It is rare in this area to encounter rock or other obstructions during driving through these foundations. Once the piles reach the till layer, the piles will require more strikes per foot, and the energy used to drive the piles will need to be monitored closely to avoid damaging the heads and tips of the piles. It is common to support structures on H-piles in this area and there is a great deal of experience with H-pile driving techniques in these soil conditions, so pile driving is expected to be relatively predictable and trouble free.
15.5 Sheet Pile Sheet pile will be installed under the structure and the dam walls as a seepage cut-off. Driving of sheet pile through the Sherack and Brenna formations is relatively simple and straight forward as described above for the H-Pile foundation.
15.6 Deep Soil Mixing Deep soil mixing in the foundation soils under the control structure will be used to minimize rebound. The soils in the area consist of Sherack and Brenna clays, and do not contain large rocks, stumps, or root masses that could interfere with the deep soil mixing operation. DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 37 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
15.7 Pile Load Test The pile load test will be conducted in the diversion channel downstream of the stilling basin at the diversion channel invert elevation. Due to the depth of the excavation required, there may be concerns with slope stability while the preload is in place, so the excavation will need to be kept to a higher elevation until sufficiently far away from the preload embankments before dropping down to the channel invert. The pile load test will need to be completed early in the contract to allow the results to be checked against the foundation design and adjustments made if warranted. The contractor will be required to have an approved pile load test report prior to proceeding with production piles.
15.8 Diversion Inlet Structure The diversion inlet structure, access bridge and equipment platform will be a reinforced concrete and steel structure. This structure is not expected to pose any significant constructability issues. The steel gates are large enough that they will need to be shipped in sections and assembled on site. The Contractor is required to submit a shipping plan for approval prior to shipment. While the plan for fabrication, transportation, and field assembly is the Contractor’s responsibility, the configuration of the gates makes it possible for the gates to be shipped in pieces small enough to be transported on public roads following oversize load requirements using the following major gate pieces/assemblies: A) Gate skin with ribs (4 per gate), 62 feet long, 10’ – 14’ wide B) Strut arm assemblies (2 per gate) 17 feet tall x 23 feet long C) Girders (2 per gate) 50 feet long Based on the dimensions of the strut arms and the fabrication, shipping & assembly drawing (sheet SG302), it should be possible to fabricate a frame to mount the strut arms to that would hold them at an angle, making the total load dimensions less than 14 feet high (including trailer) and less than 14 feet wide. Cross bracing for the girders will likely be shipped separately and assembled on site, as shipping of two girders with cross bracing as an assembly would result in a load that would exceed width and height restrictions.
15.9 Dam Walls The dam walls and access bridges on top of the dam walls are reinforced concrete structures. These structures are not expected to pose any significant constructability issues. A preload embankment with an underlying granular layer and wick drains will be constructed and monitored for settlement to prevent settlement of the embankment from inducing a down-drag force onto the piles at the transition from the dam wall to earthen dam. The preload embankment and granular layer will be removed and the wick drains will be cut flush with the ground surface prior to construction of the dam embankment.
15.10 Control Building The control building will be constructed on top of the over-build on the benefitted side of the dam embankment. Preloading of the area under the control building is being considered as a way to mitigate any settlement induced by construction of the dam embankment and overbuild. The preload embankment would be constructed as part of the control structure contract and monitored for
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 38 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
settlement prior to allowing construction of the control building. The control building itself will be built on site using standard building materials and practices. This structure is not expected to pose any significant constructability issues.
16 FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
16.1 Responsibilities Associated With A Dam The FMM project as a system impounds water upstream of Fargo-Moorhead. The impoundment meets the definition of a dam. Several structures within the system would have unique and separate consequences should they fail, and the diversion inlet structure is one of these. ER 1110-2-1156 Appendix D describes levels of responsibility for dams having USACE involvement. The FMM Diversion Inlet will be a Category 2 dam. This applies to dams USACE has designed and/or constructed, but responsibility for operation and maintenance rests with others. This responsibility assigned to the local sponsor was approved by CECW-CE in a Memorandum for Commander Mississippi Valley Division dated 08 March 2013. The conditions of this memorandum state: Once the project is completed and turned over to the local partner, the dam component(s) shall be assigned a National Inventory of Dams (NID) number and shall be regulated by the local state dam safety program. The levee components shall be entered into the National Levee Database (NLD) and shall have a reference to NID for data on the dam component of the flood protection system. Levee components shall be regulated via the USACE Levee Safety Program. Dam safety design criteria will be applied to portions of the project that impound significant volumes of water, while levee safety criteria governs along the diversion channel.
16.2 Flood Diversion Authority Responsibilities The Flood Diversion Authority will be responsible for performing operation and maintenance of the diversion inlet structure. As such, the local sponsor assumes primary responsibility for dam safety.
16.3 USACE Responsibilities USACE responsibility is to fulfill the requirements of the Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA). Inspections: Inspections by USACE and the local sponsors will be completed in accordance with the current Inspection of Completed Works policy. USACE will periodically inspect the project to evaluate its performance and maintenance. The St. Paul District will coordinate with the state dam safety programs to obtain copies of the dam safety program inspection reports for review. The district DSO/LSO will assure the adequacy of the inspections and that the sponsor is fulfilling its requirements of the PCA. Points of Contact: The district will provide appropriate USACE emergency contact information to the sponsor annually and obtain the agency or sponsor’s points of contact for emergencies.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 39 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
16.4 Interpretation of Dam/Levee Safety Criteria With regard to USACE dam/levee safety criteria, the following interpretations apply: The dam structures regulated by the states are part of the levee system, and will be included in the overall system adequacy of the USACE Levee Safety Program. The dam inspections may be pulled into the levee inspection reports as appendices to avoid redundancy. The levee system will be exempt from the dam safety portfolio management process as described in Chapter 3 of ER 1110-2-1156. A Dam Safety Action Classification (DSAC) will not be assigned, and risk assessments (such as periodic assessment reports) will not be required. The dam will not be listed in the district portfolio managed in the Corps Dam Safety Program Management Tools. All design criteria for USACE construction applies. A source of typical design considerations for dams (Essential USACE Guidelines) is included in ER 1110-2-1156 Appendix F, and considerations for levees is included in ER 1110-2-1913. A preliminary evaluation of design criteria is included in attachment to the CECW-CE Memorandum. Because the levee system includes separate dams, hydrologic adequacy criteria for dams applies to the overall impoundment capability. ER 1130-2-530 applies to USACE-built flood protection projects operated and maintained by non-Federal sponsors. This ER includes development and maintenance of an O&M manual, a Water Control Manual, an Emergency Action Plan, and periodic dam safety training for project personnel. This ER also requires that project documentation, including design reports and future inspection reports, be maintained at the project for ready reference. Preparation of these documents will be managed between the local sponsor and USACE.
17 PROJECT DELIVERY TEAM The Project Delivery Team (PDT) is an inclusive term that is meant to include all parties involved in the design, review, and approval of the products produced by a definable work effort; this includes USACE personnel, non-federal sponsor personnel, and in some instances key stakeholders. The members assigned have extensive professional and technical experience in their assigned areas of responsibility.
17.1 Project Delivery Team Table 2: Project Delivery Team Project Delivery Team NAME DISTRICT / DISCIPLINE/ROLE PHONE EMAIL ORG Terry CEMVP-PM-B PM-FMM 651 290- [email protected] Williams 5517 Bonnie CEMVP-PM PM-Diversion 651-290- [email protected] Greenleaf Inlet 5476
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 40 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
Project Delivery Team Richard CEMVP-EC-D Technical Lead 651 290- [email protected] Femrite 5550 Lisa Buchli CEMVP-EC-H Channels and 651-290- [email protected] Hydraulic 5416 Structures Leon Opatz CEMVP- EC-D Specifications 651-290- [email protected] and Cost 5281 Engineering Greg Fischer CEMVP- EC-D Civil Site, Utilities 651-290- [email protected] and Relocations 5464 Rod Peterson CEMVP- RE Real Estate 651-290- [email protected] 5397 CEMVP-EC-G Geotechnical 651-290- [email protected] Luke Schmidt 5670 CEMVP-EC-D Survey 651 290- [email protected] Eduardo 5596 Torrens Jon Sobiech CEMVP-PD-P Environmental 651-290- [email protected] 5428 Duane CEMVP-EC-D Structures 651-290- [email protected] Perkins 5531 Erin Krug CEMVP-EC-D Structures 651-290- [email protected] 5576 Caroline CEMVP-EC-D Structures 651-290- [email protected] Weston 5710 Chris Abela CESPK-ED-DR Structures – 916-557- [email protected] Tainter Gates 7048 Ira Dorsett CEMVN-ED-T Structures – 504-862- [email protected] Trunnion Girders 2667 Johnny CENWK-ED- Structures – 816-389- [email protected] Walker DS Control Building 3047 Jake Fall CEMVP-EC-D Materials 651-290- [email protected] Specialist 5242 Aric J. Naeger CENWK-ED- Architect 816-389- [email protected] DA 3236 Byron CEMVP-PD GIS 651-290- [email protected] Williams 5727 Tom Lytle CEMVP-EC-D Mechanical 651-290- [email protected] 5027 Darold CEMVP- EC-D Electrical 651-290- [email protected] Sanderson 5624
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 41 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
Project Delivery Team Aragon CEMVP-CT Contracting 651-290- [email protected] Liebzeit Specialist 5418
17.2 Technical Leads and Functional POCs Table 3: Technical Leads and Functional POC’s Technical Leads and Functional POCs NAME DISTRICT / DISCIPLINE/ROLE PHONE EMAIL ORG Renee CEMVP-EC-D Technical Lead 651-290- [email protected] McGarvey Engineer 5640 Rick Femrite CEMVP- EC-D Technical Lead 651-290- [email protected] Engineer 5550 Aaron CEMVP-EC-H H&H Lead 651-290- [email protected] Buesing Engineer 5627 Kurt CEMVP- EC-D Geotechnical 651-290- [email protected] Heckendorf 5411 Grant Riddick CEMVP- EC-D Geology 651-290- [email protected] 5599 Kent Hokens CEMVP- EC-D Structural 651-290- [email protected] 5584 Eduardo CEMVP- EC-D Geospatial and 651-290- [email protected] Torrens Surveys 5596 Renee CEMVP- EC-D Landscape and 651-290- [email protected] McGarvey Recreation 5640 Jeff Hansen CEMVP- EC-D Specifications 651-290- [email protected] and Cost 5649 Engineering Chris Afdahl CEMVP- EC-D CAD and Drawing 651-290- [email protected] Standards 5712 Jon Sobiech CEMVP- PD-E Environmental 651-290- [email protected] 5428 Ginny CEMVP- PD-E Cultural 651-290- [email protected] Gnabasik Resources 5262 Rod Peterson CEMVP- RE Real Estate 651-290- [email protected] 5397 Timothy CEMVP-EC-D Mechanical 651-290- [email protected] Paulus 1678
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 42 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
17.3 District Quality Control (DQC) Team Table 4: DQC Team DQC Team NAME DISTRICT / DISCIPLINE/ROL PHONE EMAIL ORG E Mike Lesher CEMVP-EC-H Hydraulic 651-290- [email protected] Engineer 5972 Kurt CEMVP- EC-D Geotechnical 651-290- [email protected] Heckendorf 5411 Mike Navin CEMVS-EC- Geotechnical 314-331- [email protected] GD 8441 Kevin Nelson CEMVP- EC-D Geology 651-290- [email protected] 5844 Eduardo CEMVP- EC-D Geospatial and 651-290- [email protected] Torrens Surveys 5596 Tim CEMVP- EC-D Structural 651-290- [email protected] Grundhoffer 5574 Phil Sauser CENAP-EC-EB Structural 651-769- [email protected] 3447 Mark CEMVN-ED-L Structural QC – 504-862- [email protected] Gayheart Control Building 1262 Johnny CENWK-ED- Structural QC – 816-389- [email protected] Walker DS Trunnion Girder 3047 Cecily Nolan CESPK-ED-DS Structural QC – 916-293- [email protected] Tainter Gates and 4158 Misc. Gate Components Cheuk Wan CESPK-ED-DR Structural QC - 916-557- [email protected] Trunnion 7149 Assembly Michele Louie CESPK-ED-DS Structural QC – 916-557- [email protected] Trunnion 7320 Transition Hub Christine CEMVP- EC-D Landscape, 651-290- [email protected] Moss Recreation, and 5025 Civl-Site Dave Kollars CEMVP-EC-D Electrical 651-290- [email protected] 5607
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 43 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
DQC Team Tim Paulus CEMVP- EC-D Mechanical 651-290- [email protected] 5530 James Sentz CEMVP- EC-D Specifications 651-290- [email protected] and Cost 5625 Engineering Chris Afdahl CEMVP- EC-D CAD and Drawing 651-290- [email protected] Standards 5712 Doug Crum CEMVP-EC-D Dam Safety 651-290- [email protected] Manager 5651 Elliott Stefanik CEMVP-PD-P Environmental 651-290- [email protected] 5260
17.4 Agency Technical Review (ATR) Team Table 5: ATR Team ATR Team NAME DISTRICT / DISCIPLINE/ROLE PHONE EMAIL ORG Mark Nelson CENWO-PM- ATR Leader 402-995- [email protected] AA /Planning 2703 Ted Doscher CENWO-ED- Landscape 402-995- [email protected] DJ Architect 2208 Kathleen CENWO-CD- Construction 402-995- [email protected] Englert S-CM 2038 Ron Beyer CENWO-ED- Hydrology 402-221- [email protected] HE 4475 Roger Kay CENWO-ED- Hydraulics 402-995- [email protected] HD 2342 Dan Pridal CENWO-ED- Channel Stability 402-995- [email protected] HF 2336 David CENWO-ED- Geotechnical 402-995- [email protected] Sobczyk GB 2249 Aaron Quinn CENWO-PM- Environmental 402-995- [email protected] AC 2669 Rick Noel CENWO-RE-C Real Estate 402-995- [email protected] 2832 Lyle CENWO-ED- Structural 402-995- [email protected] Peterson DF 2161
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 44 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
17.5 Sponsor Representatives Table 6: Sponsor Representatives Sponsor Representatives NAME ORGANIZATION DISCIPLINE/ROLE PHONE EMAIL Mark Bittner City of Fargo City Engineer 701-241- [email protected] 1572 April Walker City of Fargo Engineer 701 241- [email protected] 1554 Bob City of Moorhead City Engineer 218-299- [email protected] Zimmerman 5390 Keith Berndt Cass County County Engineer [email protected] Tom Waters, CH2MHill Program Manager 571-296- [email protected] P.E. 5245 John CH2MHill Project Manager 651-253- [email protected] Glatzmaier, 5910 P.E. Rick Carson CH2MHill / KGS H&H and 204-478- [email protected] Group Geology 3237 Leon Schieber CH2MHill / Black Structures 913-515- [email protected] & Veatch 8657
17.6 State Agency Representatives Table 7: State Agency Representatives State Agency Representatives NAME ORGANIZATION DISCIPLINE/ROLE PHONE EMAIL Luther Minnesota DNR [email protected] Aadland David Friedl Minnesota DNR [email protected] Tom Groshens Minnesota DNR [email protected] Bruce Kreft North Dakota [email protected] GFP
18 REVIEW DOCUMENTATION Documentation of the reviews completed on the Design Documentation Report and the associated Plans and Specifications for the Diversion Inlet Structure can be found in Appendix L: Quality Control Documentation.
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 45 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
LIST OF COMMON ACRONYMS
AAA Army Audit Agency (AAA) AAR After Action Review (AAR) ACI American Concrete Institute (ACI) AE Architect/Engineer (AE) firms AEP Alternatives Evaluation Report (AEP) AO Area of Operations (AO) AOR Area of Responsibility (AOR) APIR Abbreviated Project Information Report APIR) AR Army Regulation (AR) ASA Assistant Secretary of the Army ASA(CW) Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASA(CW)) ATR Agency Technical Review (ATR) ATTN Attention (ATTN) ASPRS American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) AWS American Welding Society (AWS) BCOE Biddability, Constructability, Operability, and Environmental (BCOE) review BCR Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) BM Benchmarks (BMs) BMP Best Management Practices (BMP) CAA Clean Air Act (CAA) CAD Computer-Aided Design (CAD) CAP Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) CBO Congressional Budget Office (CBO) CCR Change Control Request (CCR) CDM Current Design Maximum (Water Level) CDR Commander (CDR) CEFMS Corps of Engineers Financial Management System (CEFMS) CFS Cubic Feet per Second (CFS) CG Commanding General (CG) CIR Compensability Interest Review CMP Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) CO Contracting Officer (CO)
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 46 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
COA Course Of Action (COA) COE Corps of Engineers (COE);Chief of Engineers (COE) CONUS Continental United States (CONUS) COR Contracting Officer Representative (COR) CORS Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) CPRA Coastal Protection Restoration Authority (CPRA) CPT Cone Penetration Test (CPT); Captain (CPT) CRREL Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) CS Construction Schedule (CS) CSI Construction Specifications Institute CT Contracting Office CW Civil Works (CW) CWA Clean Water Act (CWA) CWE Current Working Estimate (CWE) CWRB Civil Works Review Board (CWRB) DA Design Agreement (DA); Department of the Army (DA) DDR Design Documentation Report (DDR) DE District Engineer (DE) DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) DEM Digital Elevation Model (DEM) DNR Department of Natural Resources (DNR) DOD Department of Defense (DOD) DOI Department of the Interior (DOI) DOT Department Of Transportation (DOT) DQC District Quality Control (DQC) DRCheckS Design Review and Checking System (DRCheckS) DS Direct Shear Test (DS) DTM Digital Terrain Model (DTM) DTR Draft Technical Review (DTR) E&D Engineering and Design (E&D) EA Environmental Assessment (EA) EC Engineering Circular (EC); Engineering and Construction Division (EC) EDC Engineering During Construction (EDC) EEO Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) EIS Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 47 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
EM Engineering Manual (EM) EMB Excavated Material Berm (EMB) EO Executive Order (EO) EOC Emergency Operations Center (EOC) EPA Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ER Engineering Regulation (ER) ERDC Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) ESA Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) ETL Engineering Technical Letter (ETL) FCA Flood Control Act (FCA) FCSA Federal Cost Share Agreement (FCSA) FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) FMM Fargo Moorhead Metro (FMM) FMV Fair Market Value (FMV) FOIA Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) FTR Final Technical Review (FTR) FY Fiscal Year (FY) – Federal FY begins October 1st annually FYI For Your Information (FYI) GAO General Accounting Office (GAO) GIS Geographic Information System (GIS) GPS Global Positioning System (GPS) GSA General Services Administration (GSA) H&H Hydrology and Hydraulics (H&H) HTRW Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) IAW In Accordance With (IAW) IDF Inflow Design Flood (IDF) IEPR Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) IGE Independent Government Estimate (IGE) IJC International Joint Commission (IJC) LPCP Local Project Control Points (LPCP) M&IE Miscellaneous and Incidental Expenses (M&IE)
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 48 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
MFR Memorandum For Record (MFR) MOA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) MOB Mobilization (MOB) MOU Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
MVD Mississippi Valley Division (MVD) – located in Vicksburg, MS MVK Vicksburg District (MVK) MVM Memphis District (MVM) MVN New Orleans District (MVN) MVP St. Paul District (MVP) MVR Rock Island District (MVR) MVS St. Louis District (MVS) NAD83 North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) – Horizontal Control Datum NAVD 88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) NEPA National Environmental Policy Act, 1969 (NEPA) NGS National Geodetic Survey (NGS) NMAS National Map Accuracy Standard (NMAS) NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) NSRS National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) NSSDA National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA) NWS National Weather Service (NWS) O&M Operation and Maintenance (O&M) OC Office of Council (OC) OCONUS Outside Continental United States (OCONUS) OMB Office of Management and Budget (OMB) OPM Office of Personnel Management (OPM) P&S Plans and Specifications (P&S) PAO Public Affairs Office (PAO) PDS Permanent Duty Station (PDS) PDT Project Delivery Team (PDT) PER Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) PIR Project Information Report (PIR) PM Project Manager PMP Project Management Plan (PMP)
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 49 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
PM-R2 Reach Project Manager (PM-R2) – Reach 2 POC Point of Contact (POC) PPCP Primary Project Control Points (PPCP) PPM Programs, Planning and Project Management Division (PPM) PW ProjectWise (PW) QA Quality Assurance (QA) QC Quality Control (QC) QAP Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) QCP Quality Control Plan (QCP) QMP Quality Management Plan (QMP) R-Bar pore-water pressure measurements (R-Bar) RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) RDDR Reach Design Documentation Report (RDDR) RE Real Estate (RE) RF Revolving Funds (RF) RGG Regional Geotechnical and Geology team (RGG) RM Resource Management RMC Risk Management Center (RMC) RMP Reach Management Plan (RMP) ROE Right of Entry (ROE) ROW Right of Way (ROW) RP Review Plan (RP) RRN Red River of the North (RRN) SAACONS Standard Army Automated Contracting System (SAACONS) SBA Small Business Administration (SMA) SDEIS Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) SDSFIE Spatial Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure, and Environment (SDSFIE) SEP Special Emphasis Program (SEP) SITREP Situation Report (SITREP) SOP Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) SOW Scope of Work (SOW) SPCS State Plane Coordinate System (SPCS) SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) TDY Temporary Duty (TDY) TM Technical Manager (TM); Technical Manual (TM)
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 50 of 51 Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Inlet Structure
UFGS Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) UMR Upper Mississippi River (UMR) USACE US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) USC United States Code (USC) USCG United States Coast Guard (USCG) USDA United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) USGS United States Geological Survey (USGS) VBDC Value Based Design Charrette (VBDC) VFZ Vegetation Free Zone (VFZ) VMZ Vegetation Management Zone (VMZ) VTC Video Teleconference (VTC) WBS Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) WRDA Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
DDR_FMM_Diversion_Inlet.docx 51 of 51