HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF

SOUTH END RED RIVER

BRIDGE LOCATIONS
EAST GRAND FORKS, MN & CITIES OF GRAND FORKS, ND
GRAND FORKS CITY PROJECT NO. 8146

2
STUDY OBJECTIVES
Develop conceptual bridge alignment, profile,
and superstructure.
Identify impacts from future bridge (hydraulic
and infrastructure).
Identify mitigation to minimize
water surface elevation increases.
Perform cost comparison of alternatives relative
to one another.

3
 Belmont Rd

Rinehart Dr

17th Ave BRIDGE

24th Ave LOCATIONS
190th St
32nd Ave

200th St
47th Ave
3

4
BRIDGE TERMINOLOGY
• Superstructure Depth = Beam + Bridge Deck

5
BRIDGE CONFIGURATION SUMMARY

6
KEY TERMS
• Rise – this is the increase in river water
surface when comparing future bridge
impacts against existing river conditions.
• River Gage - Used by USGS to measure
stream flows and to translate various river
elevations to a common point of reference.
• 100-year Event – Flood event with 1%
probability in any given year.
• Design Event – the flood event Army
Corps of Engineers designed flood
protection system for (~210-year Event).
• Freeboard - distance from design flood
elevation to top of flood protection
elevation (About 3 to 4 feet).
• Hydraulic Mitigation – most common
technic is excavation of floodplain to
reduce or eliminate rise in 100-year flood
elevations.
• Insurable Structure - A structure (such
as a home, garage, or other building) that
is within the 100-year floodplain and
typically has flood insurance through
National Flood Insurance Program.
7
BRIDGE ELEVATION REFERENCE
• 0' - DEMERS AVE GAGE
• 28' - RIVER FLOOD STAGE
• 35’ - CLOSURE ELKS DRIVE LOW BRIDGE
• 38’ - CLOSURE 32ND AVE LOW BRIDGE
• 39’ - CLOSURE 47TH AVE LOW BRIDGE
• 43' - 10-YEAR FLOOD STAGE
• 44' - CLOSURE SORLIE BRIDGE
• 45' - CLOSURE OF MINNESOTA AVE (POINT BRIDGE)
• 49’ - CLOSURE ELKS DRIVE AND 32ND AVE MEDIUM BRIDGE
• 51’ - CLOSURE 47TH AVE MEDIUM BRIDGE
• 52' - CLOSURE KENNEDY BRIDGE
• 53' - 100-YEAR FLOOD STAGE
• 54' - 1997 HISTORIC FLOOD CREST
• 58' - 500-YEAR FLOOD STAGE
• 60' - TOP OF LEVEE(GF/EGF)
• 60' - TOP OF FLOOD WALLS (EGF)
• 63' - TOP OF FLOOD WALLS (GF)
• +63’ – ELKS, 32ND AND 47TH HIGH BRIDGES (LOW BEAM ABOVE LEVEE)
7

8
 ELKS DR
• High Bridge 68'
• Low beam above Levee
• Mid Bridge 54'
• Likely Closed 49’ due to
floodwall closure
requirements
• Low Bridge 39' - 50'
• Closed 35' based on low
point of road

Low and Medium Bridge

will utilize existing
floodwall closure.
8

9
ELKS DR
(EGF Side)
Elks Dr

Existing Levee
All options go up and over
levee to eliminate need for
floodwall closure

10
 32ND AVE
• High Bridge 68'
• Low beam above Levee
• Mid Bridge 54'
• Likely Closed 49’ due to
floodwall closure
requirements
• Low Bridge 39' - 52'
• Closed 38' based on
low point of road

Low and Medium

Bridge require new
floodwall Closure
10

11
32ND AVE
(EGF Side)

Raise road to existing

levee for high and
medium options

11

12
 47TH AVE
• High Bridge 68'
• Low beam above Levee
• Mid Bridge 54' 47th Ave
• Likely Closed 51’ due to
floodwall closure River Oaks Cir
requirements
• Low Bridge 40' - 52'
• Closed 39' based on
low point of road

Low and Medium

Bridge require new
floodwall Closure
12

13
47TH AVE

Rinehart Dr
(EGF Side)
47th Ave 200th St

200th St would need to be raised

to see level of surface benefits
for medium and high options
13

14
HYDRAULIC
RESULTS

100-YEAR RISE

- 1 inch is about .08

hundredths
- FEMA requires mitigation
for rise greater than 0.00
feet if insurable structure
will be impacted

14

15
32ND AVE LOW 32ND AVE MEDIUM

MITIGATION
(100-YEAR RISE)
15

16
 KEY BRIDGE CLOSURES
• Low Bridge – Closed at gage 35’ - 39'
CONCLUSIONS • Medium Bridge – Closed at gage 49' - 51'
• High Bridge – Bridge is above levee

HYDRAULIC IMPACTS – HEIGHT/ELEVATION

• Rise is smallest for high bridges and greatest for low bridges

HYDRAULIC IMPACTS – BRIDGE CONFIGURATION

• Rise is smallest for bridges with shallow superstructure depth but more piers
• Rise is highest for bridges with deeper superstructure depth but less piers

HYDRAULIC IMPACTS – MITIGATION

• Elks Dr can be mitigated by floodplain excavation alone
• 47th Ave and 32nd Ave southern "preferred alignment" create the most challenges for
mitigation due to impacts to insurable structures that are unavoidable
• Northern 32nd Ave alignment can be mitigated by floodplain excavation alone

PROPERTY IMPACTS
• Low bridge has the least property impacts; high bridge has the most
• Medium bridge property impacts are similar to low bridge
• Elks Dr location has the least property impacts and 32nd Ave has the most
16

17
 Alternatives Cost Comparison
Bridge Roadway Project Bridge Road Cost R/W Cost Mitigation Total Cost

COST Option
Low
Length (ft)
1000
Length (ft) Length (ft) Cost ($Mil) ($Mil)
3950 4950 $9.80 $4.87
($Mil)
$0.69
Cost ($Mil) ($Mil)
$15.20 $29.87

Elks Drive
Medium 2200 2750 4950 $24.64 $3.78 $0.69 $1.60 $30.02

COMPARISON High

Low
2500

1100
2450

3850
4950

4950
$31.50

$10.78
$4.43

$4.46
$0.72

$1.53
$1.40

$28.00
$37.33

$43.24

32nd Ave
Medium 2050 2900 4950 $22.96 $5.41 $1.53 $8.00 $36.37
High 2400 2550 4950 $30.24 $9.53 $3.48 $1.20 $40.97

Low 1200 3500 4700 $11.76 $3.80 $1.14 $13.40 $28.96

47th Ave
Medium 2400 2300 4700 $26.88 $2.84 $1.43 $7.20 $36.92
High 3000 1700 4700 $37.80 $4.71 $2.30 $1.50 $44.01

Lowest cost for Low Profile Options

Lowest cost for Medium Profile Options
Lowest cost for High Profile Options
Cost Basis
1. Bridge Width = 56 feet (40' clear roadway, 12' path, 2 traffic barriers, 1 ped barrier)
2. Bridge Costs per Square Foot
Low $175
Medium $200
High $225
3. Mitigation Cost = $20/CY
4. Roadway Cost
Quantity Based
7% Mobilization
30% Contingency
5. Roadway costs do not include grade raises on the East Grand Forks side east of Rhinehart Drive
6. Engineering costs are not included
7. Cost estimates are in 2020 dollars 17

18
NEXT STEPS
Preliminary discussions with FEMA/USACE on
verification of hydraulic results and mitigation options

Preliminary discussions with property owners who may be

impacted by a rise in river elevation as a result of the new bridge

Evaluate geotechnical considerations related

to bridge and mitigation for each location

Proceed with MPO regional

street and highway study

18

19
THANK YOU!
QUESTIONS?

EAST GRAND FORKS, MN & CITIES OF GRAND FORKS, ND

GRAND FORKS CITY PROJECT NO. 8146

19

20