BRANDT IMPOUNDMENT OUTLET DITCH ESTABLISHEMENT PRELIMINARY SURVEY REPORT

Transcription

1 BRANDT IMPOUNDMENT OUTLET DITCH ESTABLISHEMENT PRELIMINARY SURVEY REPORT PROPOSED AS: RED LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT DITCH #15 RLWD Project No. 175 HDR Project No Engineering Inc nd Street East Thief River Falls, Minnesota 56701

2 BRANDT IMPOUNDMENT OUTLET DITCH ESTABLISHMENT PRELIMINARY SURVEY REPORT PROPOSED AS RED LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT DITCH #15 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered professional engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. This document was originally issued and sealed by Nathan P. Dalager, P.E., Registration Number on September 7, Nathan P. Dalager, P.E. License No /7/12 HDR Engineering, Inc nd Street E Thief River Falls, MN Preliminary Survey Report ii September 2012

3 1.0 INTRODUCTION RLWD PROJECT PETITION DITCH ESTABLISHMENT PROCESS HISTORY GENERAL ADJACENT LEGAL DITCH SYSTEMS CONCERNS PROJECT INVESTIGATION SURVEYS ALIGNMENT AND STATIONING SOILS HYDROLOGY HYDRAULICS CULVERT ANALYSIS RIGHT-OF-WAY PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN ALTERNATIVES DESIGN GOALS DESIGN CRITERIA CHANNEL DESIGN DESIGN ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED DESIGN SIDE INLETS/APPROACHES SPOIL PLACEMENT UTILITIES OPINION OF PROBABLE COST SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ADEQUACY OF OUTLET BENEFITED AREA PERMITS & REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL & LAND USE CRITERIA DISCUSSION OF RESULTS CONCLUSIONS Appendix A. Project 60 Information Appendix B. Petition APPENDICES A B Preliminary Survey Report iii September 2012

4 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Adjacent Ditch Lengths and Drainage Areas... 5 Table 2 Hydrologic Data Summary Table 3 Design Flow Rates for RLWD Ditch # Table 4 Hydraulic Analysis Results for RLWD Ditch # Table 5 Culvert Analysis Results Table 6 Culvert Schedule Table 7 Right of Way Table 8: Alternative 2 Probable Cost Table 9: Alternative 3 Probable Cost LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location Map... 4 Figure 2: Drainage Area Map... 6 Figure 3: Alignment and Stationing... 9 Figure 4: Hydrologic Model Figure 5: HY8 Program Figures Figure 6: RLWD Ditch #15 Profile Figure 7: Typical Cross Section (Alternative 2) Figure 8: Optional Ditch Alignment Straightening Locations Figure 9: Existing Utilities Figure 10: RLWD Runoff Timing Zones Figure 11: CD2 Benefitted area and Section Information Preliminary Survey Report iv September 2012

5 1.0 INTRODUCTION The (RLWD) has received a ditch establishment petition, and prepared a Preliminary Survey Report for the consideration of the Brandt Impoundment Outlet Ditch Establishment project. The goal and ultimate purpose of the project is to reduce the impacts of local and regional flooding and to add environmental benefits to the system. Establishment may consist of excavation of the cross section, improvements to ditch grade, and addition of culverts or lowering of culverts. Figure 1 displays the project location. Over the course of several decades, the Grand Marais Creek Subwatershed (See Appendix A) in the RLWD has been recognized by the residents and farmers of the area as some of most fertile farmland in the Red River Valley. The area located east of East Grand Forks, north of Crookston, south of Warren, and west of Thief River Falls, is also flood prone, affected by repetitive flooding on a consistent basis. The primary reason for flooding in this area is due to topography. The area west of U.S. Highway 75 is very flat, averaging 3 to 5 feet of vertical drop in elevation per mile. When heavy rains fall on this flat area, the land is unable to drain quickly and flooding can result. Compounding the flooding in this flat area is the fact that there are ridges and steeper topography in the eastern portion of the watershed. These areas drain more quickly, and inundate the flatter land to the west. A system of ditches running east to west was constructed every mile (north to south) around the early 1900s to encourage settlement of the area. Most of these ditches are currently undersized relative to modern farming practices for their respective drainage areas. A typical ditch draining into the Grand Marais Creek has the capacity to handle a runoff from a 1-2 year frequency event. This translates into flooding, environmental damage and crop losses on an almost annual basis. 1.1 RLWD Project 60 In recent years, the RLWD has been actively addressing these flooding, economic and environmental problems. A comprehensive drainage study was done in the 1980s that looked at improving a series of ditches in the area. At the time, the project was thought to be too expensive and did not address possible impacts downstream. However, a few smaller ditch improvements and repairs have occurred in the last couple of decades. About the time of the drainage study, public meetings were held regarding problems in the Parnell Township area of the RLWD, and a consensus developed that included flood storage as a necessary and practical component of the overall solution to the flooding problems in the area. Since that time, the RLWD constructed the 3,600 acre-ft Parnell Impoundment, the 4,000 acre-ft Brandt Impoundment, the 2,450 acre-ft Euclid East Impoundment, the 400 acre-ft Louisville-Parnell Impoundment, and about 600 acre- Preliminary Survey Report 1 September 2012

6 ft of storage in Flood Storage Easement Sites 1 and 2. The locations of these facilities are also shown in Appendix A. The construction of these facilities has resulted in flood damage reduction and environmental benefits. Because of the area s history of flooding and the magnitude of the problem, the Grand Marais Creek Subwatershed was identified by the RLWD and a Project Work Team (PWT) was organized in The project is commonly referred to as Project 60 because of the RLWD project number assigned many years ago. The initial series of meetings of the PWT involved organizational issues and looking at general problems in the area. After careful review of the watershed, the PWT identified that a combination of ditch improvements and flood storage was needed to provide the desired 10-year level of summer flood protection and to reduce damages in the Grand Marais Creek Subwatershed. The RLWD utilized the results of the mediation process and PWT to determine that the Brandt Impoundment site was one of the needed improvements to achieve the stated flood protection and environmental enhancement goals. The project is also consistent with earlier RLWD plans and projects (e.g., Project 60) that called for a series of ditch improvements and impoundments in this same watershed. Therefore, the RLWD ordered construction of the Brandt and Euclid East Impoundments which were completed by approximately As referenced previously, the concept of impoundments has been considered by the RLWD for a number of years. The PWT process evaluated a variety of additional project alternatives. Three main alternatives were considered for the Grand Marais Creek Subwatershed in order to achieve the desired 10-year level of protection. These alternatives were refined into three distinct options. 1. Option 1 Ditch Improvements Only This alternative has not been identified as a feasible alternative considering the size of the ditches required to handle the 10-year event, the associated cost and the ramifications involving existing roads and infrastructure. In addition, downstream flooding potentially caused by such a large-scale improvement was of concern. 2. Option 2 Ditch Improvements and Flood Storage Impoundments A combination of drainage and storage is the preferred alternative. This approach reduces or eliminates downstream impacts while providing much needed drainage relief. Preliminary Survey Report 2 September 2012

7 3. Option 3 Flood Storage Impoundments Only This is also a viable solution, but the PWT feels that storage may not always benefit areas downstream under patterns of precipitation falling downstream of the storage areas. Thus, ditch improvements are recommended as part of the overall solution. In accordance with Options 2 and 3, the Polk County Ditch 2 (CD 2) area and associated tributary areas and ditches, such as the Brandt Impoundment Outlet Ditch (hereafter referred to as RLWD Ditch #15), were identified as a priority which the PWT would focus on for the foreseeable future. In response to the petition received by the RLWD, this Preliminary Survey Report addresses the proposed ditch establishment project features. 1.2 Petition The RLWD has received a petition to consider the establishment of the RLWD Ditch #15 located northwest of Euclid, Minnesota. The petition is located in Appendix B. RLWD Ditch #15 is located in Tabor, Angus, Euclid, and Belgium Townships in Polk County. The Ditch has a drainage area of approximately 41 square miles immediately upstream of the confluence with Polk County Ditch 66 (CD 66), and a drainage area of approximately 86 square miles after CD 66 and RLWD Ditch #15 are combined. Ultimately, RLWD Ditch #15 outlets into Polk County Ditch #2 (CD 2) which in turn discharges into the Grand Marais Creek in Section 26 of Esther Township as shown in Figures 1 and Ditch Establishment Process The project is being conducted in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statute 103E. To date, the reporting effort included a survey conducted by RLWD/HDR, an informal Engineer s meeting with area land owners and petitioners, an engineering review and analysis, and preparation of the Preliminary Survey Report to be submitted to regulatory agencies for advisory comments. Additional steps will include preparation of a Final Detailed Survey Engineer s report, Viewing and determination of the benefited area, and public hearing(s). Preliminary Survey Report 3 September 2012

8 FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP Preliminary Survey Report 4 September 2012

9 2.0 HISTORY 2.1 General Proposed RLWD Ditch #15 is located in Polk County. It is part of a watershed that drains mainly west and north on the east side of the Red River of the North. Historically, this watershed consisted of many different smaller watersheds, each one of them sheet flowing to its own natural outlet running northwesterly to the Red River of the North. The construction of roads and other ditches have been the largest influences in defining the existing watershed boundary. Due to the flat terrain, the ditches act like diversions taking runoff from poorly defined outlets to outlets that are more defined. 2.2 Adjacent Legal Ditch Systems The petition calls for establishment of the Brandt Impoundment Outlet Ditch system (RLWD Ditch #15), which begins at 360 th Avenue NW (Section 22, Tabor Twsp) and ends at the outlet of the Brandt Impoundment (Section 7, Belgium Twsp) as shown in Figure 2. Adjacent ditch systems include CD 2 and CD66. CD 2 begins at CSAH 20 and flows west to the Grand Marais Creek, although the petition calls for the ditch improvement to begin at 360 th Ave NW, approximately 2 miles west of CSAH 20. The proposed ditch establishment of RLWD Ditch #15 would tie into the existing ditch grade and cross section of CD 2 at this location. Thus, 2 miles of CD 2 would be established as RLWD Ditch #15 through the ditch establishment process. CD 66 flows into CD 2 approximately 2100 feet west of 360 th Ave NW. CD 66 may be considered as a lateral of RLWD Ditch #15. Table 1 displays approximate drainage areas and stream lengths for the legal adjacent ditches to RLWD Ditch #15. TABLE 1 ADJACENT DITCH LENGTHS AND DRAINAGE AREAS Ditch Name Drainage Area (Sq. mi.) Length (Mi.) CD CD Preliminary Survey Report 5 September 2012

10 FIGURE 2: DRAINAGE AREA MAP Preliminary Survey Report 6 September 2012

11 2.3 Concerns RLWD Ditch #15 is currently inadequate to convey 10-year storm flows. The ditch frequently overtops and water backs into adjacent fields. The petitioners have determined that continued repair would not provide the needed ditch capacity. Therefore, they are pursuing this ditch establishment project. Investigation of the survey data revealed that RLWD Ditch #15 does not have a smooth channel bottom or ditch grade. The irregular channel bottom promotes the growth of vegetation, increasing the channel roughness. Drainage can be improved by widening the channel bottom, flattening the side slopes, lowering the channel bottom profile, and addressing culvert deficiencies. The following sections discuss the details of the hydraulic modeling results and related design issues. 3.0 PROJECT INVESTIGATION 3.1 Surveys The survey data was collected by the RLWD and HDR Engineering, Inc. Vertical control was obtained from the NGS Control Bench Mark Number: TD0796 (MN/DOT geodetic database: G 372). A topographic survey was completed along the cross-section of the entire channel. Information at culverts and crossings was also collected. 3.2 Alignment and Stationing Figure 3 displays the general alignment of the proposed ditch as well as the hydraulic modeling stationing. Project stationing used for this report was set so that Sta is located at 360 th Ave NW, approximately 0.5 miles west of the confluence of CD 2 and CD 66. The report stationing begins at Sta and terminates at Sta , at the Brandt Impoundment outlet. 3.3 Soils The results of soils investigations indicate that the Brandt area is underlain by a varying layer of topsoil, variably thick glacial outwash sands and clayey glacial till soils to the maximum depths explored. The glacial outwash sands were generally encountered beneath the topsoil and mostly consist of medium dense silty sand with some zones of silt. The thickness of the upper glacial outwash soils is known to range from 1 to 8 ft deep. Preliminary Survey Report 7 September 2012

12 The glacial till soils consist primarily of firm lean clay. The glacial till likely extends to the bottom of the proposed ditches. Groundwater can be found 6 ft below existing ground surface. It should be noted that reliable readings of groundwater levels depends upon the temporal climate conditions. The successful construction and performance of a trapezoidal ditch is considered to be feasible. Since the on-site foundations soils are relatively competent in strength and stiffness, there should be no concerns of potential slope instability or excessive sloughing. Additional consideration of soils will be addressed in the Detailed Survey Report. Preliminary Survey Report 8 September 2012

13 FIGURE 3: ALIGNMENT AND STATIONING Preliminary Survey Report 9 September 2012

14 3.4 Hydrology The project design utilized information presented in National Weather Service Technical Paper Number 40 (TP 40). This data has been considered the standard in the Minnesota engineering community for many years. However, more recent and statistically significant data was also considered in the development of the project design. The 10-year rainfall event was revised slightly upward from those contained in TP 40 based upon research conducted by Huff and Angel (Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the Midwest, Midwest Climate Center, 1992). Hydrologic design data is contained in Table 2. TABLE 2 HYDROLOGIC DATA SUMMARY Event Precipitation (Inches) 2-Year, 24-Hour Year, 24-Hour 3.50 Design flows used for the project were developed using a modified version of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) HEC-HMS hydrologic model for the Grand Marais Watershed developed in The drainage area was divided into 9 similar sub-watersheds to more accurately simulate the amount of flow entering the system at a given time (See Figure 2). The flows generated for 2- and 10-year 24-hour rain events with SCS Type II distribution were analyzed for each alternative. Two of the sub watersheds provide flows to the Brandt and Euclid East Impoundments, operated by the RLWD. Due to the difficulty in predicting the exact future operation of the impoundments, the conservative assumption was made that 50 percent of peak inflows to each respective impoundment would be released following the 2-year rain event and 25 percent of peak inflows would be released following/during a 10-year event. Based on a meeting with the project petitioners and balancing the cost with drainage requirements, the 2- and 10-year peak flows were selected for channel design. It was determined that the consideration of these flows would provide the needed protection for agricultural production, and selecting a larger flow would increase the cost of the required improvements beyond a cost effective amount. See Figure 4 for flow input locations and Table 3 for calculated peak flow rates. Preliminary Survey Report 10 September 2012

15 FIGURE 4: HYDROLOGIC MODEL Preliminary Survey Report 11 September 2012

16 Station TABLE 3 DESIGN FLOW RATES FOR RLWD DITCH #15 Location Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.) 2-Year Design Flow (CFS) 10-Year Design Flow (CFS) Brandt Impoundment Outlet Highway Highway Highway CD 66 Junction Hydraulics Hydraulic analysis of RLWD Ditch #15 was performed to determine channel capacities in channels with a consistent slope and trapezoidal cross section. Channel capacities were analyzed for each section between culverts. Results are provided in Table 4. Highlighted cells within the table represent sections with a capacity of less than the 10-year peak flow rate. As shown in the table, adding a 1-2 berm alongside the ditch will help to increase ditch capacity during high-flow events, and it is likely that berms will be created along portions of the ditch as a means to dispose of spoil from the ditch excavation. Locations and elevations of these berms can be determined during final engineering, where consideration will be given to meeting conveyance needs. In location(s) where berms are not feasible or will not increase conveyance enough to provide a 10-year capacity, other options such as adjusting ditch grade and/or lowering the ditch invert at crossings such as 110 th St NW or CSAH 20 may be considered. Preliminary Survey Report 12 September 2012

17 Station Location Existing Slope (%) TABLE 4 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR RLWD DITCH #15 Proposed Slope (%) Existing Bottom Width (FT) Peak Inflows (CFS) 2- YR 10- YR Existing 12' Bottom Capacity (CFS) 15' Bottom 15' Bottom & 1' Berm 15' Bottom & 2' Berm to Jct CD Jct CD66 to 350 th Ave NW th Ave NW to CSAH CSAH 20 to 110 th ST NW ~ th ST NW to 320 th Ave NW th Ave NW to CSAH CSAH 21 to 310 th Ave SW Ave SW 110 th ST SW th ST SW to 290 th Ave SW th Ave SW to Hwy Hwy 75 to Brandt Impoundment *See Below N/A N/A N/A N/A Orange Shading = Reach does not meet design goals *The channel reach between Sta to (Hwy 75 to Brandt Impoundment Outlet) consists of natural channel and restored natural channel with substantial floodplain buffers. No work is proposed in this reach. Preliminary Survey Report 13 September 2012

18 3.6 Culvert Analysis Culvert hydraulics were analyzed using the U.S. Federal Highway Administration s HY-8 program which calculates culvert capacities based upon the slope, size, material, inlet condition, and water surface elevation at the inlet (see Figure 5). Results for each crossing are provided in Error! Reference source not found.. Highlighted cells within the table represent sections with a capacity of less than the 10-year peak flow rate, thus causing overtopping of the road or crossing to occur. Proposed conditions are also shown. Improved capacities are based on factors such as lower inverts, additional pipes, and lowered ditch inverts immediately downstream of the crossing to reduce backwater effects. Note that some proposed culvert additions are recommended for the purpose of lowering the ditch invert to provide a greater upstream channel capacity rather than increase capacities at the crossing itself (Sta and ). A more detailed investigation of these options coupled with channel characteristics such as berm elevation will be completed during final engineering. It should also be noted that there are three existing bridges crossing the channel near stations 39+00, 76+50, and It appears that the bridges are weight restricted private accesses. The Culvert Schedule (Table 6) provides recommendations regarding each bridge. Preliminary Survey Report 14 September 2012

19 Crossing - STA EX., Design Discharge cfs Culvert - 138"X88"79', Culvert Discharge cfs Elevation (ft) Critical Profile Tailwater Headwater Streambed Station (ft) FIGURE 5: HY8 PROGRAM FIGURES Preliminary Survey Report 15 September 2012

20 TABLE 5 CULVERT ANALYSIS RESULTS Sta. Peak Inflow (CFS) 2- YR 10- YR Road Crest El. Existing Inlet El. Existing Outlet El. Capacity (CFS) Peak WSE Freeboard Proposed Addition Inlet El. Proposed Outlet El. Capacity (CFS) Peak WSE Freeboard 'x9' RC BOX (3) None n/a n/a BRIDGE " CSP "x107" RC-A " CSP BRIDGE Leave in Place "x88" RC-A (2) None n/a n/a 'x5' RC BOX (2) " CSP 'x5' RC BOX (2) " CSP "x78" RC-A (2) " Steel Casing 'x5' RC BOX (2) None n/a n/a "x78" RC-A (2) Lower Existing Preliminary Survey Report 16 September 2012

21 Sta. Peak Inflow (CFS) 2- YR 10- YR Road Crest El Existing Inlet El. Existing Outlet El. Capacity (CFS) Peak WSE Freeboard Proposed Addition Inlet El. Proposed Outlet El. Capacity (CFS) Peak WSE Freeboard 14'x4' RC BOX (2) None n/a n/a BRIDGE - 20' SPAN None " RCP (4) None n/a n/a 'x6' RC BOX (2) None n/a n/a "x62" RC-A (3) None n/a n/a "x62" RC-A (3) None n/a n/a Orange Shading = Culvert capacity does not meet design goals Preliminary Survey Report 17 September 2012

22 TABLE 6 CULVERT SCHEDULE Station Existing Culvert Type Proposed Addition Total Approximate Waterway Opening x9 RC Box None 3-10 x9 264 ft Old Bridge (87.5 ft 2 opening) Concrete Eliminate Crossing or 3 84 CSP x 107 RCP-A 60 CSP Old Bridge Wood Eliminate Crossing or Leave Bridge in Place ft x ft 2 Old Bridge 116 ft x 88 RCP-A None x ft x 5 RC Box 24 CSP x 5 RC Box 24 CSP x 78 RCP-A 36 Steel-Casing (Bore) 2 12 x x x ft ft ft x 5 RC Box None 2 12 x ft x 78 RCP-A Lower and Extend Existing Pipes x ft X 4 RC Box None 2 14 X ft Old Bridge Concrete & Steel Eliminate Crossing or Leave Bridge in Place Old Bridge 120 ft RCP None ft x 6 RC Box None 2 10 x ft x 62 RCP-A None x ft x 62 RCP-A None x ft 2 Preliminary Survey Report 18 September 2012

23 3.7 Right-of-Way There is generally no existing right-of-way on either side of the ditch centerline until CD 2. Easement for temporary and permanent right-of-way will be obtained for the proposed ditch system. Table 7 displays the required right-of-way to be purchased. The statute requires a minimum permanently vegetated buffer zone of one rod from the top of the excavated slope or to the top of the spoil slope on the ditch side, which ever is greater. A temporary right-of-way will be purchased beyond the permanent right-of-way to provide for construction access and spoil disposal. TABLE 7 RIGHT OF WAY Proposed Ditch Right-of-Way Station Permanent R.O.W. Description Perm. R.O.W. Acres Temp. R.O.W. Acres (25') ' From Existing Ditch R.O.W ' from Ditch Centerline, 120' Total ' From Road Centerline ' from Ditch Centerline, 120' Total ' From Road Centerline ' from Ditch Centerline, 120' Total ' From Road Centerline ' from Ditch Centerline, 120' Total ' from Ditch Centerline, 200' Total ' from Ditch Centerline, 120' Total ' From Road Centerline ' from Ditch Centerline, 120' Total ' From Road Centerline ' from Ditch Centerline, 120' Total Acreage Totals: Preliminary Survey Report 19 September 2012

24 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 4.1 Design Goals The goal of this project is to increase the hydraulic capacity of RLWD Ditch #15 and reduce the frequency of flooding along the ditch without compromising the adequacy of the downstream outlet. The primary design considerations are project function, cost, and impacts to the environment. Improvements must restore and enhance the proper functioning of the ditch. Project costs must be acceptable to provide a feasible project. Impacts to the environment, such as draining of wetlands, must be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. 4.2 Design Criteria The following design criterion was used to analyze the hydraulic adequacy of the improved channel: The channel should: Pass 2-year flows in the channel with 0 feet of free board below field inlets. Pass 10-year flows in the channel ideally below natural ground, or below berm levels in select instances. 4.3 Channel Design The existing cross-section of the Brandt Channel has an average bottom width of 12 feet wide and average side slopes of 3:1 or steeper. The proposed grade of the ditch varies from an average of 0.026%-0.135% ( ft / ft ft / ft ); the grade of the existing Brandt Channel varies from an average of 0.03%-0.13% ( ft / ft ft / ft ), as shown in Table 4. The proposed grade of the channel will be set such that it matches the existing inverts of most inplace culverts. As shown in Figure 6 some existing culvert and ditch inverts are such that the upstream ditch invert is below the existing culvert inlet invert, thus creating a sag in the ditch bottom for several hundred feet (i.e. Sta 0+00 to 4+00). Many of the culverts at these crossings are large and therefore it may not be cost effective to lower or replace the existing pipe(s) to provide a smooth and continuous grade. Where practical, culvert(s) will be lowered or an additional on-grade pipe will be added to the crossing to provide a smooth continuous grade (i.e Sta see Table 6). Further investigation of the best possible option for each crossing will be pursued during Final Engineering. Preliminary Survey Report 20 September 2012

25 FIGURE 6: RLWD DITCH #15 PROFILE Preliminary Survey Report 21 September 2012

26 4.4 Design Alternatives There are 3 alternatives that were evaluated for this project. The alternatives are listed individually below. 1. Alternative 1 Do nothing, leave the system as it is. This alternative changes nothing in the system. 2. Alternative 2 This alternative includes cleaning the existing channel such that it has a 15 foot wide bottom, 3:1 side slopes, and a more defined profile between 360 th Ave NW and Hwy 75 (See Figure 7). It also includes selected culvert improvements between 360 th Ave NW and Hwy 75. No work is proposed east of Hwy Alternative 3 This alternative increases the Alternative 2 channel bottom width from 15 to 20. As a feature of all Alternatives, Figure 8 depicts numerous opportunities for ditch straightening around farm yards and near roadways. FIGURE 7: TYPICAL CROSS SECTION (ALTERNATIVE 2) Preliminary Survey Report 22 September 2012

27 FIGURE 8: OPTIONAL DITCH ALIGNMENT STRAIGHTENING LOCATIONS Preliminary Survey Report 23 September 2012

28 4.5 Proposed Design The proposed ditch modifications begin at the NW corner of Section 27 in Tabor Township (Station 0+00) and continue southeasterly to the western end of Section 11 of Euclid Township (Station ). The channel improvements were designed to allow the 2 & 10-year flow rates to pass through the ditch below natural ground with the exception of a few locations along the entire length of the improved ditch. 4.6 Side Inlets/Approaches Side inlets will be installed where berms are constructed, and at every major field ditch inlet as appropriate. Each side inlet shall be equipped with an apron and flap gate on the outlet and 5 cubic yards of Class II riprap to reduce possibility of backflow and erosion. The majority of these pipes themselves shall consist of 18 inch Corrugated Steel Pipe (CSP). Larger CSP pipes will be considered for larger drainage areas. 4.7 Spoil Placement Spoil from ditch excavation will be placed alongside the ditch, creating a berm within the permanent and/or temporary right-of-way. As noted in the hydraulics discussion, select portions of the berm will be used to provide additional depth to provide conveyance for the 10-year event. It is anticipated that spoil will be placed on both sides of the ditch downstream of CSAH 21 and will be placed on the west side of the ditch upstream of CSAH Utilities HDR conducted a Gopher State One Call to obtain information on what utilities are located inside the project area. The known utilities within the project area are shown in Figure 9. Special consideration should be given to the natural gas pipeline crossing in Section 30 of Angus Township. Two 24 lines cross the ditch, one of which has a concrete cap at the existing ditch invert for pipe protection. The second pipe has approximately 7 feet of cover at the ditch crossing. Exact locations of other utilities such as fiber optic, water lines, and underground electric crossing the ditch will also be determined during Final Engineering. Consideration to utility depth and the cost to relocate any utility (if determined necessary) will help to determine ditch depth at each location. Preliminary Survey Report 24 September 2012

29 FIGURE 9: EXISTING UTILITIES Preliminary Survey Report 25 September 2012

30 4.9 Opinion of Probable Cost The following tables outline the estimated costs for the alternatives based on 2012 rates. TABLE 8: ALTERNATIVE 2 PROBABLE COST ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS TOTAL ESTIMATED QUANTITIES UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE MOBILIZATION LS 1 $50, $50, CLEARING & GRUBBING LS 1 $12, $12, COMMON EXCAVATION (P) CY 233,775 $2.70 $631, AGGREGATE SURFACING, CLASS 5 MODIFIED TON 1,000 $13.00 $13, C.Y. BACKHOE HR 1 $ $ C.Y. DUMP TRUCK HR 1 $ $ DOZER (D-6 EQUIVALENT) HR 1 $ $ GRANULAR BEDDING (P) TON 400 $8.50 $3, " CS PIPE CULVERT LF 1,800 $25.00 $45, " CS PIPE CULVERT LF 412 $30.00 $12, " CS PIPE CULVERT LF 1,000 $48.00 $48, " CS PIPE CULVERT STEP BEVELED LF 86 $ $10, " CS PIPE CULVERT STEP BEVELED LF 300 $ $57, SALVAGE AND INSTALL 122" x 78" RC ARCH PIPE CULVERT LF 196 $ $58, " x 78" RC-ARCH PIPE CULVERT LF 48 $ $28, " STEEL CASING PIPE CULVERT (JACK INSTALLED) LF 88 $ $33, " CS PIPE APRON EA 65 $ $10, " CS PIPE APRON EA 9 $ $1, " CS PIPE APRON EA 22 $ $10, FLAP GATE FOR 18" CS PIPE EA 65 $ $22, FLAP GATE FOR 24" CS PIPE EA 5 $ $2, FLAP GATE FOR 36" CS PIPE EA 20 $ $13, REMOVE CONCRETE BRIDGE LS 1 $3, $3, RANDOM RIPRAP, CLASS II CY 700 $55.00 $38, RANDOM RIPRAP, CLASS III CY 400 $60.00 $24, TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $11, $11, TEMPORARY DITCH CHECK TYPE 3 LF 750 $4.25 $3, SEEDING ACRE 165 $55.00 $9, SEED, MIXTURE 250 LB 11,560 $1.70 $19, MULCH MATERIAL, TYPE 1 TON 330 $75.00 $24, DISC ANCHORING ACRE 165 $12.25 $2, FERTILIZER, TYPE 2 TON 16.5 $ $11, SUBTOTAL $1,210, LAND ACQUISITION AND EASEMENTS (AGRICULTURAL LAND) ACRE 61 $4, $274, LAND ACQUISITION AND EASEMENTS (EXISTING DITCH FOOTPRINT) ACRE 61 $ $30, TEMPORARY RIGHT OF WAY ACRE 51 $ $22, UTILITY RELOCATIONS $50, ENGINEERING AND ADMIN. (INC. LEGAL DITCH ENGINEERS REPORTS AND HEARINGS) 25 % $302, CONTINGENCIES 10 % $121, TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $2,011, Preliminary Survey Report 26 September 2012

31 TABLE 9: ALTERNATIVE 3 PROBABLE COST ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS TOTAL ESTIMATED QUANTITIES UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE MOBILIZATION LS 1 $50, $50, CLEARING & GRUBBING LS 1 $12, $12, COMMON EXCAVATION (P) CY 301,150 $2.70 $813, AGGREGATE SURFACING, CLASS 5 MODIFIED TON 1,000 $13.00 $13, C.Y. BACKHOE HR 1 $ $ C.Y. DUMP TRUCK HR 1 $ $ DOZER (D-6 EQUIVALENT) HR 1 $ $ GRANULAR BEDDING (P) TON 400 $8.50 $3, " CS PIPE CULVERT LF 1,800 $25.00 $45, " CS PIPE CULVERT LF 412 $30.00 $12, " CS PIPE CULVERT LF 1,000 $48.00 $48, " CS PIPE CULVERT STEP BEVELED LF 86 $ $10, " CS PIPE CULVERT STEP BEVELED LF 300 $ $57, SALVAGE AND INSTALL 122" x 78" RC ARCH PIPE CULVERT LF 196 $ $58, " x 78" RC-ARCH PIPE CULVERT LF 48 $ $28, " STEEL CASING PIPE CULVERT (JACK INSTALLED) LF 88 $ $33, " CS PIPE APRON EA 65 $ $10, " CS PIPE APRON EA 9 $ $1, " CS PIPE APRON EA 22 $ $10, FLAP GATE FOR 18" CS PIPE EA 65 $ $22, FLAP GATE FOR 24" CS PIPE EA 5 $ $2, FLAP GATE FOR 36" CS PIPE EA 20 $ $13, REMOVE CONCRETE BRIDGE LS 1 $3, $3, RANDOM RIPRAP, CLASS II CY 700 $55.00 $38, RANDOM RIPRAP, CLASS III CY 400 $60.00 $24, TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $11, $11, TEMPORARY DITCH CHECK TYPE 3 LF 750 $4.25 $3, SEEDING ACRE 165 $55.00 $9, SEED, MIXTURE 250 LB 11,560 $1.70 $19, MULCH MATERIAL, TYPE 1 TON 330 $75.00 $24, DISC ANCHORING ACRE 165 $12.25 $2, FERTILIZER, TYPE 2 TON 16.5 $ $11, SUBTOTAL $1,392, LAND ACQUISITION AND EASEMENTS (AGRICULTURAL LAND) ACRE 61 $4, $274, LAND ACQUISITION AND EASEMENTS (EXISTING DITCH FOOTPRINT) ACRE 61 $ $30, TEMPORARY RIGHT OF WAY ACRE 51 $ $22, UTILITY RELOCATIONS $50, ENGINEERING AND ADMIN. (INC. LEGAL DITCH ENGINEERS REPORTS AND HEARINGS) 25 % $348, CONTINGENCIES 10 % $139, TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $2,257, Preliminary Survey Report 27 September 2012

32 5.0 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 5.1 Adequacy of Outlet During major flood events, almost all areas of the RLWD contribute flood water to either the Red Lake River or Red River. However, due to location or other characteristics, some areas may consistently contribute more to the peak flow which is the more damaging portion of a flood hydrograph. The selection and design of appropriate Flood Damage Reduction (FDR) measures will depend on the timing of an area s flood water contribution to flooding in other areas of the basin. For purposes of discussion, the RLWD has been divided into three timing zones shown on the generalized map in Figure 10 and described below. The zones are labeled early, middle and late, based on when water from each area tends to arrive at the outlet of the RLWD. 1. Early. Most of the runoff from these areas typically moves through ahead of the major flood flows from other areas of the watershed. Usually, these areas are close to the outlet of the watershed and/or are well drained. Slowing down or storing water from these areas could increase downstream flood damages if water is released during the flood peak. Conversely, speeding up the removal of water from these areas may provide downstream peak flow reduction Middle. Runoff from these areas typically coincides with the flood peak at the outlet of the watershed. Modification of flows from these areas will potentially provide the greatest flood control benefits. Slowing down or storing water from these areas will be especially beneficial if releases can be delayed until after floodwaters have receded. Speeding up the water could also be beneficial if it would move through ahead of the peak. Ideally the timing of flows from these areas could be controlled to allow either early or late release. Late. Most of the runoff from these areas typically moves through after the major flood flows from other areas of the watershed. Usually, late areas are the most remote within the watershed, are poorly drained, or their runoff is delayed by existing storage facilities. Slowing down flood water from these areas will always reduce downstream peak flows and will generally provide the greatest benefit within the watershed. Conversely, speeding up water from these areas likely will increase downstream flood damages. Note that the timing of an area s flood water contribution depends on the location of the downstream damage center being considered. Knowledge of the timing of flows within the RLWD and the Red River Basin continues to be developed based on gage data from actual flood Preliminary Survey Report 28 September 2012

33 events and by hydrologic modeling. Improved drainage and conveyance in the RLWD Ditch #15 area (early) is an excellent FDR measure. CD 2, and ultimately the Grand Marais Creek, into which RLWD Ditch #15 discharges, are significantly larger channels than RLWD Ditch #15 as proposed. When considering the proposed ditch establishment in the larger context of the Project 60 Plan (See Appendix A), the entire system improvements which include retention, outlet stabilization, and conveyance enhancements work together to reduce flooding problems downstream such that the adequacy of the outlet is not in question. The outlet for the proposed ditch establishment is adequate. 5.2 Benefited Area The existing CD 2 benefited area map is displayed in Figure 11. An updated benefited area will be established as an outcome of the viewing and ditch establishment process. Preliminary Survey Report 29 September 2012

34 FIGURE 10: RLWD RUNOFF TIMING ZONES Preliminary Survey Report 30 September 2012

35 FIGURE 11: CD2 BENEFITTED AREA AND SECTION INFORMATION Preliminary Survey Report 31 September 2012

36 5.3 Permits & Regulatory Requirements Permit approval may be required from the US Army Corps of Engineers. A Wetland Conservation Act Wetland Certificate of Compliance has been provided by the West Polk Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) and therefore it is expected that a permit will not be required from the West Polk SWCD. 5.4 Environmental & Land Use Criteria This section addresses the Minnesota Statutes, 103E.015 criteria for consideration before drainage work is done. 1. Private and Public benefits and costs of the proposed drainage project: The project provides private benefits by reducing crop loss due to flooding and improving the productivity of the land. In addition, overland flooding causes significant loss of top soil. The project reduces overland flooding, incorporates pipe field inlets and a permanent grass buffer to reduce erosion and preserve topsoil. 2. Present and anticipated agricultural land acreage available and use in the drainage project or system. The overall land use in the RLWD Ditch #15 drainage basin is agricultural. There are township, county and state roads. The present land use is agricultural. It is not anticipated that land use in the watershed will change. 3. Flooding characteristics of the property in the drainage project or system and downstream for 5-, 10-, 25-, and 50-year flood events. The existing ditch currently has less than 2-year event capacity. Out of bank flows are common and overland flooding occurs with damaging effects. The system discharges into the CD 2 which is a tributary to the Grand Marais Creek. All flood discharges from the proposed project will be contained within the banks of the CD 2 and the Grand Marais Creek, unless a coincident event occurs in the RLWD Ditch #15 watershed while CD 2 and/or the Grand Marais Creek is above flood stage. 4. Waters to be drained and alternative measures to conserve, allocate, and use the waters including storage and retention of drainage waters. The project does not propose to drain any public waters. Storm water storage and retention is a part of the Project 60 overall plan (See Appendix A) and has been implemented as part of this project. Preliminary Survey Report 32 September 2012

37 5. Effect on water quality of constructing the proposed drainage system. The project will have a positive impact on water quality. The existing ditch does not incorporate any grassed buffer areas or frequent side water inlets. During the survey and site inspection it was observed that significant erosion occurred during runoff events. The proposed design incorporates the use of side water inlets and a minimum 16.5 foot grass buffer area. Flared end sections will be utilized to reduce velocities and prevent scour. 6. Fish and wildlife resources affected by the proposed drainage system. The project area contains minimal wildlife management areas. The land use is primarily agricultural. The project will have a positive benefit on water quality and will reduce sediment transport to downstream water bodies. It is not anticipated that the project will negatively impact vegetation or aquatic life in the system. 7. Shallow groundwater availability, distribution, and use in the drainage project or system. There are no known shallow groundwater reserves in the project area. Shallow ground water irrigation or sub-surface drainage is not practiced in the watershed. 8. Overall environmental impact of all the above criteria. The project incorporates modern ditch design principles of flatter side slopes, piped side water inlets and grassed buffer areas. The project will likely improve down stream water quality and provide environmental improvements to the watershed. 6.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 6.1 Conclusions Alternatives 2 and 3 discussed in Section 4.4 provide a benefit to the system through the reduction of flood damages, providing up to a 10-year frequency level of drainage and flood protection. Alternatives 2 and 3 are similar in nature as they both provide similar FDR benefits though widening the channel bottom, flattening of side slopes, enhancing the ditch grade, and additional culvert capacities. The hydraulic analysis indicates that Alternative 2 (15 bottom with 3:1 side slopes) along with utilization of selected spoil berms in certain locations provides adequate capacity to meet design goals (see Table 4). Preliminary Survey Report 33 September 2012

38 Alternative 2 includes implementation of the following components: 1. Ditch cross section enlargement downstream (west) of Hwy Ditch grade lowering and slope improvements downstream (west) of Hwy Culvert improvements downstream (west) of Hwy 75. Consideration of design goals (conveyance of the 10-year event) along with the cost analysis leads to a recommendation that Alternative 2 be considered as the initial preferred alternative, as this option does provide acceptable drainage benefits and is less costly than Alternative 3. Preliminary Survey Report 34 September 2012

39 APPENDIX A PROJECT 60 INFORMATION Preliminary Survey Report A September 2012

40 Grand Marais Creek Subwatershed Govenor s Clean Water Cabinet Pilot Project PROJECT AREA: The project area is located east of East Grand Forks, north of Crookston, south of Warren, and west of Thief River Falls. Covering 300 square miles, the area has some of the most fertile farmland in the Red River Valley, yet is often flooded. A system of ditches running east to west was constructed every mile around the early 1900s to settle and farm the area. Most of these ditches are undersized for their respective drainage areas and the farmland that was opened up over the last century. A typical ditch draining into the Grand Marais Creek has the capacity to handle runoff from a 1-2 year frequency event (2 inches in 24 hours). Because of the low capacity, flooding and crop losses occur on an almost annual basis. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS: Enhance fish and wildlife habitat through the implementation of 1,000 CLEAN WATER INITIATIVE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS In summer 2003, Governor Pawlenty announced his vision for a Clean Water Initiative. Part of the initiative was the selection of demonstration projects from four general areas that represent some of the state s most unique and important water challenges. One area, the Red River Valley, was selected because it faces challenges with flood damage reduction. Projects were selected using criteria based on value, measurable results within three years, local support, alignment of local and state priorities, transferability, and scale. acres of wetland and prairie restorations. Protect flood prone farmland in the Polk County Ditch 2 drainage area (more than 40 square miles), roads, and structures from a 10-year frequency storm event (3.5 inches in 24 hours) through the development of 6,000 acre-feet of flood storage with the construction of the Brandt Impoundment, Euclid East Impoundment, and ditch improvements. Improve the capacity of County Ditch 2 and County Ditch 66 (21 miles of public ditches) to a 5-year frequency storm event capacity (3 inches in 24 hours). Prevent erosion damages to land, reduce turbidity downstream, and increase fish and wildlife habitat by reconstructing/restoring six miles of channel and the County Ditch 2 outlet that flows into the Grand Marais Creek (pursue through the Army Corps of Engineers Section 206 program). Reduce sediment loading by 20 percent from County Ditch 2 and County Ditch 66 through the installation of buffer strips (21 miles) and the implementation of agricultural Best Management Practices over 50 percent of CD 2, CD 66, and Brandt Channel drainage areas. This project is one of two identified in the Red River Valley. The Grand Marais Creek Flood Reduction Project builds off the flood damage efforts that are an outgrowth of a mediation agreement reached between the state and local governments in the Red River Valley. Selection of this project acknowledges that the Pawlenty administration has placed a priority on flood damage reduction efforts. The project won t involve the state forcing or directing new regulations or efforts on locals. Instead, the state will work in concert with local governments and private partners. Project cost: $5.2 million for the two impoundments (request funding through state bonding); $2.6 million for ditch improvements (funding through local levies); $2.2 million for the channel reconstruction project (Corps and other funding sources to be determined). Timeline: Construction of impoundments scheduled to begin in 2005; ditch improvements in 2007; channel reconstruction in Partners: (overall project manager) Polk County Soil and Water Conservation District Polk county, Red River Watershed Management Board U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and USDA Farm Service Agency Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minnesota Bo ard of Water and Soil Resources Minnesota Department of Agriculture University of Minnesota Extension Private Benefited Landowners US Fish and Wildlife Service

41 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Over the course of several decades, the Grand Marais Creek Subwatershed (Figure 1) in the Red Lake Watershed District (RLWD) has been recognized by the residents and farmers of the area as some of most fertile farmland in the Red River Valley. The area located east of East Grand Forks, north of Crookston, south of Warren, and west of Thief River Falls, is also flood prone, affected by repetitive flooding on a consistent basis. The primary reason for flooding in this area is due to topography. The area west of U.S. Highway 75 is very flat, averaging 3 to 5 feet of vertical drop in elevation per mile. When heavy rains fall on this flat area, the land is unable to drain quickly and flooding can result. Compounding the flooding in this flat area is the fact that there are ridges and steeper topography in the eastern portion of the watershed. These areas drain more quickly, and inundate the flatter land to the west. A system of ditches running east to west was constructed every mile (north to south) around the early 1900s to settle and farm the area. Most of these ditches are currently undersized relative to modern farming practices for their respective drainage areas. A typical ditch draining into the Grand Marais Creek has the capacity to handle a runoff from a 1-2 year frequency event. This translates into flooding, environmental damage and crop losses on an almost annual basis. In recent years, the RLWD has been actively addressing these flooding, economic and environmental problems. A comprehensive drainage study was done in the 1980s that looked at improving a series of ditches in the area. At the time, the project was thought to be too expensive and did not address possible impacts downstream. However, a few smaller ditch improvements and repairs have occurred in the last couple of decades. About the time of the drainage study, public meetings were held regarding problems in the Parnell Township area of the RLWD, and a consensus developed that included flood storage as a necessary and practical component of the overall solution to the flooding problems in the area. Since that time, the RLWD constructed the 3,600 acre-ft Parnell Impoundment, the 400 acre-ft Louisville-Parnell Impoundment, and about 600 acre-ft of storage in Flood Storage Easement Sites 1 and 2. The locations of these facilities are also shown in Figure 1. The construction of these facilities has resulted in flood damage reduction and environmental benefits. In the 1990s, the United States Corps of Engineers (USACE) placed a temporary abeyance on most types of water storage projects in order to evaluate the cumulative impact of such projects. In addition, the permitting and overall regulatory complexity of building water-related and environmental projects became increasingly difficult and controversial. In an effort to improve this situation, the Red River Watershed Management Board (Board) member watershed districts RED LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT PAGE 1 FINAL ENGINEERS REPORT BRANDT IMPOUNDMENT HDR PROJECT NO. 7279

42 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY participated with state agencies and other entities in a mediation process designed to develop a systematic process to achieve early coordination and consensus based on project development, planning, design and permitting. The result of the mediation process was a mediation agreement that required watershed districts to develop Project Work Teams (PWT) to address problem areas in the district, in order to gain early public and agency buy-in and input in the development of a particular project. The process is intended to assist in eventual project implementation by addressing potential problems early on, through consensus-based project development. 1.1 GRAND MARAIS CREEK PROJECT WORK TEAM Because of the area s history of flooding and the magnitude of the problem, the Grand Marais Creek Subwatershed was identified by the RLWD and a PWT was organized in The project is commonly referred to as Project 60 because of the RLWD project number assigned many years ago. The initial series of meetings of the PWT involved organizational issues and looking at general problems in the area. The initial effort was temporarily suspended after about one year by the Board because of a series of unrelated policy issues and other factors in which the Board decided to focus on other watershed projects at that time. In 2002, the Board restarted the process and the PWT with renewed focus and energy. RED LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT PAGE 2 FINAL ENGINEERS REPORT BRANDT IMPOUNDMENT HDR PROJECT NO. 7279

43 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES FIGURE 1 PROJECT AREA RED LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT PAGE 3 FINAL ENGINEERS REPORT BRANDT IMPOUNDMENT HDR PROJECT NO. 7279

44 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES 1.2 GOALS The PWT has followed the mediation agreement, including having each member agree to abide by the rules of consent. The overall goal, as defined in the mediation agreement, was: To reach consensus agreements on long-term solutions for reducing flood damage and for protection and enhancement of natural resources. Such agreements should balance important economic, environmental, and social considerations. Such agreements must provide for fair and effective procedures to resolve future conflicts related to flood damage reduction. The specific Flood Damage Reduction (FDR) goals included: 1. Prevent loss of human life 2. Prevent damage to farm structures, homes and communities 3. Reduce damage to farmland; providing ten-year summer storm protection 4. Reduce damage to transportation infrastructure 5. Reduce damage to water quality 6. Reduce environmental and natural resource system damage The structural and non-structural FDR strategies considered included: Gated and ungated impoundments On and off channel impoundments Flood storage wetlands Ditch improvements Setback levees Land use changes Process The PWT began meeting again in early Initial meetings involved a review of the past progress in 1999 as well as an overview of past studies, projects and watershed hydrology and hydraulics using available information. The intent was to educate the PWT without spending significant time and resources redeveloping existing information. However, the PWT was concerned that the process yield results and eventual projects for implementation in a reasonable time frame. The project area was defined as distinct ditch subwatersheds for definition of problem areas and prioritization. Through a series of meetings and consensus-based agreement, RED LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT PAGE 4 FINAL ENGINEERS REPORT BRANDT IMPOUNDMENT HDR PROJECT NO. 7279

45 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED REPORT the Polk County Ditch 2 (CD 2) area and associated tributary areas and ditches were identified as a priority which the PWT would focus on for the foreseeable future. Figure 1 displays an overview of the CD 2 project area. 2.0 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The purpose of the proposed project is to collect and store runoff from a 23.6 square mile drainage area as shown in Figure 2 and to provide gated flood control in order to release that water into the receiving watercourse, the Brandt Channel, and eventually CD 2 at a controlled and manageable rate. By managing outflow from the impoundment, the frequency and severity of downstream flooding will be reduced. The design goal is to provide principal outlet control for the 10-year 24-hour rainfall event, to pass the 100-year 10-day rainfall event without overtopping the emergency spillway, and to provide emergency spillway capacity for inflows in accordance with dam safety requirements. The project will also result in creation of environmental enhancements in terms of upland and aquatic resources, as well as improving water quality through reduced downstream erosion and sedimentation within the impoundment. RED LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT PAGE 5 FINAL ENGINEERS REPORT BRANDT IMPOUNDMENT HDR PROJECT NO. 7279

46 PROJECT NEED, ALTERNATIVES, DESIGN GOALS AND CRITERIA 3.0 PROJECT NEED After careful review of the watershed, the PWT identified that a combination of ditch improvements and flood storage was needed to provide the desired 10-year level of summer flood protection and to reduce damages in the Grand Marais Creek Subwatershed. The RLWD utilized the results of the mediation process and PWT to determine that the Brandt Impoundment site was one of the needed improvements to achieve the stated flood protection and environmental enhancement goals. The project is also consistent with earlier RLWD plans and projects (e.g., Project 60) that called for a series of ditch improvements and impoundments in this same watershed. Therefore, the RLWD ordered preparation of this Final Engineers Report to address the alternatives, feasibility, cost and features of the proposed project. 4.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES, DESIGN GOALS AND DESIGN CRITERIA Earlier planning work conducted by the RLWD for Project 60 had identified a Brandt Impoundment site as a potential project to assist in alleviating flood problems in this watershed. The original site for consideration was located in the general area near Section 25 of Brandt Township. This site would have provided flood storage for a 3-5 square mile watershed. The site was identified in concept only and no specific plans were developed. With the revitalization of the PWT and mediation process, additional technical work was prepared to optimize the location of flood storage areas within the Grand Marais Creek Subwatershed. This process is summarized in a Concept Paper available from the RLWD. RED LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT PAGE 6 FINAL ENGINEERS REPORT BRANDT IMPOUNDMENT HDR PROJECT NO. 7279

47 PROJECT NEED AND ALTERNATIVES, DE 4.1 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES As referenced previously, the concept of a Brandt Impoundment has been considered by the RLWD for a number of years. The PWT process evaluated a variety of general project alternatives. Three main alternatives were considered for the Grand Marais Creek Subwatershed in order to achieve the desired 10-year level of protection. These alternatives were refined into three distinct options. 1. Alternative 1 Ditch Improvements Only This alternative has not been identified as a feasible alternative considering the size of the ditches required to handle the 10-year event, the associated cost and the ramifications involving existing roads and infrastructure. In addition, downstream flooding caused by such a large-scale improvement was of concern. 2. Alternative 2 Ditch Improvements and Flood Storage Impoundments A combination of drainage and storage is the preferred alternative. 3. Alternative 3 Flood Storage Impoundments Only (Figure 6) This is also a viable solution, but the PWT feels that storage may not always benefit areas downstream under patterns of precipitation falling downstream of the storage areas. Thus, ditch improvements are recommended as part of the overall solution. Grand Marais Outlet CD 2 outlets into the Grand Marais Creek. The Grand Marais outlet has been the subject of study and discussion for over a decade. Capacity and erosion concerns have made this particular problem an additional area of focus for the PWT. A Corps Ecosystem Restoration Report and Environmental Assessment (ERR/EA) of the Grand Marais is currently on hold due to funding constraints. The RLWD is currently implementing a state- locally funded project alternative. RED LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT PAGE 7 FINAL ENGINEERS REPORT BRANDT IMPOUNDMENT

48 APPENDIX B PETITION Preliminary Survey Report B August 2012

49 r AASf _ BEFORE THE RED LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT AS DRAINAGE AUTHORITY FOR RED LAKE WATERSHED DITCH # Petition for the Establishment of a New Drainage System Under Minnesota Statutes 103E.212 WHEREAS, the Petitioners for the proposed establishment of Ditch # are a majority ofthe owners ofproperty that the proposed Drainage System described in the Petition passes over, or are the property owners ofat least 60% ofthe area that the proposed New Drainage System passes over; and WHEREAS, the starting point, general course and terminus ofthe proposed Drainage System is as follows: Drainage System Description ofcourse Proposed New Drainage System will Outlet into Polk County Ditch No. 2 in the vicinity ofthe Northwest Corner of Section The general course ofthe proposed system from the outlet end to the upstream end is as follows; Commencing from said Outlet, thence easterly along the existing course ofpolk County Ditch No. 2 across said Section 27 and Section to a point in the Northwest Quarter Section where the existing channel turns to the southeast; thence continuing generally southeasterly along the course ofthe existing channel across said section 25 to the point where it crosses the line common to said section 25 and section ; thence continuing generally southeasterly along the course ofthe existing channel across the Southwest Quarter ofthe Southwest Quarter of said section 30 to the point where the existing channel crosses the line common to said section 30 and section ; thence continuing generally easterly along the course ofthe existing channel across a portion ofthe Northwest Quarter and the Northeast Quarter of said section 31 to a point where the existing channel crosses the line common to said section 31 and section ; thence continuing generally southeasterly along the course ofthe existing channel across a portion ofthe Northwest Quarter and the Southwest Quarter ofsaid section 32 to a point where the existing channel crosses the line common to said section 32 and section ; thence generally easterly and southeasterly along the existing channel across the Northeast Quarter and into the Southeast Quarter ofsaid section 6 to the line common to said section 6 and section ; thence continuing generally southeasterly along the course ofthe existing channel across said section 5 to the point common to sections 5, 4, 8 and 9 all in Township 152 North, Range 47 West; where it PJuneB, 2011 :C F: DATA\23164\00! Petition (new drainage system).wpd cmt

50 crosses into said section 9; thence continuing generally easterly and southeasterly along the course ofthe existing channel across section 9 to the line common to said section 9 and section ; thence continuing generally easterly along the course ofthe existing channel across portions ofthe Southwest Quarter and the Southeast quarter to the line common to said section 10 and section ; thence continuing generally easterly along the course ofthe existing channel across portions ofthe Northwest Quarter ofthe Southwest Quarter ofsaid section 11 crossing Minnesota Trunk Highway #75 and the Burlington North Sante Fe Railroad line and continuing along the existing channel across said section 11 to the line common said section 11 and section ; thence continuing generally easterly along the existing channel across said section 12 to the line common to said section 12 and section ; and thence easterly across a portion of Government Lot 2 of said section 7 and terminating at the outlet ofthe Brandt Impoundment located in said Government Lot 2. WHEREAS, the 40 acre tract or government lots and property where the proposed New Drainage System passes over, including names and addresses ofthe property owners from records in the County Assessor's Office are as follows: Parcel ID Description Sec Twp Rg Nominal TABOR TOWNSHIP, POLK COUNTY Area Owner According to Tax Lists Address NE4NE Robert Vavina 119 N 58th Street Duluth, MN NW4NW Robert Vavina 119 N 58th Street Duluth, MN NE4 NW4 Is 3.5 ac tr Willbur J. Novacek & Diann M. Novacek th St NW Angus, MN Tr in NE4 NW Conrad E. Zak th Ave NW East Grand Forks, MN NW4NE Conrad E. Zak th Ave NW East Grand Forks, MN NE4NE Conrad E. Zak th Ave NW East Grand Forks, MN ^ NW4NW Donald J. Kobetsky et al, Kobetsky Family Rev Trust 9HO 429 5th Ave SE East Grand Forks, MN *? PJune 13,2011:C F:\DATA\ Petition (new drainage system).wpd ant 2

51 / / NE4 NW4 Is Trs Donald J. Kobetsky et al, Kobetsky Family Rev Trust 429 5th Ave SE East Grand Forks, MN * Tr in NE4 NW Gary G. Pulkrabek th St NW Angus, MN Tr in NE4 NW Gary Pulkrabek Farms, Inc th St NW Angus, MN V / NW4NE D J R Farms Inc th St Angus, MN N / /$7X) & 1/ 67.0P /, & 67^ / sfi.ooij&tfo 67^ & NE4NE D J R Farms Inc th St Angus, MN NE4NW Kanco Super 8 Inc 1209 Darwin Dr. Grand Forks, ND NW4NW Kanco Super 8 Inc 1209 Darwin Dr. Grand Forks, ND SW4NW Kanco Super 8 Inc 1209 Darwin Dr. Grand Forks, ND SE4NW Kanco Super 8 Inc 1209 Darwin Dr. Grand Forks, ND * * SW4 NE Phyllis Pulkrabek th St NW i/^ Angus, MN > SE4 NE Phyllis Pulkrabek th St NW /^ Angus, MN V NW4SE D J R Inc th St Angus, MN \ / NE4SE D J R Inc th St Angus, MN > f SE4 SE D J R Inc th St Angus, MN PJune 13, 2011:C F:VDATAV Petition (new drainage system).wpd cmt

52 / AP<GUS TOWNSHIP, POLK COUNTY Lot Donald J. Kobetsky et al, Kobetsky Family Rev Trust 459 5th Ave SE East Grand Forks, MN a Lot 4 Is Tract (3.13 ac) Donald J. Kobetsky et al, Kobetsky Family Rev Trust 459 5th Ave SE East Grand Forks, MN V 9780 l/ / Lot Donald J. Kobetsky & Agnes M. Kobetsky Trustee NE4NW Kenneth M. Kobetsky /()Z NW4NE Michael D & Joyce M Vanek ^^ NE4 NE Michael D & Joyce \y M Vanek ' SE4NE Michael D & Joyce 1/ M Vanek NW4NW Jay E & Mary Jo \S^ Johnston '1) SW4NW Jay E & Mary Jo </ Johnston 459 5th Ave SE East Grand Forks, MN Silver Line Dr Fairfax Station, VA Conifer Dr Baily, CO Conifer Dr Baily, CO Conifer Dr Baily, CO Ave NW Angus, MN Ave NW Angus, MN c ' NE4SW Dale Pulkrabek StNW IS Warren, MN \s NW4SW Dale Pulkrabek StNW Warren, MN SW4 SW Dale Pulkrabek StNW \s Warren, MN ' SE4 SW Dale Pulkrabek StNW 1/ Warren, MN EUCLID TOWNSHIP, POL!<;coiJNTY,02.00m.01 Tract in Lot D J R Inc th St Angus, MN ^ Lot Dacian Bienek P.O. Box 65 is- Warren, MN 56762, Lot Dacian Bienek P.O. Box 65 1/ Warren, MN PJune LC F:\DATA\ Petition (new drainage system).wpd cmt 4

53 / ^ SW4NE Dacian Bienek P.O. Box 65 Warren, MN ^ -L SE4NE Dacian Bienek P.O. Box 65 Warren, MN 56762! ^ NE4SE Dale Pulkrabek StNW Warren, MN ^ NW4SW Gary G. Pulkrabek StNW Angus, MN / / LS W NE4SW Gary G. Pulkrabek StNW Angus, MN , SE4 SW Gary G. Pulkrabek StNW Angus, MN i^joeoi5.oo NW4SE Gary G. Pulkrabek StNW Angus, MN SW4 SE Gary G. Pulkrabek StNW 1/^r^oooi5.oo Angus, MN \y^f9i) SE4 SE Gary G. Pulkrabek StNW Angus, MN SW4 SW Eva McDonald 919 N 7th Street Warren, MN V ' NE4NE Gary G. Pulkrabek StNW Angus, MN /f NW4NW Robert K. West & Robert K West 1/ Living Trust U /f NE4NW Robert K. West & Robert K West Living Trust 7* SE4NW Robert K. West & l/ Robert K West Living Trust (/ /^ SW4 NE Robert K. West & Robert K West Living Trust St SW Imbler, OR St SW Imbler, OR St SW Imbler, OR St SW Imbler, OR PJune 13, 201LC F:-DATAV23164 OOlPetition (new drainage system).wpd cmt boo 5

54 ]/ / NW4SE Roger O. Larson StSW Euclid, MN d NE4SE Roger O. Larson StSW Euclid, MN NW4SW Frances Fanfulik & Joseph J. Fanfulik Trust NE4SW Frances Fanfulik & Joseph J. Fanfulik Trust NW4SE Barwin Farms Inc & Joer Farms Inc US Hwy 75 SW Angus, MN US Hwy 75 SW Angus, MN St SW Crookston, MN NE4 SE4 Is Tr Tr in NE4 SW Barwin Farms Inc & Joer Farms Inc Aaron & Sharice Andresen St SW Crookston, MN US Hwy 75 Euclid, MN N 622' SW4 West ofth Less North 127' Paul J. Kasper US Hwy SW Euclid, MN N 127' SW4 West ofth Prairie View Cemetery Association US Hwy 75 Euclid, MN NW4SW4 West ofth Is trs Barwin Farms Inc & Joer Farms Inc St SW Crookston, MN na TH #75 R/W innw4sw Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation Bldg., 395 John Ireland Blvd St. Paul, MN na BNSFRR R/WinNW4 SW Burlington Northern Inc P.O. Box Fort Worth, TX Portion of in NW4 SW4 EofRR Red Lake Watershed District 1000 Pennington Avenue South ThiefRiver Falls, MN PJune 13, 201 LC F:\DATA\23164\001\Petition (new drainage system).wpd cmt 6

55 NW4SW4 East ofrr less portion of in NW4 SW Roxanne Hagen State Hwy 220 SW East Grand Forks, MN Portion of inne4sw Red Lake Watershed District 1000 Pennington Avenue South ThiefRiver Falls, MN NE4 SW4 Ls portion of in NE4 SW Roxanne Hagen State Hwy 220 SW East Grand Forks, MN Portion of in NW4 SE Red Lake Watershed District 1000 Pennington Avenue South Thief River Falls, MN NW4 SE4 Ls portion of in NW4 SE Roxanne Hagen State Hwy 220 SW East Grand Forks, MN Portion of in NE4 SE Red Lake Watershed District 1000 Pennington Avenue South Thief River Falls, MN SE4 NE4 Ls portion of in SE4 NE Roxanne Hagen State Hwy 220 SW East Grand Forks, MN Portion of in SE4 NE Red Lake Watershed District 1000 Pennington Avenue South Thief River Falls, MN l/ SE4 NE4 Ls portion of Roxanne Hagen State Hwy 220 SW East Grand Forks, in SE4 NE4 MN SW4NW Lois Glass th St. NW Warren, MN ' SE4NW Lois Glass th St. NW 1/ Warren, MN ^n,* PJunel3,2011:C F: DATA'23164'.00t Petition (new drainage system).wpd cmt

56 N2NW4 NE S2NW4 NE Jeanette Kliner Center St. W Euclid, MN Jeanette Kliner Center St. W Euclid, MN SW4NE Jeanette Kliner Center St. W Euclid, MN SE4 NE Jeanette Kliner Center St. W Euclid, MN BELGIUM TOWNSHIP, POLK COUNTY Lot 2 Is Ely 437 ft Ely 437 ft Lot Daniel A & Joyce R Wallace Red Lake Watershed District th Ave SW Euclid, MN Pennington Avenue South ThiefRiver Falls, MN WHEREAS, the proposed Drainage System is necessary to provide adequate drainage to the surrounding agricultural property, roads andas an outlet forupstream drainage; and WHEREAS, the proposed Drainage System willbenefit andbe useful to the public andwill promote the public health; and WHEREAS, the Petitioners will payall costs of the proceeding if the proceedings are dismissed, or the contract for the construction of the proposed Drainage System is not awarded. NOW, THEREFORE, the Petitioners respectfully request that the Red LakeWatershed District, as Drainage Authority for the proposed Ditch #, proceed under the statutory requirements ofminnesota Statutes 103E. /6?/v&> Suf**-* Z,«(t hltih Sex. ST 53-fe /0t6$ />ruj,wdy Printed Name<» hy t/^ /y7 7^Address/Property Description Mailing Address 7 ^ PJune :C F:\DATA\23l64W>l\Petitk>n(new drainagesystem).wpd oml

57 y N2NW4 NE Jeanette Kliner Center St W Euclid, MN \/ S2NW4 NE Jeanette Kliner Center St. W Euclid, MN SW4NE Jeanette Kliner Center St W \y Euclid, MN SE4NE Jeanette Kliner Center St. W / Euclid, MN BELGIUM TOWNSHIP, POLK COUNTY ikp: Is """ ^gpsf ":.-".' Lot 2 Is Ely 437 ft Ely 437 ft Lot Daniel A & Joyce R Wallace Red Lake Watershed District th Ave SW Euclid, MN Pennington Avenue South ThiefRiver Falls, MN WHEREAS, the proposed Drainage Systemis necessaryto provide adequate drainage to the surrounding agricultural property, roads and as an outlet for upstream drainage; and WHEREAS, the proposed Drainage System will benefit and be useful to the public and will promote the public health; and WHEREAS, the Petitioners will pay all costs ofthe proceeding ifthe proceedings are dismissed, or the contract for the construction ofthe proposed Drainage System is not awarded. NOW, THEREFORE, the Petitioners respectfully request that the, as Drainage Authority for the proposed Ditch #, proceed under the statutory requirements ofminnesota Statutes 103E. w>& <-^l. d;.. cc ftfoe%& Ru+nljTttusT H^ ^ecz<* T^Ug e^st&ew^gfcs, fn*. ttzt Printed Name Address/Property Description Mailing Address Si8,te(X<^? /- *&-?z PJune * F:\DATA\23164WlVPeblion (i. 8

58 N2NW4 NE S2NW4 NE Jeanette Kliner Center St. W Euclid, MN Jeanette Kliner Center St. W Euclid, MN SW4NE Jeanette Kliner Center St. W Euclid, MN SE4NE Jeanette Kliner Center St. W Euclid, MN BELGIUM TOWNSHIP, POLK COUNTY Lot 2 Is Ely 437 ft Ely 437 ft Lot Daniel A & Joyce R Wallace Red Lake Watershed District th Ave SW Euclid, MN Pennington Avenue South ThiefRiver Falls, MN WHEREAS, the proposed Drainage System is necessary to provide adequate drainage tothe surrounding agricultural property, roads and as an outlet for upstream drainage; and WHEREAS, the proposed Drainage System will benefit and be useful tothe public and will / promote the public health; and WHEREAS, the Petitioners will pay all costs of the proceeding if the proceedings aredismissed, or thecontract for the construction of the proposed Drainage System is not awarded. NOW, THEREFORE, thepetitioners respectfully request that the, asdrainage Authority for the proposed Ditch #, proceed under the statutory requirements ofminnesota Statutes 103E. K^hne^K lfckflhp-kl^ K/gW A/W4 Sc>C,-U A^uk gtt*cj> s-m«*f va. ^203^ Printed Name Address/Property Description * Mailing Address PJune 13,2011:C F:\DATA\23164W01 \Petition(new drainage syjtem).wpd cmt

59 4^ui^ Printed NameT" sec- 30 Ah>^kk ^^?J^c^^T^Ma I - a 3 -, _. ( Address/Property Description _3"2>- l^- AjTCm&W /ytj^r. /*/*< Tfe77A Mailing Address Printed Name Address/Property Description Mailing Address Printed Name Address/Property Description Mailing Address Printed Name Address/Property Description Mailing Address Printed Name Address/Property Description Mailing Address Printed Name Address/Property Description Mailing Address PJune :C F:\DATA\231M O01'Petition (new drainage system!.wpd ant

60 N2NW4 NE S2NW4 NE Jeanette Kliner Center St. W Euclid, MN Jeanette Kliner Center St. W Euclid, MN SW4 NE Jeanette Kliner Center St. W Euclid, MN SE4 NE Jeanette Kliner Center St. W Euclid, MN BELGIUM TOWNSHIP, POLK COUNTY Lot 2 Is Ely 437 ft Ely 437 ft Lot Daniel A & Joyce R Wallace Red Lake Watershed District th Ave SW Euclid, MN Pennington Avenue South ThiefRiver Falls, MN WHEREAS, the proposed Drainage System is necessary to provide adequate drainage to the surrounding agricultural property, roads and as an outlet for upstream drainage; and WHEREAS, the proposed Drainage System will benefit and be useful to the public and will promote the public health; and WHEREAS, the Petitioners will pay all costs ofthe proceeding ifthe proceedings are dismissed, or the contract for the construction ofthe proposed Drainage System is not awarded. NOW, THEREFORE, the Petitioners respectfully request that the, as Drainage Authority for the proposed Ditch #, proceed under the statutory requirements of Minnesota Statutes 103E. Printed Name A/Eg Sdc. 3i Agus Address/Property Description MailingTCefdress PJune 13, F:\DATA\23164\001^Petition (new drainage system).wpd cmt

61 3z^TT ftt]*a 0. IfifiS"" 3^HZ 12V s/ SUJ 3 Printed Name Address/Property Description Mailing Address yffp^rfi X* <**^r>\. hac^arj pii^/vek, W /y cf^c k euccjj Printed Name Address/Property Description Mailing Address 3 >/ x*^-4 ^3L «_*»-»- Printed Address/Property Description Mailing Address hlc,-u Printed Name Tqhi^ g ^j Sec e " Address/Property Description Mailing Address ^y. l-l i-iz ^swua?' Qj Qvgi^s JW 75fee A/gjj <^r C Printed Name Address/Property Description P<fbeS\4*n 1 jof-i-z. Mailing Address./«<. -^f^^^^l?*m^»l3zf&j*s- %*? t/rf/tp*. Mailing Arlrlrei Sy/Y PJunel3,20ll:C20ll05 13 F:\DATA\ Petition (new drainage system).wpd cmt

62 J<Ay printed Name Printed Name Sohns-h') Address/Property Description / /~L Address/Property Description ><- a?- /*- Sec te olco*( Address/Property Description Mailing Address f\^y^j jn^ 2o7fr -?ia &* <r<r Mailing Address f<?-, ***" Z7SK i7^ ft W Mailing Address hfoff+n /K %J Printed Name Address/Property Description Mailing Address Printed Name Address/Property Description Mailing Address Printed Name Address/Property Description Mailing Address Printed Name Address/Property Description Mailing Address Printed Name Address/Property Description Mailing Address PJune 13,2011:C F: DATA^3164\001Petirion (new drainage systeml.wpd cmt 10

63 N2NW4 NE S2NW4 NE Jeanette Kliner Center St. W Euclid, MN Jeanette Kliner Center St. W Euclid, MN SW4 NE Jeanette Kliner Center St. W Euclid, MN SE4 NE Jeanette Kliner Center St. W Euclid, MN BELGIUM TOWNSHIP, POLK COUNTY Lot 2 Is Ely 437 ft Ely 437 ft Lot Daniel A & Joyce R Wallace Red Lake Watershed District th Ave SW Euclid, MN Pennington Avenue South ThiefRiver Falls, MN WHEREAS, the proposed Drainage System is necessary to provide adequate drainage to the surrounding agricultural property, roads and as an outlet for upstream drainage; and WHEREAS, the proposed Drainage System will benefit and be useful to the public and will promote the public health; and WHEREAS, the Petitioners will pay all costs ofthe proceeding ifthe proceedings are dismissed, or the contract for the construction ofthe proposed Drainage System is not awarded. NOW, THEREFORE, the Petitioners respectfully request that the, as Drainage Authority for the proposed Ditch #, proceed under the statutory requirements ofminnesota Statutes 103E.. /ilahllfiuaifito'kc 6Q75/ 1/MuJiJjJ^ Qft y7/7/ Printed Name 7 Address/Property Descriptio: Mailing Address T iignat 0 T^IC^IL. TJate 00 PJunel3,20ll:C20U05 13 F:\DATA\23 lfrw)01\p«hk>n (new drainage system).wpd cmt