1 / 22

FARGO MOORHEAD PROJECT

Pat Foley Annual Tri-Agency Meeting St. Paul, Corps of Engineers 6 October 2010. FARGO MOORHEAD PROJECT. Points Covered. 1. How non-stationarity handled 2. Results of non-stationarity 3. How to handle climate change 4. Downstream Impacts and Project Overview. 2009 Flood Fight.

shaina
Download Presentation

FARGO MOORHEAD PROJECT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pat Foley Annual Tri-Agency Meeting St. Paul, Corps of Engineers 6 October 2010 FARGO MOORHEAD PROJECT

  2. Points Covered • 1. How non-stationarity handled • 2. Results of non-stationarity • 3. How to handle climate change • 4. Downstream Impacts and Project Overview

  3. 2009 Flood Fight OVERALL CITY PLAN 52 MILES OF PROTECTION 10 MILES OF SANDBAG 29 MILES OF CLAY (City) 5 MILES OF CLAY (County) 8 MILES OF HESCO 0.3 MILES OF PORTADAM

  4. EOE Experts • David Ford, PhD Facilitator, David Ford Consultants • Michael Deering, PE, D.WRE Senior Hydraulic Engineer, Water Resource System Division, USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center • Scott Dummer, Hydrologist-in-Charge, National Weather Service North Central River Forecast Center, Chanhassen, MN • Robert Hirsch, PhD Research Hydrologist, US Geological Survey (USGS) National Research Program • Rolf Olsen, PhD Water Resources Systems Engineer, USACE Institute for Water Resources • David Raff, PhD, PE Technical Specialist, Flood Hydrology and Emergency Management Group, Technical Services Center, US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) • Aldo (Skip) Vecchia, PhD Research Statistician, USGS North Dakota

  5. EOE Results • “experts rather quickly moved away from a discussion of climate change, per se, and focused instead on the apparent lack of stationarity in the flood flow frequency and magnitude data over the period of record (the last 110 years or so). “

  6. EOE Results • Using qualitative judgment, e.g., define the dry period as 1901-1941 and the wet period as 1942-2009; or define the dry period as 1901-1960 and the wet period as 1961-2009. • Use statistical tests for homogeneity to determine where to divide the POR. The expert panel did not agree on the statistical tests, but did note work by Villarini, et al • (USED PETTITT TEST)

  7. Villarini Stationarity Results

  8. Pettitt Test Change Point: 1941

  9. Devils Lake

  10. EOE Results • Combine the “wet” and “dry” curves, and weight the probabilities for continued wet conditions versus a reemergence of dry conditions. • (USED 0.8 WET/0.2 DRY 25 YRS AND 0.65/0.35 FOR 50 YRS)

  11. Flow-Frequency AnalysisLog-Pearson Type III

  12. Flow-Frequency AnalysisRegulated

  13. Climate Change-Look Forward

  14. Climate Projections & Frequency Analysis Source: Raff, D.A, T. Pruitt, and L.D. Brekke, “A Framework for Assessing Flood Frequency Based on Climate Projection Information,” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 2119-2136, 2009. Flow-Frequency Curves for the James River at Jamestown Blue Lines= Expanding retrospective approach Colored lines = Lookahead approach

  15. FLOODED AREA-ND DIVERSION

  16. DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS-GEORGETOWN ND DIVERSION, 100-YR FLOOD

  17. DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS-THOMPSON ND DIVERSION, 100-YR FLOOD

  18. DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS, ND DIVERSION, 100-YR FLOOD

  19. FLOODED AREA-MN DIVERSION

More Related