ND Detention Project Development Update

ND Detention Project Development Update

Upper Red River Basin Halstad, MN = 8 Upstream Subwatersheds Fargo, ND = 3 Upstream Subwatersheds Halstad, MN Fargo, ND Wild Rice Otter Tail Bois de Sioux

Upstream of F/M Watershed above F/M: 6,800 Total Square Miles Wild Rice ND Watershed: 2,350 Square Miles (35%)

Watershed Timing Early-Middle-Late Concept

Projects Constructed ND WRD Sponsored Projects in the RR Watershed 1967, Clausen Springs Dam, Sheyenne River, Barnes County 350 Ac-Ft 1970, Erie Dam (Brewer Lake), Rush River, Cass County 300 Ac-Ft 1984, Dead Colt Creek Dam, Sheyenne River, Ransom County 4,900 Ac-Ft 1985, T-180 Dam, Maple River, Cass County 2,900 Ac-Ft 1988, Beaver Creek Dam, Goose River, Steele County 5,350 Ac-Ft 2004, Baldhill Dam Raise, Sheyenne River, Barnes County 30,800 Ac-Ft 2006, Maple River Dam, Maple River, Cass County 60,000 Ac-Ft 2015, Upper Maple River Dam, Maple River, Steele County 5,400 Ac-Ft Total Flood Storage Volume Constructed (8 Projects) 110,000 Ac-Ft

Upper Maple River Dam $9.0 Million Total Cost 5,400 Ac-Ft Storage 60 mi 2 Contributing Watershed 2.0 inches of Runoff Storage 925 Acre Pool Area 22,000 Acre Floodplain Benefited

Recent Studies Comprehensive Watershed Detention Studies Completed for Red River tributary watersheds Used to develop the RRBC HUR Study (20% flow reduction analysis) Wild Rice Mainstem Dam @ Mantador, ND (Late Water) Hydrologic/Hydraulic modeling completed Geotech, preliminary design, and cost estimate completed Preliminary results showed limited F/M benefit late water Feasibility concerns Project development is inactive Bois de Sioux State-Line Dam (Late Water) Hydrologic/Hydraulic modeling completed Preliminary results showed limited F/M benefit late water Feasibility concerns Project development is inactive

Future Studies/Projects 21 22 8 - ND 14 - MN 20 20 Shortfoot Creek 21 Upper Tongue River 22 Whitney Lake

The End Questions? Bois de Sioux State Line Dam?

Bois de Sioux State Line Dam

Bois de Sioux Watershed USGS Gage Locations Near White Rock Near Doran Wahpeton Area (sq mi) Wahpeton 1,965 White Rock 1,160 Approximately 59% Above White Rock

Travel Time of Peak Travel time from Lake Traverse to Fargo (10 day Avg.) 1997 2009 100-year Rainfall 100-year Runoff Lake Traverse to Rabbit River Rabbit River to Wahpeton Wahpeton to Fargo 6.0 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.0 2.5 1.5 5.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 Total (day) 12.0 8.5 8.5 13.5

Discharge, cfs White Rock Peak Releases 9,000 White Rock Dam Peak Releases - Top 5 & Synthetic Events 8,000 7,000 7,740 7,304 6,000 5,900 5,000 4,000 3,000 3,450 3,750 3,720 3,196 2,000 1,000 0 1969 1997 2001 2009 2011 100yr 10dau 100yr RO

Discharge (cfs) Lake Traverse Pool El. Reservation Dam - Top 5 Events - Pool Elevations (MSL 1912 Datum) 1997 2011 2001 2009 1969 Top of Dam - 986 Flowage Easement - 983 Max Flood Zone - 982 987 Flood Zone - 981 Conservation Zone - 976 986 985 984 983 982 981 980 979 978 977 976 975 974 973 972 971 970 969 968 1/1 3/31 6/29 9/27 Date

Discharge (cfs) 1969 Gage Data 30000 1969 Observed Hydrograph Comparison White Rock Dam Releases - USACE 1,100 cfs (Channel Capacity) Wahpeton - USGS Fargo - USGS 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 4/1 4/8 4/15 4/22 4/29 5/6 5/13 5/20 5/27 6/3 6/10 6/17 6/24 Date

Discharge (cfs) White Rock Dam 2009 2009 Observed Hydrograph Comparison 35000 White Rock Dam Releases - USACE 1,100 cfs (Channel Capacity) Wahpeton - USGS Fargo - USGS 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 3/2 3/9 3/16 3/23 3/30 4/6 4/13 4/20 4/27 5/4 5/11 5/18 5/25 6/1 Date

Discharge (cfs) White Rock Dam 2011 2011 Observed Hydrograph Comparison 30000 White Rock Dam Releases - USACE 1,100 cfs (Channel Capacity) Wahpeton - USGS Fargo - USGS 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 2/11 2/25 3/10 3/24 4/7 4/21 5/5 5/19 6/2 6/16 6/30 7/14 7/28 8/11 8/25 9/8 9/22 Date

Study Site

Study Site

Existing Dam Vs. Improved Dam Existing White Rock Dam Effective Storage* Improved White Rock Dam Effective Storage* Elevation (MSL 1912) Storage - Acre-Ft (Inches) Storage - Acre-Ft (Inches) 972 (Conservation Pool) 0 (0) 0 (0) 973 5,000 (0.08) 7,676 (0.12) 974 12,300 (0.20) 19,822 (0.30) 975 20,700 (0.33) 35,193 (0.54) 976 29,500 (0.48) 52,159 (0.80) 977 49,800 (0.80) 81,322 (1.24) 978 70,500 (1.14) 111,214 (1.70) 979 92,000 (1.49) 142,052 (2.17) 980 114,500 (1.85) 174,004 (2.66) 981 (Flood Zone) 137,000 (2.21) 206,357 (3.15) 982 (Max Pool Elevation) 160,500 (2.59) 238,990 (3.65) 983 (Flowage Easement) 183,500 (2.97) 272,389 (4.16) 984 207,900 (3.36) 306,046 (4.67) 985 231,800 (3.75) 339,754 (5.19) * - Effective Storage Does not include volume below conservation pool for both Reservation Dam or White Rock Dam.

Discharge (cfs) 2009 Results 2009 Discharge Hydrpgraph Comparison Fargo Existing Wahpeton Existing D/S Breakout Existing White Rock Dam Fargo Project Wahpeton Project D/S Breakout Project Site 1 30,000 28,000 26,000 24,000 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 3/14 3/21 3/28 4/4 4/11 4/18 Date

Discharge (cfs) 100 yr Runoff 100 Year Runoff Discharge Hydrograph Comparison Fargo Existing Wahpeton Existing D/S Breakout Existing White Rock Dam Fargo Project Wahpeton Project D/S Breakout Project Site 1 32,000 30,000 28,000 26,000 24,000 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 3/29 4/5 4/12 4/19 4/26 5/3 Date

Conclusions For all synthetic and historic events modeled and investigated with gage data, increased storage would not have reduced the flood crest at Wahpeton or Fargo. Except for the 1997 flood. Increased storage volume would have reduced the flood crest at Wahpeton and potentially at Fargo for the 1997 flood. Increased storage volume will reduce the frequency at which flows exceed 1,100 CFS at White Rock. Increased storage volume will lessen the duration of downstream flooding. Increased storage volume will significantly reduce peak flows between White Rock and the Bois de Sioux breakouts south of Wahpeton. Potential benefits due to increased storage volume is greatest for exceptionally large flood events. Current drawdown operations (1,100 cfs) appear to exceed downstream channel capacity.

Recommendations Submit findings to United States Army Corps of Engineers. Meet with the Corps about the possibility for reducing the drawdown flow (1,100 cfs). Hear from Bois de Sioux Watershed on upstream sites that may accomplish the same results with added benefits to the watershed and reduced permitting difficulties.

Questions QUESTIONS